may i ask you to maybe make a point why? how about try to counter my points made above. chf in pubs is 3v3v3v3, competitive play of chf should be 3v3.

A good example, would be a boxing match with 4 boxers in the ring fighting at the same time. doesn't make much sense does it?

thing is, i don't wanna play in a game with 3 HPMM teams and one CHFG team. or watever, since it's obviously imbalanced, and like i said before turns into a farming contest more then a competitive match to see which team has superior micro, not to mention the simple concept of intentional or coincidental targeting.

heres a thread created by stooge. about me being a noob and playing 1v1s. i suggest HPMM and the CHF community to read through it. (its short) 1v1 thread

To counter my arguments for 1v1, HPMM members made points saying if u wanna vs us, lets 3v3, get ur team blah blah watever

Since then i've been in HPMM's channel with my squad of 3 and have been dodged everytime on the basis that "3v3 isn't the way is designed" or etc.. by a good amount of hpmm members, incuding a shaman. I mean back when i was plowing through HPMM in 1v1's , it didn't mean shit since 1v1 is retarded, right? 3v3 was the way to go back then. Now i've got my team rdy for 3v3, now suddenly 3v3 is retarded also according to HPMM. Hmmm.

if there is a team with 3 people who know each other while the opposite players are not that good..... the opposing players don't stand a chance.

On the other and, in a 3v3v3v3 that opposing team might be able to kill others who do not kno each other and might even have equal level and gold as the team who knows each other. This gives that team a chance. and a chance is better than kno chance...... I think thats wat BOND had in mind

ummm isn't that the whole concept of competition?

There is no logic to this statement whatsoever.

Firstly bond did indeed create chf as a 3v3v3v3 team. Does it mean 3v3v3v3 is best for competitive play? No. Why? See the reasons stated above and the link to the 1v1 thread i provided.

As far as 1v1/3v3 not being balanced is a ridiculous statement. A good argument about 1v1 would be its nothing like the real game since there is a complete absence of teamwork, which i agree with.

but 3v3 doesn't have that problem. 3v3 and 1v1 are perfectly balanced as in both teams have equal chances of winning the game without any outside factors. In 3v3v3v3, the better/more skilled team of the bunch could get focused/targeted, either intentionally or not, for whatever reason, and lose the game. 3v3 also does not have this problem.

I don't know how much more simple i can make it, but what i am saying is pretty obvious and common sense.

Id love to hear this.

I hate this n***a actin like jesus - SOUNDWAVES

You don't are pro - Adam_CZ

did i bitch in this game? http://www.megaupload.com/?d=MG09FERQ

I already have. It is perfectly balanced. you've read it also, which caused to to call me stupid and close the thread without making any effort of countering my points or statements =) 1v1 thread

also see the points i made in this thread ^^

Being perfectly balanced is one thing. But it may be very different from the game you guys are used to playing, especially there being no teamwork at, etc. but theres no denying it is perfectly balanced, each sides have the same amount of footies per mass, each side is perfectly equal, there is no issue of targeting or teams getting focused since it is only 1v1. All these things are the same with 3v3, except 3v3 involves teamwork.

Its what is is and mean't for

I hate this n***a actin like jesus - SOUNDWAVES

You don't are pro - Adam_CZ

I've already made several points why. How about you try to make some points why you think that instead of just claiming it, or maybe try to disprove the points i've made.

i know i've said it before, but this analogy is perfect for explaining my point: if you throw 4 boxers in a ring and they all fight, the better boxer isn't necessary going to be the winner, just whoever isnt double teamed, targeted etc. luck plays a much bigger role. now in a 1v1 boxing match, the outcome pretty much decides who the superior boxer is. (enless the winner wins by a lucky hay-maker punch but hey thats going into it way to much! )

I'd like to say there is absolutely nothing wrong with 3v3, i'd even say its actually more fun to play. everyone including my self plays 3v3v3v3 way more then any other format. but, for competitive play in which to see which team has superior micro/macro/teamwork etc., 3v3 is better, because it is perfectly balanced and is a much stronger indicator of which team is more skilled.

and to conclude my point:

what made you change your mind? ^___^

the points u've made are valid if this was a 2 team game...but unfortunately its not...this is 4 team game and will always be...if u dont like it go find urself a 2 team game and play that no1's asking u to stick around...u've always bitched and complained in all games they u played vs me whether i was with pubs or clannies...and as soon as u lose ur 1st comment is 3v3v3v3 is noob 1v1 me?

if ur so into fukn 1v1 and 3v3 i dont care as long as u dont come around here telling every other fuker who plays this stupid and invalid for playing the game the way its meant to be played...

If I tell you I am good, You will probably think I am boasting.
If I tell you I am bad, You will Know I am lying.

You want a 1v1/2v2/3v3 type footmen map? Make your own...

And having a repitition of saying "Oh 1v1 and 3v3 is balanced" IS NOT A POINT of why it is balanced. I think 1v1/2v2/3v3 is not a balanced type game because Bond is not trying to make that shit balanced.

Same theory in ladder for warcraft/starcraft, blizzard wanted to primarily make 1v1 the most balanced aspect of ladder, and it is, they didn't give a shit about 2v2 3v3 and 4v4, those weren't mean't to be balanced since its nearly IMPOSSIBLE to do so.

In this case Bond is focusing mainly on 3v3v3v3 not the other game style playings making the 3v3v3v3 more balanced since it has the most attention on.

To me of this general 3v3 for tourney Idea, 3v3 is a stupid idea for tourneys mainly because well this works 80-90% from what i've noticed for a year now in these types of game style with CHF, whoever wins mass wins game, it doesn't prove anything about if you understand game mechanics, your decision making, or even your dam micro.

But if it was ARS well dam that makes me wanna agree to this idea!. Because ARS pushes your boundaries and forces you to use spells that you use or never use alot and see your performance and understanding of how this combo could work together. In normal chf mode, 1v1/2v2/3v3 is plain retarded.

I hate this n***a actin like jesus - SOUNDWAVES

You don't are pro - Adam_CZ

any competitive game is based on 2 teams or 2 players, surprise me and tell me about any kind of game that needs 3 or more teams.

what he means by competitive game in 1v1 and 3v3 is the fact that you work for yourself same as the opposite team.
it's not 3v3v3v3 where you can feed on the others and leave the best team last because that is what usually happens and that is not competitive at all.
you guys have to at least try to understand the logic in that, because if someone is trying to say that 3v3v3v3 is fair and square then right now i can tell you, you are full of bs.
main difference between 3v3/3v3v3v3 (for example) is the fact that you control the game and you bring the difference into it, not the others.

besides on another note, I don't think you have to be so rude/mean whatsoever to somebody who shares his/her ideas with the others just because you don't agree.

good example in 3v3v3v3 is when 2 teams raid you together that you can't even leave your base or revive your hero.
played few games like that with brain, he can vouch that Im sure..