Totally important and utterly decisive poll about team-sizes

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

  • 5 vs 5

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 6 vs 6

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • 7 vs 7

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 8 vs 8

    Votes: 27 25.2%
  • 9 vs 9

    Votes: 1 0.9%
  • 10 vs 10

    Votes: 50 46.7%
  • 11 vs 11

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 12 vs 12

    Votes: 7 6.5%
  • 13 vs 13

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 14 vs 14

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 15 vs 15

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 16 vs 16

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 17 vs 17

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 18 vs 18

    Votes: 2 1.9%
  • 19 vs 19

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • 20 vs 20

    Votes: 5 4.7%
  • I don't care

    Votes: 6 5.6%

  • Total voters
    107
  • Poll closed .
Status
Not open for further replies.

Hs_Salim

Master Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Archivarius Rhae said:
There was never a legitimate reason to change from 10vs10 in the first place.
That's not really an helpful argument. Just pointless.

One reason:

Einherjar for example can join the Competition again.

You say there are no reasons for the change from 10vs.10 to 8vs.8. I think it's one of the best reasons that more clans/teams can participate with 8vs.8.

So what are legitimate reasons for changing it back to 10vs.10?
8vs.8 worked very well IMO

Btw: before the last ENl cycle I was against 8vs.8, but now I'm convinced that it is better.


 

Duken96

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
If I'm not wrong, Tura said me that when Einherjar had a match everytime they had 12/13 players who could play, so i think 10v10 wasn't a problem for them. Also, i didn't see lots of new clans in this ENL cycle, at the end most of the new clans who joined the cycle at the begin left after one or two match even it was 8v8.
 

Hs_Salim

Master Knight
WB
Best answers
0
corey43 said:
The only reason Einherjar re-entered the ENL was because the match size was lowered
But okay, it seems now einherjar could play 10vs. 10.

But bring some arguments why lust should change it back. You just say 10vs.10 is better...what is better?
 

Duken96

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
I think 10v10 is better because with more players you can use more tactics and those tactics can be more flexible, and if you lose a player in 8v8 is a bigger problem than in 10v10, so clans tend to camp to wait flags. That's what i saw during this cycle. If you want to play 8v8 because each player is more important than 10v10 or more, why you don't want 5v5?
 

Alex_C

Baron
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
Duken96 said:
Also, i didn't see lots of new clans in this ENL cycle, at the end most of the new clans who joined the cycle at the begin left after one or two match even it was 8v8.
AE's obviously an example of a clan which joined the ENL this cycle. Can't really be bothered to look up all the clans in it, but I'm fairly sure we weren't the only new clan there (especially in Division C).

Equally, it's not just a matter of new clans being able to form and join the ENL, but also a matter of retaining clans which were already participating.

Duken96 said:
I think 10v10 is better because with more players you can use more tactics and those tactics can be more flexible, and if you lose a player in 8v8 is a bigger problem than in 10v10, so clans tend to camp to wait flags. That's what i saw during this cycle. If you want to play 8v8 because each player is more important than 10v10 or more, why you don't want 5v5?
I don't really see how you can use more tactics with 10 v.s. 10. Possibly there are a few tactics which would be more viable given the two more players, but then I guess there are others which are less viable.

In my experience (which is obviously just as flawed as 'evidence' as yours or anyone else's), 8 v.s. 8 tends to encourage more aggressive tactics since both teams are less capable of making sure every strategic position is covered. Obviously for you most matches seem to be more defensive/campy. Possibly however that's more a facet of the types of tactics your clan tends to use rather than necessarily anything to do with player numbers.

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?
 

Duken96

Grandmaster Knight
WB
Best answers
0
Alex_C said:
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 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.

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
 

Hs_Salim

Master Knight
WB
Best answers
0
As alex said it, it's not only for new clans. Also older clans lose some player or some are inactiv, because a lot playing warband for years, and sometimes it can be a little bit boring.

Also I don't see why team play is more important in 10vs.10.

You must have a good team play and communication in 8vs.8 because you can have a huge disadvantage when you lose one or two players in a stupid solo action.
 

MaHuD

Section Moderator
WBM&BNWWF&SVC
Best answers
1
I voted 6 vs 6 but I wanted to vote 8 vs 8.
I would also support a much larger number, like 18.
But 10 or 12 no thanks.
 

kekn06ab

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Andrej1 said:
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!

Alex_C said:
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 :smile: 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.
 

Hs_Salim

Master Knight
WB
Best answers
0
kekn06ab said:
Andrej1 said:
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
M&BWBNW
Best answers
0
ModusTollens said:
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!
 

Alex_C

Baron
WBWF&S
Best answers
0
Duken96 said:
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.

Duken96 said:
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).

kekn06ab said:
Am I totally invisible? Guess it's easy to overlook the posts that actually bring an argument with it, haha!
Yeah, well:

Archivarius Rhae said:
There was never a legitimate reason to change from 10vs10 in the first place.
I guess it is.


kekn06ab said:
I know this part wasn't meant for me, but since I voted 10v10 as well, I might as well join the discussion :smile: 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?

kekn06ab said:
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
WB
Best answers
0
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.
 

kekn06ab

Knight at Arms
Best answers
0
Alex_C said:
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 :wink: 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.
 
Best answers
0
kekn06ab said:
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.
 

sotamursu123

On probation
WBNW
Best answers
0
Duken96 said:
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!


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