Proposition Regarding match size and Roster

Users who are viewing this thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
captain lust said:
Rhade said:
I think that with a tournament this serious and at a competitive level, it's important to remember that there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5 at the pro level.
I still think the Nations Cup should stay 8vs8 but saying "there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5" doesn't count as a reason in itself.

Warband isn't an fps. There is no benchmark for the genre because the game is unique. In the ENL we're experimenting with 8vs8 and I'm personally undecided on the subject. 8vs8 certainly has its advantages but although it's important to learn things from successful esports, they shouldn't be dictating the standards for Warband where the comparisons aren't applicable. We are the competitive scene for the game and we are the ones setting the standards. Does that mean we should abandon experimentation and proceed with blind arrogance? Of course not but we have to approach the issue with a degree of self confidence because no one else is going to establish these things for us.

Granted, the precedents set by other games shouldn't be a be-all-end-all argument, but it lends weight to the argument I was making. It's not enough, alone, to justify it, you're right, but that still doesn't mean that it isn't a valid point to say that Warband has FPS elements, much like CS/COD S&D.
 
Orion said:
captain lust said:
Personally I disagree with changing numbers mid tournament. Whilst I don't think that the skillset (both team and player) is massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8, I still think it's bad form to change certain aspects of match format during a competition.

+1

Pick one and stick with it. There's always the option for both captains to increase the player size, something which the proponents of 10v10 all seem to be conveniently forgetting, so if you're going to use a silly argument like this:

arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.

Please, read the rules.
This rule also existed last year and nobody never applied it afaik so you cant say that it is a reality.

Also as you reckon "the skillset (both team and player) is not massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8". So changing rules in the middle of competitions wont be a drama. The only problem is that some teams could forget that it goes from 8 to 10, and forget to gather enough players, but they would be really dumb and then fairly victim of the Darwin rule.
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Orion said:
captain lust said:
Personally I disagree with changing numbers mid tournament. Whilst I don't think that the skillset (both team and player) is massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8, I still think it's bad form to change certain aspects of match format during a competition.

+1

Pick one and stick with it. There's always the option for both captains to increase the player size, something which the proponents of 10v10 all seem to be conveniently forgetting, so if you're going to use a silly argument like this:

arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.

Please, read the rules.
This rule also existed last year and nobody never applied it afaik so you cant say that it is a reality.

Also as you reckon "the skillset (both team and player) is not massively different between 10vs10 and 8vs8". So changing rules in the middle of competitions wont be a drama. The only problem is that some teams could forget that it goes from 8 to 10, and forget to gather enough players, but they would be really dumb and then fairly victim of the Darwin rule.

Imo just keep it at 8v8 and don't change the rules mid-tournament.
 
Rhade said:
arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun, that is the main point, and it seems a much valid argument.
All team captains posting here have a little devil in their brain telling them "Bro if you line up 8 instead of 10 you will have better team and pown them niark niark niark". But it is stupid because they will face other teams with similar team captains with similar devils in their brain, so 1-1 bring the ball back to the center of the field.
Only major problem with going 10 players is for countries with small community but elite players who will have 8 good players + 2 noobs, but does this case really exist? And would a Nations Cup won by Luxemburg or Cuba sound like a serious league?


OR we could start with 8 at first phase, and then go up to 10 when the small countries are eliminated (look at NC 2011, all eliminated teams at first stage where small countries, even at 8 vs 8 so...).

By your logic, we should do 25v25 so everyone can "have fun."

I think that with a tournament this serious and at a competitive level, it's important to remember that there is actually a reason most fps's are played @ 5v5 at the pro level. I'm not even going to sit here and try to advocate that, because that would be selfish and  compromise is key; 8v8 is a good compromise, yet some of you remain selfish. There is a part of the rules that allow you and another team to increase team sizes if you would both like to -- why is this not enough for you?

Also, on the topic of changing tourney rules mid tourny; hell no. Not only is it a bad idea for reasons marnid and Lust already listed, but the justification of "small teams getting eliminated early" makes no sense. Last year, USA placed third, I believe.

25 vs 25 is for sure More fun than 8 vs 8 and in my opinion managing a big group is harder than managing a little one. So if we are talking about being more tactical with small numbers for me this argument is not valid cause it's common knowledge that managing a big group is harder than doing the same thing with a little one.

I can understand that there are teams that have problems with having 10 active players so in my opinion that case 8 vs 8 is an acceptable option.

Early clans European battles were made with almost those numbers and it was more exciting than doing it now...
 
ramboTotalWar said:
I'm still try to wonder how can americans find 6v6 battles funny  :lol:

Haven't you been in the 5-a-side's?

I have really enjoyed the 5-a-side tournaments, and I prefer smaller battles not going higher than 10 players a side.
 
ramboTotalWar said:
I'm still try to wonder how can americans find 6v6 battles funny  :lol:

Because it requires skill AND tactics, instead of just having 30 people going archer and shooting in similar directions.

