正在查看此主题的用户
- 状态
Having extensive experience of smaller and "larger" (10v10) battles, I can say that they're both enjoyable.
I don't think tactics are irrelevant in smaller matches, nor do I think the individual has no impact in larger matches.
I don't think tactics are irrelevant in smaller matches, nor do I think the individual has no impact in larger matches.
MadocComadrin 说:
I hear there's a reason professional FPS e-sports are played with 5v5's.
Probably because it has something to do with multiplayer competitions usually being aimed at, oh, you know, seeing which team is more skilled, and not which team has the most archers firing in the same direction.
Tactics are huge in small matches, so is individual skill; you just have less chances if you **** up. The only difference between large scrims and small ones are the fact that a critical mass of projectiles can be achieved, reducing the required accuracy (part of skill) to effectively and reliably kill enemies. Besides that, the tactics are the same, it's just easier to kill things. Sounds really ****ing fun -- if you're bad and need the skill ceiling to be lowered and diluted.
Then again, I guess that's why they release games with "easy," "normal," "hard," and "nightmare" modes; you seem like the kind of guy who likes to play through on easy and enjoy the storyline, dialogue, and all the pretty pictures, while players like myself will always take the hardest difficulty in search of an actual challenge and a desire to improve.
Ron Burgundy
I think both large and smaller scale scrims require skill, the strategies used are just completely different. The skills needed to effectively fight in a mass group of people generally requires some sacrifice by players in order to give their team an advantage, where as in small scale fights sacrifice is the last thing that should happen. If examples are needed I can provide them when I refer to sacrifice, but I'm pretty sure people know what I mean.
As for difficulty in games, I see how more skill means a higher difficulty for most; but I don't see why a player should be looked down upon for playing a lower setting. Obviously difficulty levels vary for games so this isn't always true, but generally I don't enjoy getting pissed off and frustrated in order to beat a game at the highest difficulty. For casual playing I tend to pick the above average, or sometimes average, difficulty in order to still have a challenge but not so much that I'll constantly have to retry to win. Like I said, some games have more challenging settings than others, but I fail to see why a player should be belittled for playing a game just for enjoyment. I have fun doing little competitions with my gaming friends on who can do the best on hardest difficulty, but I don't see why everything has to be about who is best.
Besides, I've seen players that play on average difficulty in games that are vastly better than those who play on the hardest difficulty, besting AI only goes so far in multiplayer (Mount and Blade singleplayer can attest to this).
As for difficulty in games, I see how more skill means a higher difficulty for most; but I don't see why a player should be looked down upon for playing a lower setting. Obviously difficulty levels vary for games so this isn't always true, but generally I don't enjoy getting pissed off and frustrated in order to beat a game at the highest difficulty. For casual playing I tend to pick the above average, or sometimes average, difficulty in order to still have a challenge but not so much that I'll constantly have to retry to win. Like I said, some games have more challenging settings than others, but I fail to see why a player should be belittled for playing a game just for enjoyment. I have fun doing little competitions with my gaming friends on who can do the best on hardest difficulty, but I don't see why everything has to be about who is best.
Besides, I've seen players that play on average difficulty in games that are vastly better than those who play on the hardest difficulty, besting AI only goes so far in multiplayer (Mount and Blade singleplayer can attest to this).
Yeah... probably the skill thing. Might have something to do with a desire to encourage a greater number of teams, simpler multiplayer balancing, appropriation for LAN tournaments or convention from old games where that was all that was available...Rhade 说:
But I'm probably wrong. 5vs5 is obviously more skilled because of "critical projectile mass"
.
Outlawed
Sergeant Knight
Rhade 说:
While skill and 5/6 man tactics are one thing, claiming that leading and successfully having a larger scrim is 'easy' cannot be further from the truth. While I understand your, less people more individual skill and less spam, argument, I disagree with how your portray a larger fight.
In a larger scrim, something that you cannot claim to have been part of regularly (14-14 scrims for example), the scrim becomes more about tactical maneuvering and class build up than anything. Saying its less challenging is just simply NOT right. While the general skill level of the players WILL go down, simply due to the fact that no NA clan has 14 top players, the scrim will outweigh individual skill with teamwork. If you really think its all archer spam, then you are greatly mistaken. You should come spec one of our larger scrims.
