Yup, pros don't bother with ranked team games because they care about 1v1. Most people prefer to play reasonably balanced team games which is reflected in the player count and the amount of un- ranked lobbies have "soft" rankings applied.
I heard Hera mention the ranked teamgame ladder is crap...
You don't know that.
There is no way they had any data that showed them 2 wood walls were hurting their bottom line. But they nerfed walls because pros complained constantly, now palisade walls cost 3 wood. Pros don't complain about team games because they basically play ranked 1v1 arabia so...
Since when does the consumer need to prove something to a software developer providing a product using hard data? How are we supposed to quantify exactly how much happier people will be with the product if they fix team games?
DE is a success and is very fun. But ranked team games are poorly...
I think that could be good. Some people dont like that an arena clown could get 2k team rating by only playing arena games but I don't think that matters. If someone gets a high elo playing BF and Arena then they'll be matched against other people with similar ELOs who like to play similar maps...
Unranked was only more popular because the ranked teamgames stink. Also a ton of these unranked lobbies have a "soft" ranking required. How many noob/noobish arena/BF 4v4s are there? A ton! All of these players would be better served by having the ability to just play ranked BF/Arena 4v4 games...
Be able to play ranked games on maps they like. That's the user requirement, beyond that it's the responsibility of the developers to find the solution.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.