7v7 as the new 6v6

TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
Makes sense traditionally, logically
A recent larger-than-normal scrim between 420 and 156 got me thinking. Why do we do 6v6 competitive matches instead of 7v7? I know the original formula of 6v6 has long been an established and effective tradition across a wide range of games, but NS2's non-combat Commander roles create an upset to this standard form.

6-man squads can be easily split into teams of two or three without any leftovers, and the core concept of a CS 6v6 has always been in the amount of people fighting on the field. The 7v7 scrim we had with 156 felt a lot more organized, more professional, than any of the other matches we've scrimmed in as a group, and with even larger maps than Summit planned for release, I think we need a 7v7, the spiritual 6v6, more than ever.

What do you guys think? Could 7v7 become the new 6v6 for NS2?

        Once the infestation reaches the Command Chair, the process begins. One Gorge enters the chair to provide the necessary height. Another climbs on its shoulders to access the controls.

        A Gorge Lab is quickly established, staffed by microscopic Gorges who work tirelessly to unlock the secrets of Frontiersman Technology, stopping only to change their lab coats when they become dirtied. Once the research progresses to a certain point, the Gorgecom gives the order. Nanites are called into service.

        The armature forms. A chosen Gorge, tested many times in the field of battle, enters the machine.

        Servos whir; miniguns spin up in diagnostics; an Exogorge is born.

«1345

Comments

  • hunterwhunterw Join Date: 2011-04-26 Member: 95828Posts: 9Members
    I think map size alone is enough of a factor to consider 7v7 for competitive play. Maps like Mineshaft will get very lonely with 1 comm and 5 players per team.
  • -[420]-Papageorgio-[420]-Papageorgio Join Date: 2011-09-23 Member: 122961Posts: 59Members
    +1 to this. We had an amazing 7v7 game and it seemed to be the perfect amount for summit. Tech pretty much covered all the bases of why it was so great having 7 players on each team.

    On bigger maps it might be necessary to add even more players.
    Pimp not a gimp and I walk with a limp while I'm eatin shrimp
  • IronHorseIronHorse NS2 Playtesting Lead Former NS2 Playtest Lead Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 5,722Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester admin
    this is more than doable considering how much care has been taken to make sure the game is scale-able with player count (unlike ns1)
    7 vs 7 felt just right.
    +1
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • GadxGadx Join Date: 2003-03-22 Member: 14788Posts: 128Members, Constellation, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow
    Just did this in a scrim, was very fun!
    Rehevkor in game
  • RonarchRonarch Join Date: 2012-03-24 Member: 149332Posts: 15Members
    I give a thumb up to 7v7 , or even 8v8 official competitive game

    For non-offical game , to me, 24v24 gives the best NS experience

    Abundance of units (players) can offer better tactical / combat content of a game
  • ScardyBobScardyBob ScardyBob Join Date: 2009-11-25 Member: 69528Posts: 4,983Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow mod
    I think its very map dependent. 6v6 to 7v7 is good for tram, but that's going to be the smallest NS2 map. 7v7 to 8v8 on summit, while I wouldn't play less than 8v8 on mineshaft.

    Also, the reason that 6v6 became the default in NS1 was because that was the most balanced playercount numbers. Presumably, NS2 will be much more balanced over a wide range of playercounts such that we can do 7v7 or 8v8 (or 12v12).
  • invTempestinvTempest Join Date: 2003-03-02 Member: 14223Posts: 233Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
    I think the biggest issue is getting 7 on at the same time for a match / scrim. It is difficult enough to get 6 on at the same time which is pretty much the reason why NS1 and probably NS2 should stick with 6v6.
    CEO of NS2Servers.
    image
    Looking for a high quality, overclocked NS2 server capable of running 20+? Check out ns2servers.com for more info.
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited March 2012
    8v8 doesn't split evenly, though. The main point I'm trying to make is that having an odd numbered of players leads to an even number of combatants, which lets them group and ungroup dynamically in an easily identifiable manner.

    9v9 could work I guess, but the core of comp play has always been 6 fighters vs 6 fighters, or 7v7 with coms. Making team sizes map-specific also leads to issues with changing maps on the fly and maintaining different levels of readiness for different scrim environments.