My perfect example for this, and no offense intended whatsoever here, is Wappaw. Several people were like, 'OMFG, Wappaw beat you in a scrim?!?!!?11'. And honestly, I don't understand the surprise. Give me Wappaw's 3 best duelists and I'll guarantee our best will beat them. Give me Wappaw's top 6, and I'll guarantee we will match and beat them as well. But Wappaw uses the whole argument of teamwork over individual skill perfectly. You cannot play like they do in those 14 man scrims in a 6v6. Its just a whole different game mode, as far as I am concerned.
In a small scrim, 6v6 or 5v5, you don't really have much of a surprise element. The fighting is usually very clear and distinct and it becomes a tug of war between the two sides and a race to see who can pick off/kill enemies faster and be more efficient with time/energy/movements. Larger scrims require one person to be able to effectively command 14. It requires 14 people to work together (and Wappaw does this excellently with their groups of 3-5 that work like individual players would on 6 man team) and be able to balance out their weaknesses and cover each other well. i.e. Larger scrims are more about being efficient communicators and team members than being good fighters. That in its own is a very enjoyable part of the game. Being able to work as a team of 14, knowing its not easy, and coming out on top against 14 others.
endofday; Larger scrims aren't as easy and spam oriented as you say they are. Events on the other hand, are.
This is an FPS? No, it's not.Rhade 说:
You really make no arguments here about competitive play, only archers.
Map balance can really change that around. Aside from that, there's a difference between individual skill and influence. Even in larger teams, the players with better individual skill should come out on top unless they royally screw up; however, it's the class logistics that come more into play in larger battles. I'm not saying what you're saying is false: too many players screws with the game mechanics; however, I simply believe 5v5/6v6 is on the opposite end of the spectrum. In addition, a larger scrim can become a set of local subscrims: there is a balance between the local situations and influences compared to the overall map. Likewise, in 9v9-12v12's, screwing up once can still screw you the rest of the way: it's all about local v. global. If a single death occurs in a cluster**** (which doesn't happen as often as you think), there really isn't too much of a problem: the losing side still has about the same thickness. If that death happens in a local situation, it could lead to 3-4 more deaths, causing a local victory and really upsetting the remaining play.
Really, the only way to determine the best match size is to statistically analyze a crapload of matches of different sizes and analyze the influences within them. You, on the other hand, are insistent on small numbers and are therefore a scientific liability.
So, you wanna play armchair psychologist? Be my guest, but don't be surprised when the tables are turned. Let me first correct you by saying I'm a thrill of the fight type of person: I don't care as much about winning as I do the rush. However, this is all easily spoiled by douchebags such as yourself--sportsmanship keeps the thrill; **** talking spoils the mood.
Also, hardest difficulty? Says the man who didn't play at the "hardest" in the game he so often quotes. XD Really, all you go after is what makes yourself feel mighty--you don't take risks. You don't look for the challenge: you only make it look like you do. It doesn't matter that you're quite skilled at this game: it's inside your comfort zone. I, on the other hand, do try to get better, but as I said, the mood is spoiled: the competitive scene lacks the sportsmanship of something worth the fight--or even picking up the game at all as of late.
Ron Burgundy
Addressing the issue of "skill" I think there is a little too much asshatery regarding abilities in the community. I don't see how we can expect the community to grow, even with steam sales, when half the time a new player screws up or accidentally tks a veteran harassing him saying, "****ING IDIOT NOOB GTFO" (along those lines). We really need to be more accommodating to newer players if we want to see a larger community competitively and just in general. I realize it is quite frustrating but take your anger out in vent or something else, everyone has to start somewhere. I know when I started there was a fair bit of drama between some clans or players, but I had been in other gaming communities and was used to it. A new gamer probably won't take too much douchbagery towards him or her self before they give up.
Key point, good players need to stop being assholes to teh noobs. If you are the better player it is probably more than obvious; hence does not need to be stated.
Key point, good players need to stop being assholes to teh noobs. If you are the better player it is probably more than obvious; hence does not need to be stated.
Fixed that for you.Ron Burgundy 说:
ZeEpicGirl
Wtf? Why have I been subbed out?
- 状态
