New players don’t know what full share or share until death means. Randomly switching share conditions like that is awkward. You’re better off just having two queues, one with casual classic 4v4 custom game maps that are usually 10x10 and one with more competitive 4v4 maps.

More coherent and intuitive for the general player if a single queue is associated with a share condition rather than one random map size in one random queue.

The current plan is to have two 4v4 queues. One share until death with more clumped up teams and one with full share with maps like Seton's.
The 3v3 will probably not come soon. It is not a popular game mode and there are almost no maps made for 3v3. There was a 3v3 tournament a while ago and the map pool mainly consisted of 4v4 maps that were shoehorned into a 3v3 constellation to at least get a decent pool size.

I'm confused why random map generator is not being used for TMM. Having both a random team, and random map just ads to the4 fun and it also is a solution to your limited premade map problem for 3v3. Just my suggestion as a TMM lover

@system_failure said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

I'm confused why random map generator is not being used for TMM. Having both a random team, and random map just ads to the4 fun and it also is a solution to your limited premade map problem for 3v3. Just my suggestion as a TMM lover

I am hoping to implement it asap. The ladder team is discussing it for the up and coming pools, not certain how spawns will react in greater than 2 player scenarios.

You have no idea how much me and friends are looking forward to 4v4. It will hopefully move people away from Gap.

@morax Normal map gen maps are made with odd v even player slots in mind for teams. So, having spawns properly match teams shouldn't be a problem for TMM 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc...

@emperor_penguin said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

@morax Normal map gen maps are made with odd v even player slots in mind for teams. So, having spawns properly match teams shouldn't be a problem for TMM 2v2/3v3/4v4/etc...

The issue is whether spawns are close together (clustered like on canis, hilly, monument valley, etc) or if they are far apart like on open wonder.

I suspect the "casual" players would prefer to have close together, clustered spawns whilst the competitive scene likes far away ones, although of course am not sure as there has never been a "competitive 3v3 and 4v4" matchmaker.

Generally spawns that are far away from eachother, like open wonder, lead to way more boring gameplay due to the fact that it only leaves very little space on the map thats contestable. If you compare wonder with hilly the difference is very clear.

Probably a good idea to require a certain CPU score or whatever to be able to search 4v4+ upwards.

We'll have to see how effective Jip's optimization efforts will be. Sounds like they've been making a pretty big difference on the fafdevelop branch

No amount of optimizations can combat a dual core laptop .

@fruitien00b said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

I believe 4v4 will be actually played and not abandoned as 2v2. *3v3 would be completely dead. (Only my predictions)

I think I would queue 3v3 more often than 4v4 and I am #7 in total 2v2 games played on leaderboard with 195 games.

I imagine 3v3 will be less stressful than 2v2 as my mistakes are less likely to ruin another persons game. However, T1 phase will be more relevant in 3v3 than 4v4 and I like this game most at T1 and early T2.

@thewheelie said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

Generally spawns that are far away from eachother, like open wonder, lead to way more boring gameplay due to the fact that it only leaves very little space on the map thats contestable. If you compare wonder with hilly the difference is very clear.

Right, I likely could use more examples to exemplify this, but point taken.

We really need more data on how people feel about spawn distributions to make any sort of move.

@Morax @BlackYps
Variety is the spice of life. Some people prefer open wonder-style scattered spawns, while some prefer hilly-style clustered spawns. A lot of people like both. Map gen presently provides variety. This is a good thing. Map gen code could theoretically be tweaked to change the spawn distribution to be more or less clustered if desired, but map gen is already more than desirable enough to be included in TMM in its current state.

Some people here seem to think that 3v3 TMM would be unpopular and claim there is a lack of decent maps for it.
Some people here seem hesitant to put map gen maps into TMM.
I challenge those relevant people to try a 3v3 map gen only TMM queue alongside the other planned queues, and see how popular it is. It might be the most popular queue. I know I'd want to play it more than the other queues, and I know many others who would as well.

@Emperor_Penguin given the choice between XvX random and XvX static I would pick the random indeed. Though ultimately I would probably always pick all of them to reduce queue time.

However, could we maybe include 2 different preset random maps in TMM pool (for 10km)?

Except people do know how popular a 3v3 queue would be since data exists for how many 3v3 games currently launch. It absolutely will not be the most popular queue.

3v3 could be popular, but it lacks map variety imo.

@snagglefox said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

3v3 could be popular, but it lacks map variety imo.

There’s so little maps designed for 3v3 as it’s never been a focus in hosted games nor events. I’m unsure as to why, but to make it work well would require a substantial addition to your map vault.

Let's say we would have a 3v3 random map gen queue. What would the benefit be over a 4v4 random map gen queue?

@blackyps said in TMM 3v3 and 4v4 coming soon:

Let's say we would have a 3v3 random map gen queue. What would the benefit be over a 4v4 random map gen queue?

Benefit 1 - less likely to have a disruptive person in the game (you + 5 others means there's up to 5 possible disruptors, but in a 4v4, it's you + 7 others)

Benefit 2 - people with weak CPUs will be less disruptive (a 6-player game would tend to have fewer units moving around than an 8-player game)

Benefit 3 - people with weak internet will be less disruptive (someone might have 400 ping with 5 other people but 550 ping with 7 other people, in the first case you basically don't notice the lag, in the second case it's annoying)

Also:

Some people might prefer less crowded games for other reasons, just in terms of the balance between teching up vs. aggression. You can have 1 less eco/air player per team.

It's easier to find just 2 friends to queue with than it is to find 3 friends