4v4s VS 3v3s

[[N]Lancier]

After 15 days of ntw break, yesterday with my first games had couple of steam connection losts, drops, lag etc ^^ How i missed them really

What confuses me is; must be only the games i am in ..? No 4v4s end with 8 people connected to the game when we get the result screen ? Minimum 1 or 2 people drop during games ? Sometimes at start even. BUT i see people continuously host 4v4s instead of 3v3s. So i start to think, whats the success ratio of finishing these 4v4s without any drops ? or people dont care about drops but continue with AIs ? 3v3s seem always more stable but not in great demand ?

[[N]White]

I simply enjoy 3v3's more. I think the maps are the perfect size for them and theres usually a lot more coordination

[[N]Wym]

In theory a 3v3 will always be more stable than a 4v4.....2 less people to have issues

Thou I personally prefer 4v4's and the last 2 were faultless??

[[N]Sloop]

3v3s are more stable and allow for a bit more maneuver as red line to red line deployment is impossible and battles are usually more open. Any battle with a larger map or smaller forces will usually create more unhindered strategical movement which requires the planning to accommodate, which I do enjoy. For example try a 2v2 on a huge map with small unit size. The problem is that 3v3s similar to 2v2s can become free wheeling and less conventional as lines tend to blur and cavalry circles around the open spaces. The LOC aspect also diminishes as in a 2v2 where forces run around more freely capturing the next unprotected objective; too much to guard for too little troops. Overall I prefer 4v4s provided they are stable.