Dissatisfied with democracy and (6 vs 6)?

[old.Rhino]

I do not want this thread to become a debate on the merits of n vs n on RtCW. The BW league is off and running, so thats that......

There seemed however to be quite a few people who preferred larger teams and may be feeling somewhat peeved or disappointed at the outcome.

No promises....... but if you are interested in a Cup/Ladder/league involving teams larger than 6 vs 6 (9 vs 9 springs to mind as that tends to be a common server limit) dump your details and depending upon the outcome we might be able to get something going....

Like I said NO PROMISES .... but lets see who is really interested....

 

[old.gust0o]

I can speak for my clan, bdi, in saying that we'd prefer 8vs8 - I argued for that mode when the debate first came up.

The arguments made sense then, and they make sense now for most of the styles of play - mind you, if you're going to play teamdm then you might as well make it 1v1 for all the 'team' element that ends up involving

 

[bigbb]

Democracy? 6v6 was the general consensus. We first went for 8v8 and more or less everyone we turned to said, no way. When we spoke of 6v6 with the majority of people that was the best option.

If people didn't want 6v6, it wouldn't be 6v6.

 

[old.gust0o]

There are pathetically few people on this forum to really make up for all the people remaining silent yet playing in BW clans - I don't want to get broiled in the old "why are you digging this up now, we made this decision because we all agreed to it?" argument.

6vs6 speaks for itself, and everyone who's used to playing 8vs8 on large maps didn't agree with it, and this thread is simply saying that they still don't agree with it.

I like the game how it is on the public servers - plenty of players, enough to throw together a decent attacking team of mixed classes, and have people back in your own lines holding the base. 6vs6 just feels like someone's come along and hamstrung your efforts at making a real fight of it.

Sure, it's great if you came in from q3, or any tdm game - 6vs6 will feel like your clan mates are treading on your toes... it's just not what I'm used to. Yes, I'm biased. No, I'm not going to change my mind. Yes, I'm interested in any server that will bring the game to what I think is the standard it should be played at.

 

[bigbb]

You seem to be turning this into a personal issue. I for one would actually be more inclined towards a larger team size, but at the time some very solid and supported arguments arose in the favour of 6v6. The Division Assault was designed to give us a chance to evaluate the structure, as much as it was to decide division placements. So, over the coming days myself and others in the administrative team will discuss improvements and changes. This issue will almost certainly come into question.

If the broader picture here does indeed represent a change of hearts in team size, i'm sure this thread will prove that in its replies.

 

[old.Ghost]

Id like to see more, say 10v10, well that makes 2 of us now, lol, but lets get this league out the way first.

 

[Gangster No:1]

Considering a large number of clans haven't showed because they couldnt get teams together and quite a few were only able to muster teams of 5 I think we got it right with 6v6.

Basically there are not many clans that would be able to field a larger squad on a regular basis.

 

[syk.chak]

Originally posted by Ghost
Id like to see more, say 10v10, well that makes 2 of us now, lol, but lets get this league out the way first.

Are you mad? Most clans wouldn't be able to field 10 players on a regular basis. Some of the better ones don't even have 10 members!

 

[old.gust0o]

You seem to be turning this into a personal issue.

Not quite, BB - that was the one thing I was trying to avoid... mind you, you'll always run that risk when you strongly agree or disagree with something

I think 8vs8 is optimal - not too large, and not too small - that's why it ended up being so popular; but whether you like it or not comes down to the individual, and their preferences

 

[dusustin]

I would like Barrys to use the same format as americans do, 7vs7 or 8vs8. And if you as a clan can't field that many, start recruiting. And I would also like another thing, this taken from every american RTCW league as well (including the upcoming CPL league), use Stopwatch. MP doesn't belong in competative league play, especially not since you choose to divide the teams in 4 different divisions based on skill-level.
I have talked to many of RTCW's major american clans about hie european situation, like D|S, abuse and Pro, and they can't seem to understand it either.

