Can anyone explain why someone would like the 3v3 games better than 1v1? I mean, I am one, so the question is not about if there are people, but I could not explain this yet for myself, and wondering if you might have theories for that.
I mean, I’ve basically just wasted 3 hours with the game… 
I feel very frustrated after 4 games that the “team” could have potentially won, but people quit prematurely, not playing the team game, etc… Almost every day, I arrive at the point where I say, tomorrow I will play only 1v1, where quitters don’t ruin the game (or at least only for themselves).
But then when I come back the next day, I go straight for the 3v3. It crosses my mind to enter 1v1 matchmaking, but then… nah… rather 3v3.
So my question is, what game mechanics are different there that might cause this preference? The game is the same after all, maybe on the low ELO brackets, where I am less chaotic?
I myself am no gaming expert… just an average causal player.
Fun thing is fun, I wouldn’t worry about it. If you enjoy it as a team battler hey more ppwer to you and dont let anybody take that from you
1 Like
I’m the direct opposite, could never get into team games.
1 Like
1vs1 is stressful. Team game is not stressful.
You can blame teammates for loose.
also tgs are more slow at the start, which also less stressful.
one small mistake is nothing, teammate will save you.
usually you focused on one type of army, the other type of army will provide your teammates.
problem with devs, who forgot, that TGs were the most popular regime in aoe2. TGs here are better than in sc2 but much worse than aoe2.
also punishment for leaving is a must.
2 Likes
I like team games but I play with a dedicated group of 3 and we strategize together. I tried 1v1 and I was bored with not having the chatter and strategy of teammates. I probably would prefer 1v1 over random teammates though.
2 Likes
Due to the smaller map sizes i’d say that 1on1s are more stressful. Coordinating team attacks is extremely powerful and fun when executed well. If Aoe4 had the option to choose smaller maps for team games i’d play them too as I really like the strategic opitons it adds to the game.
1 Like
- Game should have a penalty for leaving the game.
- Game should have a normal reconnect function.
- Game should have a pause function (for reconnect for example).
- Game should have a different rating with teammates and random teammates.
To be honest, I doubt that these features will be in the game.
1 Like
Are there team bonuses on AoE4?? They did very well on 3
I play 2v2. I feel like 1v1 is too boring. Very predictable. You can’t do much in 1v1 than follow build order. In 2v2s you can coordinate with teammates and play uniquely. Like I see mongol player asking friend to wall choke so he can trade boom and will take late game. Also civ synergy results in interesting gameplay. E.g French + English push is extremely strong in open maps. You both need to coordinate to defend against such play style. Also in 2v2s the civs that are not considered as meta synergize really well. An example is China. It has really good compatibility with other civs. With an ally you can easily defend early game.
Lastly you can’t constantly monitor both players using your scouts. You might need to invest in more scouts to look for proxies or keep eye on enemy production so that means you can also sneak in something that enemy isn’t watching. With larger map, there is always uncertainty. Sometimes I have been able to make a proxy base behind enemies and push when their army isn’t nearby.
1 Like
Thanks for the replies, interesting to see your thoughts on this.
The blaming others for the loss is definitely a part of the psychology 
but with random team mates, I feel it is often justified as well…
← I really think that would be a great feature. A random team without communication against a team with active audio sync / coordinated or exercised moves has no chance in individual ELO based matchups. The random team should have better skilled individuals to have a chance.
I don’t mean to penalise good team work… but not everyone has that many friends available all the time, but wants to have a fun game.
@ZdsAlpha yes, that is true. I also think that the civ combinations add a lot to the fun factor. In 1v1, you start the match, you see mirror match → “eyes rolling” - it’s down to nuances, not so many strategic decisions. Landmarks are great idea, but don’t have much practical variations in that setup (on my level at least).
In 2v2, 3v3, it’s just fine - there are still a lot of options, strategies to go with. One can distract, other eco, early push, both eco and survive somehow. As you mentioned, scouting is more challenging…
Plus, I feel in 1v1 there are no comebacks, unless the opponent makes a terrible mistake. In 3v3 there are games where one player is down to a couple of villagers but 15 minutes later this player delivers the final blow.
1 Like
I think our innate drive to cooperate towards a team victory (such as banding together to hunt or fight and similarly rooting for your fav. sports team like Manchester United) creates a more meaningful feeling of gratification opposed to the more ‘private’ experience of a 1v1 win.
One might also say that the drive to beat a single enemy is more related to an aggressive style of play and team games revolve around protecting each other vs. a common enemy. Therefore, some people might enjoy cooperating and helping each other more vs. playing alone filled with stressful competition.
For example, once a team mate rescued me by sending knights to landmark snipe and the next game I helped him fend off a 3v1 ram rush, both wins feel more exciting to me than a 1v1 ever could.
2 Likes
I like your answer and I want to believe this is really the reason why so much of us like to play games like this 
I can only bear team games if my whole team is on voice chat because this game needs coordination to not allow the other team to start snowballing you. I’ve given up on 1 vs 1 because it is not ínstense enough in this game.