    QUOTE (invTempest @ Mar 25 2012, 08:34 PM) »
    I think the biggest issue is getting 7 on at the same time for a match / scrim. It is difficult enough to get 6 on at the same time which is pretty much the reason why NS1 and probably NS2 should stick with 6v6.


    It's just one more person from 6v6, and if you make the times known in advance, you can pick something that works for both teams.
    Post edited by Unknown User on

            Once the infestation reaches the Command Chair, the process begins. One Gorge enters the chair to provide the necessary height. Another climbs on its shoulders to access the controls.

            A Gorge Lab is quickly established, staffed by microscopic Gorges who work tirelessly to unlock the secrets of Frontiersman Technology, stopping only to change their lab coats when they become dirtied. Once the research progresses to a certain point, the Gorgecom gives the order. Nanites are called into service.

            The armature forms. A chosen Gorge, tested many times in the field of battle, enters the machine.

            Servos whir; miniguns spin up in diagnostics; an Exogorge is born.

  • WilsonWilson Join Date: 2010-07-26 Member: 72867Posts: 1,397Members
    edited March 2012
    6v6 should be the standard imo. It's best to have a lower player count for a number of reasons. 1. It's easier to get 12 people than it is to get 14. 2. The less players you have the more individuals make a difference. Once you start going up in player numbers the skill of the individual players matters less as they can just be carrier by the rest of the team.

    That said, if you want to play 7v7 then have fun, I just don't think it should be the standard for ns2 matches.

    CS is 5v5 btw.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    In-game name: Wilson

    My Crosshair Pack: LINK
  • SkymanderXSkymanderX Green Marine - The Few, The Proud, The Green. Join Date: 2011-07-29 Member: 113006Posts: 430Members
    I really think it simply depends on the map, Summit and Tram are small enough to where doing a traditional 6v6 is probably best in competitive terms. (Summit does have room for 7v7 but i'm not sure if its best choice) Mineshaft however becomes very slowpaced and lonely with 5 marines fighting 5 aliens. I also think that even 7v7 isn't too great but of course better than 6v6. It really just depends on the map your playing on and what you expect to get out of a game. Tempest does have a good point though... but if the teams are competitive enough they'll both show up.
    image
  • Raza.Raza. Join Date: 2004-01-24 Member: 25663Posts: 711Members, Constellation
    Isn't the CS standard 5vs5? At least it was when I played it years ago.
    NS1 added 1 to that for the commander, making it 6vs6.
    So you see, what you propose has basically already happened.
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    Huh. Now I'm wondering why CS was always 5v5 instead of 6v6. How do you split up teams when you have an odd number of people? It seems like it makes organization much more difficult.

    The reason I thought 6v6 was the standard was because that's what I've seen done in TF2. My bad.

            Once the infestation reaches the Command Chair, the process begins. One Gorge enters the chair to provide the necessary height. Another climbs on its shoulders to access the controls.

            A Gorge Lab is quickly established, staffed by microscopic Gorges who work tirelessly to unlock the secrets of Frontiersman Technology, stopping only to change their lab coats when they become dirtied. Once the research progresses to a certain point, the Gorgecom gives the order. Nanites are called into service.

            The armature forms. A chosen Gorge, tested many times in the field of battle, enters the machine.

            Servos whir; miniguns spin up in diagnostics; an Exogorge is born.

  • HughHugh Cameraman San Francisco, CA Join Date: 2010-04-18 Member: 71444Posts: 1,552Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Silver, Reinforced - Onos, WC 2013 - Shadow, Subnautica Developer admin
    I'm a big fan of 7v7's. There is a really noticeable jump in intensity. I guess it is a 20% increase in concentration of players in combat. Many teams seem to have subs, so 7v7s could be a great way to get more people in.

    14 players is definitely easy on servers now as well. We're making the PAX booth 7v7.
    The fastest way to contact me is via @hugh_jeremy on Twitter! Add me on Steam: Strayan.
    You can also reach me at hugh@unknownworlds.com, responses might be slow sometimes! I do not check forum PMs.
    Keep up to date on what is going on with: Unknown Worlds | Natural Selection 2 | Subnautica
    My fanboy channel is Natural Selection 2 HD - I regularly play NS2 there. My personal blog is gameaperture.com, where I muse about mostly video game related stuff.
    Chat with the UWE team: Charlie | Max | Brian 1 | Cory | Brian A | Dushan | Lukas | Steve
  • invTempestinvTempest Join Date: 2003-03-02 Member: 14223Posts: 233Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 25 2012, 09:36 PM) »
    It's just one more person from 6v6, and if you make the times known in advance, you can pick something that works for both teams.


