3 man deathmatch leads to problems.

[InvisibleColin]

Countless times I am in a deathmatch and it is me verse a team of 2. I think that there should be a 4 man deathmatch instead. It would give everyone a fair chance because if there was a team the other people could team up. Also even if they didn't it wouldn't be a 2v1. Instead it would be a 2v1v1.
Sincerely, InvisibleColin <3

 

[jtmboy]

This is a pretty cool idea

 

[MoLoToV]

Orrr this mean you'll have to deal with a 3 man team...

 

[Miner9823]

I would consider a 4 man deathmatch too risky, because as MoLoToV said, imagine if it were a three man team, the last one wouldn't be in such a good situation. I think 3 people deathmatches are a little more adequate, due to the player fights being more quick, and as well as it being a little more fair for the person facing the other two people, hypothetically speaking.
I would also think that maybe only a 2 player deathmatch could come in handy, because it would actually decide the final victor in a much more quick pace. However it would be difficult finding the remaining player out of the three if we wanted to start a two player deathmatch, depending on the circumstances.

 

[Mirko]

2 players deathmatch will be better.

 

[MoLoToV]

Considering 2 player deathmatch makes the game last too long, and 3 man deathmatch could be unfair because you can get killed by a teamed, I personally believe a 4 man deathmatch would be good, but it needs a little twist. We need 2 times a 1v1, and let the winners fight once again, there is no way to team in this, the only downside I see is that you are using up your recourses in the first fight and you'll have less in the last fight.

 

[Epo]

I think a 4 man deathmatch is great because, The chances of a three team are much lower.

 

[KittehMonstah]

Orrr this mean you'll have to deal with a 3 man team...

I would consider a 4 man deathmatch too risky, because as MoLoToV said, imagine if it were a three man team, the last one wouldn't be in such a good situation.

So what?

The way it is now, if you and a 3 team are all that is left, you'll have to deal with them anyway.

Chances are, if it is you vs a 3 team, you aren't going to make it to deathmatch no matter what. I fail to see how dealing with a 3 team in deathmatch vs dealing with a 3 team in normal game makes much of a difference at all, besides the fact that you have more space to work with.

You'll just die either way - you're screwed no matter what if there is a 3 team.

Epo said it great,

I think a 4 man deathmatch is great because, The chances of a three team are much lower.

I'd rather have a 2v1v1 than a 2v1, wouldn't you? For this reason, I feel that it is more fair for deathmatch to be expanded to 4 players.

 

[Mauro]

I always thought that would be good, but now I kinda got used to a 3 man deathmatch.
To be honest I haven't really thought about this for a while.
Its probably because I play less and usually team with my friends when I do play.
Maybe a 2 v 2 at deathmatch would bring more excitement to the game?
I am going to say yes to this.

 

[Matt0808]

The reason we have a three man death match is because that is what happens in the movie, and as a matter of fact it is a 2v1 in the movie as well. MCSG would like to keep as close to the original Hunger Games as possible. If you were to have a four man deathmatch many users would complain about how quickly the games go and you may have to face a three man team. A three man death match is the best way to go because it follows the original Hunger Games the most and users wouldn't have to face larger teams.

 

[Captain Dak]

The only possible solution I can see is having 1 player deathmatches.

 

[Julius345]

Tbh 3 player deathmatch is terrible. It should be either 2 or 4 man.