Change Deathmatch.

[SpartanDudeFTW]

When there are situations that that and two people team right off the bat I never really mind it. Teams like that only last 20 seconds and of course going to back-stab eachother. I find teams of 2 to be easier to pvp against than single 1v1 battles. People in teams have to have more control in who they are going to hit, unlike playing alone when I can hit who ever I want whenever I want. If people understood pvp strategies like this people would complain less about teams.

 

[I_Hate_Teams]

Hmm, this is a lot more successful than I thought it would end up. Normally people don't agree with change. And yes my name is necessary . I think we need to start a poll of some sort. I think making it 4 people would be slightly bad tho, because then the 3 underdogs would really gang up on the guy with the goody goods.

I agree with changing deathmatch to match the hive's deathmatch. That would be pretty interesting.

 

[xMDurr]

I personally wouldn't mind if the players were just spread out more evenly i.e. Alaskan Village deathmatch.

 

[gizmobrick]

I don't know if this has been suggested before, but what if there was a tournament style death match? there would be four people in total. Two of which would fight each other while the other two would also fight each other just in different arenas. Then the final two would face head to head to see who would be crowned victor.

 

[Investing]

Well recently all I seem to run into during deathmatch is this BS team of 2. It's pretty annoying and I don't think anyone actually likes deathmatch like that. They either already are a team or they see some stacked guy and suddenly pansy out and team with the other guy. Complete BS. It'd be great if there were only 2 people for deathmatch, a fair 1v1. At least then if there WAS a team of 2 vs 1 other guy, he can surprise attack them or have a lot more area to run around in, rather than being trapped.

If time ran out, well then that's their fault and they'll have to deal with that team. Of course I don't expect the slightest hope in this happening, due to people hating change even if it's for the best.

ALSO, don't give me some stupid ass response saying get skill or something. It's pretty annoying when it's me (full iron dia sword) vs another full iron iron/dia sword team. How do I take them on when they charge at me? Light em up? Bow Spam? That won't last long enough...

Teams are annoying, but if you practice enough, you can defeat them. It's just part of the game and I think this would just make the game take too long.

 

[TheOnlyChanse]

i didnt read too lazy dms should be 4 people because if theres a team of two u can team with the other guy and win

 

[Res]

First of all lighting a 2 team up on fire is easy, because I ran into a team of 2 on valleyside the other day, one had 6.5 armor bars and the other one had 7.5 armor bars and actually didn't complain unlike you, the person with the weaker armor came first, I lit him up on fire, and killed him with 6 hearts. The other player went next and I killed him with 2 hearts because I strafed him. And bowspam? That's easy. Just feed off the other team's arrows, eat a gapple, and retaliate. I'd just make a custom deathmatch arena with no lightning and more space to move, this idea has been created by people such as GoldEllipse, and have been thought of as quite good ideas. That's the idea i'd stick with.

 

[Jadiouu]

I like the idea of 2 person DM's. It would be fair and you had all the environment in advance to kill the teams, rather than in a small deathmatch arena. And I would like to have a little longer games than we have now.. Seriously refill almost never happens! This would make the games a little longer. It's not called "Quick PVP Games". Its Survival Games.

 

[Giolightning]

I like the idea of 2 person DM's. It would be fair and you had all the environment in advance to kill the teams, rather than in a small deathmatch arena. And I would like to have a little longer games than we have now.. Seriously refill almost never happens! This would make the games a little longer. It's not called "Quick PVP Games". Its Survival Games.

No, No, No, No, NO.

This will just make games already longer than it is.

Want to play a 2 player deathmatch at Survival Games 3?

Nope. it will just make the average games go up to 25 minutes easily.
Yes EASILY

4 Player deathmatch is WAYYY, by FAR much more balanced and make the hunger games quick paced and more balanced.

Do u want to spend an hour or two playing 4-6 games? And the possibility of losing all of them?
Or would you rather have 7-9 games in an hour thus making more possibility of winning throughout your day?

The latter is BY FAR better.
It can be in my opinion but i don't know how it could be different in other peoples eyes.

And when i say balanced, DAM RIGHT ITS BALANCED.
When you have another person who is stacked, LITERALLY STACKED (full iron diamond sword)
And he teams with another person.

Its only natural instincts to team with the other player (even if he has leather and sucks) so at least use him as bait and get some free bow shots or if u have a diamond sword, some free crits as it could maybe do enough to win the game for you.

This could solve a lot of problems.

EDIT: When you say "Games barely make it to refill!"

>_> The reason there is refill after a long period of time is if everyone is hiding or if the game is taking a long time (Caused by teams, Campers, A long run or escape, Playing holiday resort and its a 2v2 afraid to jump in water to attack the other team Thus resulting in a mexican standoff, etc.

Plus why would you want a team camping in spawn and another team camping in 2-3 tier twos WITH THE POSSIBILITY of a large tier two chest?

 

[Jadiouu]

No, No, No, No, NO.

This will just make games already longer than it is.

Want to play a 2 player deathmatch at Survival Games 3?

Nope. it will just make the average games go up to 25 minutes easily.
Yes EASILY

4 Player deathmatch is WAYYY, by FAR much more balanced and make the hunger games quick paced and more balanced.

Do u want to spend an hour or two playing 4-6 games? And the possibility of losing all of them?
Or would you rather have 7-9 games in an hour thus making more possibility of winning throughout your day?

The latter is BY FAR better.
It can be in my opinion but i don't know how it could be different in other peoples eyes.

And when i say balanced, DAM RIGHT ITS BALANCED.
When you have another person who is stacked, LITERALLY STACKED (full iron diamond sword)
And he teams with another person.

Its only natural instincts to team with the other player (even if he has leather and sucks) so at least use him as bait and get some free bow shots or if u have a diamond sword, some free crits as it could maybe do enough to win the game for you.

This could solve a lot of problems.

Ok. You have a point in there. 4 person DM would be good also, I would say 2 or 4 but not 3.

It would be good to decrease the game length from the 30mins to 20mins. So it would be a little shorter but not too short.

 

[Giolightning]

Ok. You have a point in there. 4 person DM would be good also, I would say 2 or 4 but not 3.

It would be good to decrease the game length from the 30mins to 20mins. So it would be a little shorter but not too short.

Yes.
Not 2 short.
See what i did there c; ba-dum-tss

Anyways that was my point, to make games shorter as they are already to long, unless you play the shorter maps (solar frost, etc.)

But then again not too short as it will just mean less actual hunger games experience.

 

[DvstDash]

Yes.
Not 2 short.
See what i did there c;

That's what she said.