Poll

Matches of which size do you prefer in a competitive environment (such as the ENL or the Nations Cup)?

5 vs 5
2 (1.8%)
6 vs 6
5 (4.5%)
7 vs 7
0 (0%)
8 vs 8
28 (25.5%)
9 vs 9
1 (0.9%)
10 vs 10
52 (47.3%)
11 vs 11
0 (0%)
12 vs 12
7 (6.4%)
13 vs 13
0 (0%)
14 vs 14
0 (0%)
15 vs 15
2 (1.8%)
16 vs 16
0 (0%)
17 vs 17
0 (0%)
18 vs 18
2 (1.8%)
19 vs 19
0 (0%)
20 vs 20
5 (4.5%)
I don't care
6 (5.5%)

Total Members Voted: 107

Voting closed: August 12, 2012, 03:13:24 PM

Author Topic: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes  (Read 7770 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

kekn06ab

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: IG_Duke_Kekn
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #30 on: July 30, 2012, 05:10:06 PM »
So what are legitimate reasons for changing it back to 10vs.10?
Am I totally invisible? Guess it's easy to overlook the posts that actually bring an argument with it, haha!

The last part's kinda ridiculous: if you want to play 10 v.s. 10 because there are more tactics, why don't you play a 100 v.s. 100 shield-wall roleplay battle?
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.

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.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 05:24:55 PM by kekn06ab »

Andrej1

  • Master Knight
  • *
  • SHIELDWALL!
    • Steam - saint_andrej
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: Andrej
  • WB
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #31 on: July 30, 2012, 05:31:29 PM »
So what are legitimate reasons for changing it back to 10vs.10?
Am I totally invisible? Guess it's easy to overlook the posts that actually bring an argument with it, haha!


This sentences was related to Archivist's statement.

But okay, so you say teamwork, tactics and teamwork are more important. I'm sure you have some examples in which situations teamwork and communication is more important with 10 player than with 8.

In my opinion you need a lot of communication and teamwork in 8vs.8 to.

And when you can't find good tactics in an 8vs.8 you won't have good tactics in 10vs.10.


Arch3r

  • Count
  • *
  • >:I
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Rhodok
  • MP nick: CoR_Arch3r
  • M&BWBNW
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #32 on: July 30, 2012, 06:36:48 PM »
Voted: I don't care.
Only modus starts up a big poll and then claims he doesn't care at all. Not giving a ****, modus style.

Voted 9v9 and it seems I'm the only one. It's a nice middle ground between 8v8 and 10v10 in my opinion, but ye, no even numbers a team, so it must be a horrible number!
                                                                                           

Slenderpeasants,
the evil minions of the Bonerlords

sammac

  • Sergeant Knight at Arms
  • *
  • inactive ingame, spying on tw, for now
    • Steam - http://steamcommunity.com/profiles/76561198024804989
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Vaegir
  • MP nick: BrC/TMW_sammac Sumarliðr_FA
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #33 on: July 30, 2012, 07:15:39 PM »
but ye, no even numbers a team, so it must be a horrible number!
And it's not even a prime>:s

Alex_C

  • Baron
  • *
  • "Because you're worth it."
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: AE_alX
  • WBWF&S
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #34 on: July 30, 2012, 07:22:58 PM »
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.

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).

Am I totally invisible? Guess it's easy to overlook the posts that actually bring an argument with it, haha!

Yeah, well:

There was never a legitimate reason to change from 10vs10 in the first place.

I guess it is.


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?

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.

Cybran

  • Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: Cybran
  • WB
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #35 on: July 30, 2012, 07:23:41 PM »
10vs10
Mainly becouse I liked it before. I am not entirely against 8vs8, but those 2 players make a big difference in balance between teamplay and personal skill and I want teams with good teamplay be able to beat teams of players with great personal skill and that's bad about 8vs8 in my opinion.
« Last Edit: July 30, 2012, 07:36:46 PM by Cybran »

Wezyk

  • Sergeant Knight
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Neutral
  • MP nick: IG_Baron_Wezyk
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #36 on: July 30, 2012, 09:46:49 PM »
Two votes for 20 vs 20 :lol:
Was drunken but totally proud of it.

kekn06ab

  • Knight at Arms
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Swadian
  • MP nick: IG_Duke_Kekn
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #37 on: July 30, 2012, 10:28:23 PM »
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?
Actually I misunderstood that part -- guess my english isn't as good as I thought ;) My post wasn't about how much I want 100 vs 100, maybe that wasn't quite clear! It was about the fine balance, where I am currently still most in favor of 10 players. And note, that this is for the very same reasons you have -- a balance that makes flags still viable, aggressive play still an option and all what you just said. I just don't agree that 10 v 10 always turns into a stalemate waiting for flags that you make it.

