Search results for query: *

Team name: The People's Triumvirate
Location: Europe
Captain: PeterAvastrat
Banner/logo: TBC
Players:

Yeah I've been forwarding the RTC to as many people as possible. Managed to get Berta and RawnRawn to make groups. Greed, Purzel and Volcom are considering.

You're assuming that it is shallow because it takes away factors. I repeat. It isn't better or worse... It is different. It adds different ones. For instance 2 archers or 1? This requires sacrifice, whereas 8v8 requires little.

This is no more tangibly shallow. It is just different.

And why is it a good thing that one is not able to keep track of everything? In most of the best games around the world the key is that you can and because of that when a mistake is made it is your fault and therefore increasing the potential for skillful play to be noticed. Again Chess, Boxing and a multitude of other sports come to mind.

I'm not trying to say 8v8 is wrong or bad but please stop using the tactical depth argument xD Perhaps you prefer the tactical difference but that's another kettle of fish and once again dealing in opinions that simply don't continue the discussion any further!

+1 Watly/Greed

My point, Ron, is that difficulty and potential rewards are no better for 8v8 but simply down to perspective.

The numbers you're dealing with are so vast to make any real difference.

Both is high level play and if 5v5 continues to encourage tactical play AND inclusive play then all the better!

But again... Let's see what the community nurtures!

I get you Ron. It seems logical as you're suggesting more is more. However where does this logic stop? Why shouldn't we then go to 12v12 - 100v100.

There would be more compositions but numbers are irrelevant, it is how you apply them. Look at Chess. There's a finite number of pieces and places to move and yet an almost incalculable amount of potential outcomes. Boxing to, there's only about 6 main moves in Boxing and yet somehow it has entertained for over a century.

The comparison between 5v5 and 8v8 tactical depth is meaningless because it isn't quanitifiable, at least by us.

There are still so many outcomes and possibilities that simply having "more" possibilities is entirely unnecessary.

It's like living in a caravan and saying £1,000,000,000 is better than £1,000,000. You're never going to need either amount for what you're living with.

If 5v5 opens up the game to more teams, people and commitment then I see that as a good thing. The more people, the less teams can form, the harder it will be to find people who are committing, the harder trainings will be to set up...

I wouldn't argue that 8v8 or 5v5 are any better than another. In my eyes 5v5 is a wee bit more feasible in terms of community potential due to player input. Though this is irrelevant and doesn't make it "better", only different.

What matters is what we do as a community for the future. Whether whoever makes the tournament makes it 5v5 or 8v8.

Aeronwen said:

Maintaining what makes Warband a great game to play is more likely to make it a success than losing it's integrity trying to fit it into the mould of very different games.

Click to expand...

I think the issue with this debate is how we define these things.

Take your "success" for instance.

Is success defined as Warband becoming an esport? Or simply surviving longer in the state we want it to be in?

A problem with trying to make it survive for longer, for instance, is that we seem to all not know what makes Warband great let alone what we "want" out of it.

We're all dabbling in the subjective and sadly no-one can break an opinion.

Lust also said this earlier in the chat: How do we quantify "tactical-depth", among other things. The idea of the esport being generally 5v5 seems a fair assessment to make based on what seems to be evidence but, as you pointed out Aeronwen, it is entirely irrelevant as those games are so different.

Thus we're all failing to define anything meanwhile debating about a completely subjective point of view. Further discussion can't really lead us anywhere.

What we should then do is allow the doers (tournament organisers and team leaders) to create the demand and the supply will follow suit. This will simply work the game to its natural state. If not us allowing the doer then us becoming a doer. If you're not advocating and supporting 8v8 directly then you have no right to complain about the scene as it changes and same goes for 5v5.

If tournament organisers make 8v8 games and team leaders make 8v8 teams then that will be what happens. If it doesn't become an esport... Then so be it (though I'll be sad admittedly).

From what I can see, after BoB, I believe it likely we'll see an increase in 5v5 tournaments but, as you say, this isn't the end of 8v8.

Though perhaps I'm wrong, only time and the ones who actually do anything about it can make the change.

+1 Firunien

Also Greed is right about the business concept to.


--------- Opinions ------------

Personally I enjoy 8v8 but I do enjoy 5v5 more admittedly, at this point. People say it has "less depth" but as Lust stated earlier it simply changes, numbers mean nothing. For instance you can choose cross-fire or cavalry dominance. I was also surprised to see the effectiveness of 3 inf, 1 archer, 1 cavalry.

Teams often co-ordinate far better and it CAN be far more rewarding for each team. Every player counts. Though the same can be said of 8v8 I just find the success/enjoyment rate for myself is higher with 5v5.

----------------------------------


I am aware that the reason we see same faces is because of it being small. Though interestingly the game isn't all THAT small but the Native Multiplayer component is. A solution to this problem has occurred to me but it is far too broad and alpha an idea meanwhile being irrelevant to this forum discussion. Most PC gamers have either heard of or played the game but mostly either singleplayer or if they did Multi it was NW and if not then it would have been casual deathmatch.

Sure there was something else to be said but luckily for you lot... I've forgotten!! 

Really fantastic discussion, for 10 pages of debate it's been really positive.

Watly, Yona, Tardet and Lust I'm in agreement with mostly however everyone has made some or many great contributions.

Admittedly the idea of esports is incredibly appealling but losing the community feel to MatchMaking could happen and would be sad. The two reasons that kept me here were the incredibly skill-based and punishing play but most of all... The faces. It's the only game I can meet the same people more than twice by accident. How we know who we are fighting not even by name but by shield/face/playstyle.

There are, though, plenty of logical arguments for FT3 over BO4. Playing for maps is great, but do it via FT3. Faction advantage can play far too heavily in BO4. Nords vs Sarra on Sandi, whoever has Nords is bound to win 4/0 or 3/1... This means 1 or 2 rounds won by that team makes for an easy win. Punishing for all the wrong reasons.

Great to see a real heart-felt discussion on the future of Warband!