7v7 as the new 6v6

245

Comments

  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited March 2012
    Going through this thread, reading everyone's responses, I see a lot of good points for both sides. Traditionally, 6v6 makes a lot more sense. Less players means less work, and let's face it, we're used to 6v6; there's value in that we shouldn't underestimate. 7v7 is a lot newer, but it's also more intense, and allows for non-prime combatant counts. It gives spectators a good show too, for what that's worth. That being said. Everything is in beta right now! The game is changing, our playstyles are changing, and I see no reason why our formats can't be open as well. To that end, I propose the following.

    Consider giving 7v7 a chance. Try it out and see if you like it. Some people might not have enough players, and some might not want to play 7v7; there's nothing wrong with either, and this doesn't have to influence normal 6v6 for anyone who doesn't want it to. That being said, I'd sure like to play some 7v7 with a lot of you, and while I can't speak for 420 in an official capacity, I believe that a lot of us would be interested in it too. Both sizes have their advantages, and I think both of them deserve a chance.
    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.

  • DuskDusk Join Date: 2011-06-24 Member: 106114Posts: 151Members, Constellation
    7v7 wouldn't be bad. My only hesitation on it is that I've never had a match start on time. There are always delays and waiting on those 2 extra players will cause a problem.
  • KhyronKhyron Join Date: 2012-02-02 Member: 143308Posts: 493Members
    I preferred 7 marines right back to NS1 when I used to command often. 7 players actually creates some great options.
    2 squads of 3
    Early game running each way out of the base to capture nearest ressource points. A third marine is a geometric increase in firepower and survivability.

    3 squads of 2
    Mid game squads to protect infrastructure and make probing attacks

    4 assault, 2 recon
    Assault team pressures a hive, recon team builds up rt and protects against raids

    5 in heavy assault squad + a ninja
    For all sorts of shenanigans

    Take just one marine away and it seems to fold like wet cardboard. As cmdr, I feel like a 6 man team reduces you to blob wars.
    Spending more time on the forums than in the game. Since build 209.
    Team + local voice communication
  • DuskDusk Join Date: 2011-06-24 Member: 106114Posts: 151Members, Constellation
    is 8v8 the new 7v7? The game can run with 18 players now. That leaves room for 2 casters.
  • LV426-ColonistLV426-Colonist Space Jockey Join Date: 2011-08-05 Member: 114269Posts: 678Members, Constellation
    edited March 2012
    QUOTE (Grissi @ Mar 26 2012, 05:10 AM) »
    6v6 is already a fine number and is working well, I don't see any reason to change it to 7v7.


    True statement.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    LV426-Colonist
  • PersianImm0rtalPersianImm0rtal Join Date: 2010-12-02 Member: 75414Posts: 631Members, Constellation, NS2 Map Tester
    I like 7v7 better as well. it just seems better.
  • 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
    QUOTE (Dusk @ Mar 26 2012, 10:56 AM) »
    7v7 wouldn't be bad. My only hesitation on it is that I've never had a match start on time. There are always delays and waiting on those 2 extra players will cause a problem.

    This is a problem with organization rather than player numbers. You can have a 1v1 start an hour late as much as a 16v16 start on time. We put up with it when casually scrimming because we all just want to have a fun game, even if it starts late. In a proper tournament, the solution is if a team doesn't have enough players by the set time (or after a short grace period), its a forfeit.

    My view is that NS2 is simply a better game with more players in the field and, as such, we should try to have as large as competitive matches as we can reasonable organize. I think it would be a shame if we restricted it to 6v6 because that's always how its been done.
  • TremanNTremanN Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Posts: 96Members
    More players is more fun. More action for everyone. I remember doing 9vs9 and 10vs10 in TFC/Q3F, it's not as hard as you think to get that many players together. If the balance works out, the more players the better(on certain maps).
  • sebusebu Join Date: 2011-09-21 Member: 122375Posts: 69Members
    QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Mar 26 2012, 07:38 PM) »
    This is a problem with organization rather than player numbers. You can have a 1v1 start an hour late as much as a 16v16 start on time. We put up with it when casually scrimming because we all just want to have a fun game, even if it starts late. In a proper tournament, the solution is if a team doesn't have enough players by the set time (or after a short grace period), its a forfeit.

    My view is that NS2 is simply a better game with more players in the field and, as such, we should try to have as large as competitive matches as we can reasonable organize. I think it would be a shame if we restricted it to 6v6 because that's always how its been done.


