In order to gain an intuitive understanding of the collision flux formulae, it might be instructive and insightful to deliberately choose a somewhat wrong ansatz first1. For our gedankenexperiment we assume a cube filled with gas.
Since we want to derive a relation that gives us the 'number of collisions against a wall, per unit of time (e.g., lets say seconds), per unit area (e.g., $m^2$)', we have to demand the following physical dimension for our desideratum,
$$ \left[f \right]_{SI} = \frac{1}{s \, m^2} \quad.$$
Next we can ponder about which quantities f propably depends, that is of course the higher number density $n$ is in the cube the more likely it is for any particle to hit on of the walls. Moreover, if the particles move more rapidly, i.e. their kinetic energy being higher, the more likely it is for the particle to hit the walls more often in a given amount of time. Assuming a uniform, isotropic distribution of the particle velocities into all directions, we can use the average velocity $\langle v \rangle$. Thus, we can confidently assume,
$$ f \propto n \, \langle v \rangle$$
and it also nicely complies with our condition above (the required dimension of $f$).
Next we know that the particles can move in 3 different directions (i.e. parallel any of the three cartesian axes), thus giving us at least a proportionality factor of $1/3$. However, since we want to discuss the collision flux of one specific wall, we only can count half of the particles, as the other half would hit the opposite wall, consequently giving us $1/6$. We arrive at
$$ f = \frac{1}{6} \, n \, \langle v \rangle \quad.$$
However our argumentation is flawed and quite superficial, since we did not take the intrinsic probability distribution of the velocity into account, i.e. the famous Maxwell–Boltzmann distribution. In the correct derivation, as you know, $1/6$ is replaced by $1/4$ which is an artefact of the non-Gaussian probability distribution, which makes the average velocity $\langle v\rangle$ not equivalent with the most likely velocity $v_{max}$ of this distribution (as a pure Gaussian distribution would guarantee).
A fully, water-proof way to arrive at the correct result - without taking the unique and characteristic Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution into account - is diffcult to come by.
Personally, I guess that one part, $1/2$ is very certainly due to the fact that we only count collisions on one, specific wall, e.g. particles traveling in the positive $z$ direction. The missing $1/2$ factor is more elusive but I reckon, it has something to do that you do not want to count particles double in your calculations.
P.S. I have done some digging into a few textbooks on thermodynamics and statistical mechanics and all sources that derive the equation in question (also commonly referred to as collision flux or impinging rate of molecules on a surface, in the literature I consulted) do not specifically discuss or ponder over the, not-really-intuitive, proportionality factor $1/4$. I would be very grateful for any literature or online resources that could improve this answer (and also my definitely not perfect understanding).
Footnotes:
- As it is also commonly done in other derivations, e.g. the free-fall time $\tau_{ff}$ in Astrophysics.