    1 more person for both teams. It takes long enough as it is just to get 12 players on at the same time for a scrim, now add 2 more players to that and you will be waiting even longer to start the round.


    QUOTE (SkymanderX @ Mar 25 2012, 09:49 PM) »
    I really think it simply depends on the map, Summit and Tram are small enough to where doing a traditional 6v6 is probably best in competitive terms. (Summit does have room for 7v7 but i'm not sure if its best choice) Mineshaft however becomes very slowpaced and lonely with 5 marines fighting 5 aliens. I also think that even 7v7 isn't too great but of course better than 6v6. It really just depends on the map your playing on and what you expect to get out of a game. Tempest does have a good point though... but if the teams are competitive enough they'll both show up.


    I'm not sure I have ever had a match/scrim in NS1/NS2 that ever started on time. No one is ever ready at the agreed upon time because someone always forgets or has something to take care of and they will be back in 15 minutes but it turns out to be 30-40.

    Adding another player to that for both teams will jump make it even harder and delay the start of the round another 10-20 minutes. Nothing worse than jumping around like a moron for 40 minutes waiting for all 12 players to join up and be ready.

    Keep it 6v6 standard - If people want to play 7v7 they can start their own leagues but the average scrim/pug/gather should be 6v6.
    CEO of NS2Servers.
    image
    Looking for a high quality, overclocked NS2 server capable of running 20+? Check out ns2servers.com for more info.
  • fanaticfanatic This post has been edited. Join Date: 2003-07-23 Member: 18377Posts: 1,723Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
    edited March 2012
    This is a textbook example of "change for the sake of change".

    6v6 is a tried and true standard and the cons greatly outweigh the pros for changing it to 7v7. End of.

    Of course it doesn't make sense to play 6v6 on maps that are too small or too big to support that playercount, but there aren't really any of those in the game at the moment. Even the mentioned mineshaft is a very small map compared to games made for higher playercounts, such as the Battlefield series. If too small/big maps are released, they'll only get played in novelty leagues anyway.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    I would like to point out that this isn't "for the sake of change". It's because 6 is evenly divisible by a multitude of numbers, while 5 and 7 are primes and are thus harder to split.

            Once the infestation reaches the Command Chair, the process begins. One Gorge enters the chair to provide the necessary height. Another climbs on its shoulders to access the controls.

            A Gorge Lab is quickly established, staffed by microscopic Gorges who work tirelessly to unlock the secrets of Frontiersman Technology, stopping only to change their lab coats when they become dirtied. Once the research progresses to a certain point, the Gorgecom gives the order. Nanites are called into service.

            The armature forms. A chosen Gorge, tested many times in the field of battle, enters the machine.

            Servos whir; miniguns spin up in diagnostics; an Exogorge is born.

  • IronHorseIronHorse NS2 Playtesting Lead Former NS2 Playtest Lead Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 5,722Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester admin
    QUOTE (fanatic @ Mar 25 2012, 07:39 PM) »
    6v6 is a tried and true standard and the cons greatly outweigh the pros for changing it to 7v7.


    and those would be?...

    as Tech already stated a good argument, i'd like to hear the argument against it, other than fear of change or begging the question.
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Feb 3 2012, 10:47 AM) »
    Every time you ask for troubleshooting without providing system info, ATI adds a rendering bug for an upcoming game.

    When you feel you need to be rude or angry about a game, just read these links and remember what role you are playing:
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Online_disinhibition_effect
    http://www.eldergame.com/2008/06/taming-the-forum-tiger/
  • EvilKoaLaEvilKoaLa Join Date: 2012-03-24 Member: 149331Posts: 18Members
    QUOTE
    Huh. Now I'm wondering why CS was always 5v5 instead of 6v6. How do you split up teams when you have an odd number of people? It seems like it makes organization much more difficult.


