Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

[Mr.X]

The major premise also has some other flaws. The OP's argument is based entirely around the idea that more people is more fun, which and since fun is different for every person, it's unfair to make rules catering to one persons opinion of fun and assume everyone else will feel the same way

You might find it less fun to play 10vs10 compared to 8vs8, and I dont criticize your point.
But you forget that 10 vs 10 = 4 more guys on the field, and these 4 guys actually have fun, rather than being on a bench.

So yes 10 vs 10 = more fun.

What if 5 people who would play the 8v8 don't have fun in a 10 v 10. So 4 more people have fun (by your calculations) and 5 less people have fun in this circumstance. So overall, 15 people have fun instead of 16. And that's not including varying degrees of fun.

So no, 10 vs 10 != more fun.


EDIT: Also forgot to mention. You can't assume those other people have more fun in the first place. So not only does your argument not account for more people having less fun than more fun, it's also again going off the assumption that you know when people have fun or not, which is, again, not a valid way to shape an argument.

 

[Scott Ray]

Basically, if argument=X, solve for X.

 

[Harkon Haakonson]

what is scott gay doing in a serious thread?? back to riding your battle pony, bare chested!

 

[Mok the International]

Basically, if argument=X, solve for X.

X...what could be?!?!

 

[pro.fail]

10 vs 10 is not more fun, its more work with team and tactics...

 

[Rhade]

10 vs 10 is not more fun, its more work with team and tactics...

More prone to range spam, due to exponential scalability.

Two ideas:

Critical mass of projectiles.

Infinite number of ranged players able to target one individual, while only ~4 melee can target an individual.

Simple, really.

 

[Alex_C]

No need for people to still be arguing with other people who think the same as them.

The idea's been rejected, thread locked.