Duken96 said:
I don't want to play 10v10 only because there are more tactics, but because with two more players there are also more interesting fights and i think teamplay is more useful and harder than when there are less players. With 20v20 or something like that it's more chaotic, and for some closed maps like nord town or port assault i think it's too much. However i can't say lots of things about 12v12 or more because i never played it.
My point was that your saying
"If you want to play 8v8 because each player is more important than 10v10 or more, why you don't want 5v5?" was a ridiculous slippery slope fallacy. Much in the same way as there's more than one factor makes people want to play 10 v.s. 10, the same is true of 8 v.s. 8.
Duken96 said:
Also if you prefer 8v8 because with that more clans are able to join ENL, we can have 8v8 in Division C, and 10v10 in div A and B
No thanks. As above, the advantage to new clans etc. is only one of the reasons I like 8 v.s. 8. I also believe that it generally favours more aggressive play-styles (I don't like the whole 'rush to positions and wait 3 minutes for flags' thing particularly) which is probably my primary reason for supporting it. I also have plenty of others (I feel it balances archers better; I also just generally find it more enjoyable).
kekn06ab said:
Am I totally invisible? Guess it's easy to overlook the posts that actually bring an argument with it, haha!
Yeah, well:
Archivarius Rhae said:
There was never a legitimate reason to change from 10vs10 in the first place.
I guess it is.
kekn06ab said:
I know this part wasn't meant for me, but since I voted 10v10 as well, I might as well join the discussion
I think we can all agree that more players makes for more options as a commander, but does indeed decrease the flexibility and ability to keep organization. It's merely a matter of how to balance it out. So Dukens statement isn't ridiculous at all, and the reason I (can of course only speak for myself here) wouldn't waste time on a 100 v 100 is the amount of time wasted on... well, ridiculous things -- You've organized several events and know all of that too well.
Nah, I don't agree that more players makes for more options as a commander. As I've already said, having two more players might open up a few possibilities (I guess you could use them to set up that additional layer of crossfire, or to make a particular place more viable to defend), but I also think 8 v.s. 8 has tactics available to it that 10 v.s. 10 doesn't (for instance there's a greater ability for aggressive play, as I've mentioned).
You're genuinely saying that
"If you want to play 8v8 because each player is more important than 10v10 or more, why you don't want 5v5?" isn't ridiculous?
kekn06ab said:
Games do become more aggresive in 8v8 and there is less waiting for flags -- I welcome that, you have a valid point that this is a goal in itself. But I noted a slight tendence for plans to be in the direction of "just charge and fight it out" -- which is the wrong kind of aggressiveness. In that respect, I do believe that the extra 2 players plays a large role to balance the two and actually makes flags important again.
I think that depends entirely on how good the tactics are of the team. Sure, a team with bad tactics might just charge and fight it out (not entirely sure that's a bad thing, and I prefer it to teams with bad tactics just deciding to camp and wait it out), but a team with decent tactics will better plan the different aspects of the charge, exactly where they'll fight the enemy, points not to go past, timing cavalry attacks, positioning rangers etc. etc.
I'm not sure that flags aren't important, I've seen a fair amount of them in the last ENL cycle (fewer than when it was 10 v.s. 10 thank God), and they often still decide a match -- but teams are no longer forced to just wait for them, they have more options available.