    On CS old times, it was simple :
    There's always 3 way to get to a point.
    So you split the team by 3 : 2 + 2 + 1.
    The last guy was clearly in a central position, being able to move to help one of the other group : A sniper, a watcher, a strater or something.
    Now it's just control map.

    Gathering a lot of people at the time can be sometimes hard, but we did it before :
    We used to play at 8v8 on Team Fortress Classic, in clanstyle ( standard competitive gameplay ). Sometimes, according to the map ( not the size of it, but the configuration of it ), we just went to 9v9 ( 1 more player in defense ).
    It was just a matter of having fun : If the map gives too much possibility or too few with a certain amount of players, you need to change it or forget this map forever.

    For exemple, in our case, we were 9v9 on "openfire_l" :
    4 guys in defense was'nt enough to take care of 4 guys attacking, there were too many way to steal the flag.
    But, 5 guys in defense and 3 in attack was annoying : 3 guys in attack could not get the flag, and the game just went boring.
    So, when we had some more guys around, we just went to 9v9.

    It worked well, but of course, it was rare to get 18 players + the server to host it ( 20 slots for TV + Admin ).

    Not trying to prove anything, just giving you hints about what I saw before
  • swalkswalk Say hello to my little friend. Join Date: 2011-01-20 Member: 78384Posts: 1,864Members, Squad Five Blue
    -1
    First of all, CS is not being played 6v6, it's played 5v5.
    Both teams have a commander in NS2, add an extra player.
    *PUFF* now you have the perfect number for NS2, 6v6.
    It's easy to organize, and fits well with the gameplay.
    I don't see any good reason to change that.

    NS2 6v6 Gathers
    QUOTE (Floodinator @ Feb 28 2012, 08:41 PM) »
    it's always a good idea to kill swalk or he will kill you.
  • GrissiGrissi Join Date: 2003-08-28 Member: 20314Posts: 450Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    6v6 is already a fine number and is working well, I don't see any reason to change it to 7v7.

    You guys have to consider that keeping a team with 6 members active can already be a lot of work. Adding another will make it more difficult to keep a active team together.
    It's not unusual for gamers to stop playing since things that happen in their life have priority over the game(they don't get paid). I think it's a bad idea to increase the player number without a good reason. The current maps are not that big and playing them 6v6 is working very well.
    There is no competitive balance or casual players balance. The game is either balanced or not balanced.
    It's the same game after all.


    NS2 gameplay thoughts
    NS1 competitive play


    All my posts are my personal view, I do not speak for a community or anyone else.
  • SewlekSewlek The programmer previously known as Schimmel Join Date: 2003-05-13 Member: 16247Posts: 2,302Members, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester
    im fine with 6v6, but im also interested in watching / playing 7v7 due to the intensity increase. but i also enjoyed 16v16 in ns1 public games, so not sure how valid my opinion is on this :D
  • sebusebu Join Date: 2011-09-21 Member: 122375Posts: 67Members
    For the current game desing, i think 7v7 would be better than standard 6v6. Even though i havent played competitive ns2 yet, because of freezing, but i just cannot see combat getting too interesting on 6v6 (5 field players each). It coul be very boring to watch as spectator.

    And i think the map sizes are too widely spread. 6v6 on mineshaft would be VERY painful to watch as spectator, because so much spooning would be going on. If the "flow" stays where it is, i'd support 7v7 more than 6v6.

    It can definately be little harder to keep them active, but thats where the mercs could shine. And 1 guy wouldn make big difference. Its matter of motivation and the "vibe" inside the team that keeps it going.

    so +1 for me
  • ogzogz Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9765Posts: 646Members
  • duxdux Tea Lady Join Date: 2003-12-14 Member: 24371Posts: 596Members, NS2 Developer
    QUOTE (sebu @ Mar 26 2012, 12:51 PM) »
    For the current game desing, i think 7v7 would be better than standard 6v6. Even though i havent played competitive ns2 yet


    Well, you might as well stop right there :)

    I'm for the 6 v 6 crowd myself, mineshaft always felt like a more public map to me. Like bast or nothing.
  • SkieSkie Skulk Progenitor Join Date: 2003-10-18 Member: 21766Posts: 656Members, NS2 Playtester, Reinforced - Shadow
    Ah, the good old days of Action Quake2 where we'd play always with as many players as possible. Well, often it was in the range of 6vs6-8vs8, but we had up to 12vs12 once.