I know that this has been talked about before, and Barrys chose MP due to popular demand. I can understand this approach, but I can't say I fully agree with you.

Anyway, my clan is though proud to be in the league, and we're looking forward to the start of it. You are doing a good adminastrive work, the admins have been doing their job very well, and information has always been clear.

Ola "dusustin!" Lundin
European Battlegroup

 

[old.gust0o]

Coming back off that, I'd play either - not sure why the Americans seem to almost exclusively go with Stopwatch though... cuts down on the options a bit

 

[bigbb]

As the thread has turned into a league discussion, i'm moving it to the league forum.

 

[*Kornholio*]

Although I personally prefer bigger games, I'm happy with 6v6 for the league for the time being... as the Gangsta said, there are clans struggling to field teams of 6 at the moment... the league would probably half if we had to muster 8 peeps every time...

 

[old.Skull]

I agree with dusustin, I think the ideal is probably 7v7 stopwatch, and the only reason i can think of for not using that format is that many clans woudnl't be able to field enough people - but on the other hand, it might encourage them to buck up their ideas and take things a bit more seriously

 

[old.gust0o]

So, what I'm hearing is, 6vs6 is fine for now as most of our clans don't have enough members?

Fair does - as long as we get the option to change it when those of you with few members have finished playing catch-up...

... failing that, wasn't this a thread about a custom server? Not the league?

 

[*Kornholio*]

Originally posted by gust0o
... failing that, wasn't this a thread about a custom server? Not the league?

errr.. no ?

 

[syk.chak]

Not enough players isn't the only reason. A lot of players, myself included, don't want the number of players to go up to 8, 9 and definently not 10. 7 would be the highest for me. Anything else and it turns more into a firefight than include tactics.

Also, have you tried listening to 8, let alone 10, people on GameVoice? Not an easy thing .

 

[*Kornholio*]

Originally posted by [SyK]Chak
Also, have you tried listening to 8, let alone 10, people on GameVoice? Not an easy thing.

Indeed, 6 is ok to co-ordinate on voice coms

 

[Anduin]

i for one think that any increase in clan size would be very bad for the league because
1) even large clans will find it hard to field large sizes ie 7+ every single week for the running of the league
2) smaller clans would find it impossible and would have to be droped from the league
3) Co-ordination is a major part in playing and in regard to the comment re public servers HAVE YOU TRIED CO_ORDINATING ON A PUBLIC SERVER it just cant be done wether you use voice software (which is very confusing) or voicechat binds (which would be just plain impossible) you cannot co-ordinate 8+ people.
As Chak said when you get more than 6/7 tactics go out the window and it turns into a fire fight
So personally for the sake of the league Keept it at 6 at a massive push 7 but never ever any more

 

[old.gust0o]

Well, most of that's crap for starters - if 8vs8 is such a difficulty then I really wonder how so many others games and clans have ever managed to pull it off... you make it sound like you're trying to untie the Gordian Knot. It's not some unsurmountable task, it's just the same as any other clan game.

It's no more difficult a number to work with than 7 - by the way you describe it, Anduin, then you might as well take any number than '4' and scribble them out... it's pathetically easy to organise, and bind for - it was when I was playing TFC, it was when I was playing Tribes 2, and it's proving the same for Medal of Honour. If you're a decent team-playing clan then you won't have any problems.

6 players, I find, is seriously hamstringing your options - you don't have the people to force holes in your opponents defence, and don't have the flexibility that the extra players would offer you. I would only play it begrudgingly.

Ok, so no promises, but there are people wanting 8vs8 - if we could guarantee that we could pull clans in to play this mode, what then Rhino?

 

[McBastard]

Goals?

What is the goal of this league, really? I've kind of been under the impression that the league is primarily here to provide enjoyment for as many people as possible.

Seen in that light, I can't really accept the arguments that some clans just have to recruit, shape up, get organized. The way that CPL is played doesn't really matter much to me either. ClanBase is 6vs6. TeamWarfare Euro is 5vs5. Jolt is 6vs6 (right?). Less prestigious leages/ladders/tournies like these matter more to me.