FrankElliott

  • Forum Legend
  • *
    • Skype - frankelliott555
    • Steam - frank_tw
    • Twitter - frankelliott_
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: Frank
  • M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #38 on: July 31, 2012, 09:34:40 AM »
I just don't agree that 10 v 10 always turns into a stalemate waiting for flags that you make it.
I really don't think that's what he's saying. He's just remarking that it happens more frequently at 10vs10.

All of these arguments end up being taken to extremes. Nobody wants matches to be 100vs100, nor do they want matches to be 2vs2.

In my opinion 8vs8 strikes a better balance between player skill and individual skill. It strikes a better balance between providing tactical options and being accessible for new teams to start and compete. It tends to have less waiting around, which makes games more enjoyable to watch and in my opinion, rounds are less "slippery slope" and a level of uncertainty is maintained longer into the round more frequently. That's quite important in terms of making a game watchable. Although I think there's still some ground to make up there.

The most significant balancing act and the one that makes me strongly in favour of 8vs8 is how unrealistic and challenging it would be to play 10vs10 matches at an offline competition. It would already be hard with 8vs8 since the overwhelming majority of team games are 5vs5 but opting for 10vs10 would be such a handicap, barring Mount & Blade's entry into these kinds of competitions and ultimately those kinds of competitions are where I want to see the series end up.
Follow me on the twitters @frankelliott_

sotamursu123

  • On probation
  • *
  • Why so serious? :)
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Khergit
  • MP nick: osTnT_cns_SotaMursu
  • WBNW
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #39 on: July 31, 2012, 09:52:59 AM »
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.

Wrong! It might be chaotic, but damn, it's fun and requires not only skill but tactics too!
(click to show/hide)

But yeah, for ENL 20v20 is too much, there's not that many clans who can make 20 players play weekly. voted for 10v10.



FrankElliott

  • Forum Legend
  • *
    • Skype - frankelliott555
    • Steam - frank_tw
    • Twitter - frankelliott_
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: Frank
  • M&BWBWF&SNWVC
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #40 on: July 31, 2012, 09:56:25 AM »
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.

Wrong! It might be chaotic, but damn, it's fun and requires not only skill but tactics too!
(click to show/hide)
From those screenshots it looks like the map and faction decided the results of that one. Not skill or tactics.
Follow me on the twitters @frankelliott_

sotamursu123

  • On probation
  • *
  • Why so serious? :)
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Khergit
  • MP nick: osTnT_cns_SotaMursu
  • WBNW
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #41 on: July 31, 2012, 09:57:22 AM »
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.

Wrong! It might be chaotic, but damn, it's fun and requires not only skill but tactics too!
(click to show/hide)
From those screenshots it looks like the map and faction decided the results of that one. Not skill or tactics.

the results are like that because of class limits imo...



Vivar

  • Baron
  • *
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: Levy
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #42 on: July 31, 2012, 10:42:10 AM »
But on Port Assault spawn, map and faction decided the winner.
I voted for 8vs.8, but after thinking about it I dont care what the number is. ^^ But I´d prefer numbers up to 10.

ThunderonCZ

  • Knight
  • *
  • Everybody have a plan until they get hit.
    • Steam - thunderon
    • Twitter - _Thunderon_
    • YouTube - ThunderonCZ
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Nord
  • MP nick: Boh_T-RoR
  • WB
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #43 on: July 31, 2012, 12:43:53 PM »
10v10 is better for me, but I do not mind 8v8. But I couldnt accept under 8v8.

Deacon Barry

  • Marquis
  • *
  • Lord of the Lord
    • View Profile
  • Faction: Bandit
  • MP nick: AE_Deacon
  • WB
Re: Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes
« Reply #44 on: July 31, 2012, 01:09:33 PM »
Just from my experience commentating on lots of games over the last 2 cycles, I have to say that the amount of camping appeares to have decreased and that aggresive tactics seem to be rewarded a little more favourably than before. The quality of games in general seem to have benefitted and frankly there's just less camping snoozefests.  I wouldn't claim this to be evidence, just what i've seen from the streaming. I've also failed to see how the change has made the game less tactical. If anything, the benefit given to offensive tactics has allowed for more tactics to be opened up. Whether the shift from camping was just a natural change in the meta or as a result of the changes is difficult to say. All in all, 8v8 gets my vote.



(Voted for the wrong one lol.)