    Dystopia was always 6vs6, as was NS1.

    Personally I'd enjoy seeing scrims with some other player amount than 6vs6.
  • Tool8Tool8 Join Date: 2012-01-01 Member: 139405Posts: 110Members
    QUOTE (Sewlek @ Mar 26 2012, 12:46 PM) »
    im fine with 6v6, but im also interested in watching / playing 7v7 due to the intensity increase. but i also enjoyed 16v16 in ns1 public games, so not sure how valid my opinion is on this :D


    Exactly what I thought.

    But I don't understand why people take Counterstrike as a basis for player counts. Even if Counterstrike's standard is 5v5: there is no mechanic in CS that keeps players away from the action like building/gestating in NS does. In CS there is no need to protect your base or anything, just instant action -> next round.
  • EvilKoaLaEvilKoaLa Join Date: 2012-03-24 Member: 149331Posts: 18Members
    As an esport shoutcaster ( in France ), I'll just say that 6v6 is ok in gameplay, but it clearly might be not enough for spectators on larger maps.

    But as someone said before, we may give it a try, but we may see later how the game grows up : new dynamics, new maps, etc, it really depends on it too
  • Death_by_bulletsDeath_by_bullets Join Date: 2004-03-14 Member: 27336Posts: 139Members
    We played many a 7v7 scrims in NS1 back about 6 or 7 years ago during the height of the NS competitive scene. It wasn't all too uncommon. The 8v8 however was too large.

    The important factor to remember here is of course that NS2 is a completely different game. That isn't to say the same formula can be used from NS1, but the 7v7 idea sounds great especially with the implementation of an Alien Commander.

    P.S. Holy ###### just realized how old I am...
    `natural erection
    Phillip the Server
  • SmaugSmaug Join Date: 2011-05-23 Member: 100283Posts: 138Members
    edited March 2012
    QUOTE (Skie @ Mar 26 2012, 02:09 PM) »
    Dystopia was always 6vs6, as was NS1.


    As a point of interest, competitive dystopia changed to 5v5 a few years back (shortly after TCF stopped competing, actually) - I believe it was originally 6v6 because Urinal Cake started the dystopia global league, and from what I remember he was a huge fan of NS1, so he probably took the format from there, not realizing they added +1 due to the reasons stated above :P

    Edit: And to weigh in on the topic at hand, I honestly believe it should remain as a 6v6, I have enough trouble just getting 5!
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • GrissiGrissi Join Date: 2003-08-28 Member: 20314Posts: 450Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    QUOTE (Smaug @ Mar 26 2012, 10:00 AM) »
    As a point of interest, competitive dystopia changed to 5v5 a few years back (shortly after TCF stopped competing, actually) - I believe it was originally 6v6 because Urinal Cake started the dystopia global league, and from what I remember he was a huge fan of NS1, so he probably took the format from there, not realizing they added +1 due to the reasons stated above :P

    Edit: And to weigh in on the topic at hand, I honestly believe it should remain as a 6v6, I have enough trouble just getting 5!

    It was very common in ns1 for teams to have 1 merc. There seemed always be a problem to get the 6th player. It's important to try to keep the teams as small as possible but at the same time have it optimal.
    If it turns out that we need to increase the number to 7v7 I will support that idea. But currently 6v6 is working very well without any problems.

    Most teams already have to have +4-6 extra players to be able to be active. Just adding one more player will force them to add even more players to their pool. You want to keep your team as small as possible to have always the same players playing with each other. This improves their coordination and makes them play better together. So we should be careful going into this change.

    Action will pick up as teams get better. I do like how much each individual player matters in 6v6 and the need to use them to their full potencial. Also when players start to play more you will start noticing more of the tactical play.
    There is no competitive balance or casual players balance. The game is either balanced or not balanced.
    It's the same game after all.


    NS2 gameplay thoughts
    NS1 competitive play


    All my posts are my personal view, I do not speak for a community or anyone else.
«1345
Sign In or Register to comment.