Individual skill is irrelevant at large numbers because of the sheer amount of arrows in the air; luck plays a huge role in whether or not you get hit when the air is literally filled with arrows. In 6v6, luck rarely factors in.

Just like professional CS teams don't do 50 vs 50.
 
Rhade said:
Because it requires skill AND tactics, instead of just having 30 people going archer and shooting in similar directions.

Individual skill is irrelevant at large numbers because of the sheer amount of arrows in the air;

You don't want to fight in the shade? :lol:
 
captain lust said:
Warband isn't an fps. There is no benchmark for the genre because the game is unique. In the ENL we're experimenting with 8vs8 and I'm personally undecided on the subject. 8vs8 certainly has its advantages but although it's important to learn things from successful esports, they shouldn't be dictating the standards for Warband where the comparisons aren't applicable.
I completely agree with this one.

I personally prefer smaller match sizes like 5on5 or 6on6 because I find them more interesting and fun. Besides, it's much easier to organize (and quicker), both in terms of gathering people and commanding during the game. And most importantly, it would be a lot easier to hold together a clan when you have a standard match size of 5-6. I wish the competitive scene of Warband had smaller clans, where all good players are not stacked in a clan, and clans were able to sustain without having a single devoted person organizing all the stuff.

But, yeah, after all it's a personal taste. We shouldn't come up with a decision with someone's preferences. And since there are no solid reasons, I highly doubt if there's a way to come to a conclusion about the match size, satisfying or at least sounding reasonable to everyone. So, for NC '12, I think it would be best for the sake of this tournament to find a fair number, that'll both suit small and large communities without ruining the experience and keep experimenting on the match size (and on other rules as well) in different events like WTFFS.
 
Rhade said:
ramboTotalWar said:
I'm still try to wonder how can americans find 6v6 battles funny  :lol:

Because it requires skill AND tactics, instead of just having 30 people going archer and shooting in similar directions.

Individual skill is irrelevant at large numbers because of the sheer amount of arrows in the air; luck plays a huge role in whether or not you get hit when the air is literally filled with arrows. In 6v6, luck rarely factors in.

Just like professional CS teams don't do 50 vs 50.

It's a sword game dammit
 
TurambarMakart said:
As long as someone likes doing examples with CS i will do my statement by saying: it's a sword game not a damn FPS, so 30 players will not be 30 archers ....

Sword game? So why does every scrim have predominately archers? CS also has knives in it, just like Warband has swords in it. Sure, the comparison isn't exact, but if you can't see that parallels even though they aren't exactly in line, then I really don't know what to say to you.
 
Rhade said:
TurambarMakart said:
As long as someone likes doing examples with CS i will do my statement by saying: it's a sword game not a damn FPS, so 30 players will not be 30 archers ....

Sword game? So why does every scrim have predominately archers? CS also has knives in it, just like Warband has swords in it. Sure, the comparison isn't exact, but if you can't see that parallels even though they aren't exactly in line, then I really don't know what to say to you.
I have to say I see absolutely no comparisons/ parallels with Warband and CS, there two completely different genres of gaming and comparing them is a waste of time and undermines your points. Comparing automatic guns to bows and swords to knives is the most ridiculous thing I've heard in a long time.

There's not much luck involved in being hit, someone's aiming at you so if your not defending in that area it going to hit surely? and if archers are shooting you from all around its not lucky one hit's, its a crossfire, designed to do just exactly that.
 
His point isn't that archers will get "lucky" and shoot around your cover/shield randomly, nor is he saying that skill doesn't come into play. What he is saying is that you don't need an incredible level of personal skill when you've got a horde of backup. A team of a dozen terrible archers can put out a large volume of arrows quite rapidly, and chances are high that they'll score hits regardless of skill. This is especially true when they're facing a large volume of enemies.
 
Gulatr said:
Orion - the same can be said about any class.
Not really, having a lot of horrible infantry can often work to the advantage of other players as it increases the chances of them teamkilling each other. Archer's just have to stand back and fire away therefore not having to have the team at risk. Mass cavalry is also easily countered. 
 
arsenic_vengeur said:
Going from 8 to 10 means increasing by 25% the number of people who have fun

What if only 9 players show up for one team? Thats 19 people who don't have fun cause they can't play. Thats decreased by like, 100% or something.
 
BlackTide said:
Gulatr said:
Orion - the same can be said about any class.
Not really, having a lot of horrible infantry can often work to the advantage of other players as it increases the chances of them teamkilling each other. Archer's just have to stand back and fire away therefore not having to have the team at risk. Mass cavalry is also easily countered.

Cavalry will also succeed mostly in getting themselves killed by running into each other. Ranged weapons are the real threat with large battles. It's true in reality and in the game.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom