I wish to know, as a leader of a huge clan, who has interest in playing squad and clan wars with WN rulesL and teams bigger than 8vs8. Even 12 versus 12 is way more interesting(for me), especially in tactics. 20 vs 20 is epic.
My special goal - to play WNL matches with clans who is interested in bigger battles, so, please write here if you wish to play squad or caln war(WNL match) with WNL rules and 10-20 players per team.
very nice idea, i still remember the old rules in matches 12vs12/10vs10 but if there's not enough players we can always do 8vs8
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4I7sF4GLaA4
Problem with bigger matches is that you will need to replace or adjust some of the maps and that not every clan can consistently summon enough (good) players to field for matches.
CTCCoco said:
~Scar said:
CTCCoco said:
ENL is better for me overall, but WNL is good too.
This is all my personal opinion. Everyone is entitled to their own and I would find it unreasonable if I got a tonne of **** just for having mine.
If you want to play big matches, fine. If you like them that's cool and if it gets you interested and keeps you interested in organised play then that's great.
I don't think anyone else prevalent in the scene, other than my notorious teammates, have had any notable competitive success at an offline tournament or has won more money from progaming than I have. Despite the absurd nature of the War of the Roses tournament which I played in and the pathetic quality of the game, by competitive standards, that experience does put me in a fairly unique position.
However to want an increase in the competitive standard 8vs8 match size is pretty closed minded. If people want to see Mount&Blade grow and bloom as an esport, surely they should recognise that even at 5vs5 it would be difficult to get support from major events like Dreamhack or IEM (tournaments that might realistically feature the game). None of these tournaments really have the infrastructure (like stage space) to support 16 players playing on stage at once even, since all other games are pretty much 5vs5 max. The idea of increasing that competitive standard only makes the likelihood of any kind of decent offline support even less realistic. Not to mention that with more players per team, you decrease the number of high quality teams. That's basic statistics. You therefore are almost instantly more likely to have a less interesting scene.
Aside from the logistics of it, I also think that increasing the number of players beyond 10vs10 makes rounds more dull. You get greater numbers of snowball rounds and far fewer back and fewer exciting down-to-the wire moments as the numbers go up. That's a fact. You cannot avoid that because it is maths and maths is non-biased. I don't believe that we are remotely close to any kind of "skill cap" or similar concept at 8vs8, so it's not worth increasing numbers whatsoever with a view to making the competitive element of the game more "difficult". I use quotation marks for "skill cap" and "difficult" because I don't 100% agree with the terms, even though I somewhat agree with the concepts behind them. Essentially in almost any pvp game it's impossible to be perfect because it will always be as difficult as the person you play against. Anyway, like I said it's not relevant for 8v8 warband because of how dramatically far away we are from any of that.
Already most teams don`t play more than 8vs8 because they think they have stronk 8 and lower 10. There is option to play 10vs10 but it is hard to see any match played with more than minimum 8 per team.
1vs1... it's better, real skill.
Let's choose a champion for each clan and decide the match in that way.....
Now there is no point in increasing the number of players cause we don't have the numbers anymore, but i still remember how good it was having clan wars with 12vs12 or 10vs10. And the outcome was not determined by a random dice rolling, but still from skills and ability to control your own players ( given that they were 12 or 10 it was ofc tougher moving them all in a proper position on a Map, but this is where the challenge is\was )
From my point of view teams with 8 members are easier to 'control' so that's why everyone loves it as a standard for the so called 'competitive community and tournaments'. I see no less effort\skills in having 10 people teams or 12 and no 'randomness' included in what is still a little fight with 12 people at maximum on each side.
Having played some Vikingr events shieldbattles, i can say that on that kind of fights the random element is some kind of relevant but on a 12 max each side fight... random? HA... no way i can see that coming.
My opinion is also from someone who is embracing also the FUN SIDE of this game cause sometimes people forget that we should have fun 1st of all.
Haha, I read "8-team divisions" and derped... ok fine that might be right then perhaps first season was 10vs10... and Nations Cup 2011 was 8vs8. Pretty sure it changed anyway. Losing my mind...
TurambarMakart said:
1vs1... it's better, real skill.
Let's choose a champion for each clan and decide the match in that way.....
Now there is no point in increasing the number of players cause we don't have the numbers anymore, but i still remember how good it was having clan wars with 12vs12 or 10vs10. And the outcome was not determined by a random dice rolling, but still from skills and ability to control your own players ( given that they were 12 or 10 it was ofc tougher moving them all in a proper position on a Map, but this is where the challenge is\was )
From my point of view teams with 8 members are easier to 'control' so that's why everyone loves it as a standard for the so called 'competitive community and tournaments'. I see no less effort\skills in having 10 people teams or 12 and no 'randomness' included in what is still a little fight with 12 people at maximum on each side.
Having played some Vikingr events shieldbattles, i can say that on that kind of fights the random element is some kind of relevant but on a 12 max each side fight... random? HA... no way i can see that coming.
My opinion is also from someone who is embracing also the FUN SIDE of this game cause sometimes people forget that we should have fun 1st of all.
8vs8 is also anything but random. Like I said, no teams are anywhere close to playing that game at anything like how it could be played perfectly.
I could use your same bull**** arguments and say: "OK then lets play 100 vs 100 because so much epic fun and amazing skill to coordinate all those players"
There is a clear reason I don't argue for 1vs1 and that is because 8vs8 offers more in the way of team dynamics. You have to strike a balance and I put it at here for the moment, for our online competitions. It works well. My arguments are there simply to counter any of the null points being made in effort to increase it.
Anyway, like I said I'm not against the idea of bigger matches I just don't want to see a change in the competitive standard.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