Another thing that I don't quite get is: How is it that 6vs6 leaves a team hamstrung, but 7vs7 doesn't? Why doesn't the argument about organization apply here - in favour of 6vs6?


6vs6 works fine for me. Two reasons: 1) TEG's a fairly small clan without an ambition of growing big. We'd probably not qualify if the team sizes were increased. 2) The most enjoyable games I've played have been with small teams. Larger teams can be fun too, but I've never noticed any problems with playing it small.

Anyway, that's my personal opinion, but my real point is that nobody is really looking at what the goal is and how to best achieve it.

 

[.cage]

We (Turnip Farmers) would love to join an 8v8 league as well as the BWRTCWL - Both team sizes have their own merits.

 

[old.gust0o]

Sure, we're here to have fun - I also came here to play a decent team game, and it's my opinion that 6vs6 just won't give you that on any decent-sized map.

Unless, of course, we all just going back to dm'ing everytime we join a server...

 

[McBastard]

Originally posted by gust0o
Sure, we're here to have fun - I also came here to play a decent team game, and it's my opinion that 6vs6 just won't give you that on any decent-sized map.

Unless, of course, we all just going back to dm'ing everytime we join a server...

Please, add more to the discussion than just a repeat. You could give an example of what you can't do with a 6 man team. And which maps are not suitable for 6vs6 in your opinion?

The maps played so far (assault, communique, beach invasion, castle) are quite ok for 6vs6, no? Assault may be better suited for 7/8 man teams, but I do think that you can get a decent team game out of it with 6vs6.

 

[bigbb]

It could be argued with a 6v6 team that each player is that much more valuable and pivotal to a team's success and thus resulting in a more valued achievement. Each player becomes the difference between survival and demise.

 

[old.gust0o]

McBastard, I could make the same complaint about your own addition to this discussion - all we seem to get back are the same old arguments for why 6vs6 is preferential to 8vs8, and it's not actually making any blind bit of difference.

BB, it could be argued that 6vs6 places more onus on the players, because of their smaller numbers, but that doesn't answer the complaint that the smaller number sizes make for a more constrictive style of teamplay - sure, they count more, as the team has less players from the start, and they have more ground to cover.

That said when the initial question was 'dissatisfied with... 6vs6' then I answered 'yes' - the current maps can be played with smaller team numbers, but simply because they can doesn't mean that that's ideal for most people. Assault would be ridiculous with those numbers...

... I'm fine with 6vs6 for now if there's a legitimate reason, such as clans can't seem to recruit enough members (how? We managed to gain 15 members within the first week... I know of many more outside BW that don't seem to have had any problems), but I wouldn't want to see 6vs6 as the end of the issue - say, come back in a few months time and see if we're all still keen on the idea, or whether we fancy a change when the league clocks over?

 

[old.gust0o]

Gah, I don't want to be a cunt, I'm just giving my opinion on this - and coming back on what's been said...

If people are still thinking of having an 8vs8 server, then fair does.

 

[syk.chak]

Originally posted by gust0o
McBastard, I could make the same complaint about your own That said when the initial question was 'dissatisfied with... 6vs6' then I answered 'yes' - the current maps can be played with smaller team numbers, but simply because they can doesn't mean that that's ideal for most people. Assault would be ridiculous with those numbers...

None of the maps are "ridiculous" with 6v6.

 

[old.gust0o]

/bangs head against the wall

So some people say, Chak - thankyou for pointing out the whole reason why this thread is still going on; because, whilst some people think 6vs6 is the dogs danglies, overs think slightly less positive thoughts.

 

[McBastard]

Originally posted by gust0o
McBastard, I could make the same complaint about your own addition to this discussion

You could and you'd be wrong.

Same with the "anything less than 8vs8 might just as well be 1vs1 dm" kind of reasoning.