    Yeah, I dont get it either how does the 1 more player effect anything? 6v6 7v7 its the same trouble to organize.
  • BacillusBacillus Join Date: 2006-11-02 Member: 58241Posts: 2,700Members
    edited March 2012
    The one thing I could maybe appreciate is more ways to spread out map control as marines - assuming the gameplay itself allows complex and variable map control methods and map flow to develop.

    Then again 7v7 is more mess to organize, requires an extra dedicated person for every team, puts more stress to servers, makes things more spammy, gets voice communications more crowded and so on. In general it's a step away from many things that competetive play is meant to emphasize and offer. I don't think I've seen a single 7v7 competetive game either - most stop at 5v5, some possibly extend it to 6v6.

    I don't mind if people set up huge gathers or such, but for the main competetive play format 6v6 is already a pretty demanding requirement and is starting to approach the point where it may hinder some of the competetive characteristics. I don't think it's a good idea to go there just because it may allow some more ways to spread out early game. You'll need much more substantial reasoning to go for such format.

    QUOTE (sebu @ Mar 27 2012, 11:08 AM) »
    Yeah, I dont get it either how does the 1 more player effect anything? 6v6 7v7 its the same trouble to organize.

    We are not talking about just having a bunch of random guys from a group of 20 playing together occassionally. Most higher end NS1 competetive teams had 2-3 extra players at the very max (at high lvl CS one reserve player is the max as far as I know) and the less variation there is in the lineup, the better. Obviously there isn't any kind of magical mystery playercount where it gets overwhelmingly difficult to maintain consistent lineup, but it certainly is often difficult enough in 6v6 and adding an extra player adds up to that challenge.

    I don't want to say 7v7 is an absolute impossibility, but it once again boils down to that adding an extra player is more trouble than what the little possible little gains it might give.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    edited March 2012
    I imagine playing 7v7 is a lot of fun. Generally the more players you have the more fun a game is, the more crazy stuff you can do.

    However, there are several forces acting on 'optimum team size' for any competitive game outside of the gameplay itself:

    • Spectator value. Too many players and it's a convoluted mess, too little and it's too boring. Also, ease of picking what to look at, whose view, etc. for shoutcasters. The more players you have, the more difficult it is to predict who will be pulling off wow moments. Custom spectator UIs providing more information do help here. My experience with team FPS games is that even at 5v5 you get a lot of downtime/missed moments. This point also ties in with...
    • Individual player value (in-game). The more players there are on a team the less each individual matters. You run the risk of players feeling like just another cog in the machine. It isn't very conducive to spurring on players to become 'the best'. It's also boring to watch because you don't have an easy focal point to get excited over and it can become very difficult to determine why an engagement ended the way it did.
    • Individual player value (out of game). Competitive games draw in new players/grow in prestige as their competitive prize pots grow. The prizes offered need to break the threshold of cost of travel and etc. In 1v1 games a top prize of $500 is good, in a 6v6 that suddenly becomes ~$85 each. The lower the number of players the better.
    • Community size. Similar to the last point, a small community can only support so many teams. It's basic logistics. A community of 500 players can obviously support more teams if the game is played 6v6 than 7v7. You need as much atomisation as possible to create the smooth ladder of low skilled to high skilled teams. If players have to congregate together into fewer teams you get less games played overall and less incentive for players to practice because of the difference in skill between two opponents. Also, nobody enjoys carrying 'dead weight' players just to get a game going (in competitive play, not organised play). If progression counts as going from playing a team you beat every game to playing one that just destroys you every game then the system is broken. We're all still here to have fun, after all. (iirc...)
    • Ease of organisation. As mentioned, getting people together at the right time is a massive pain in the arse. It really depends on the size of the community: at its peak, NS1 was fine to play without getting in random friends but you would often still wait ~20-40 minutes to begin. As community size dwindled it became more and more necessary to sub in friends just to get a game going. Now every game is just a gather.


    Edit:

    I guess my conclusion is that there are more than just organisational issues with larger game sizes. They're OK for 'organised play' but become more and more unfeasible for 'competitive play'. Especially in a community largely limited by player count like NS.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • ArgathorArgathor Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Posts: 682Members, Squad Five Blue
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 26 2012, 03:55 AM) »
    It's because 6 is evenly divisible by a multitude of numbers, while 5 and 7 are primes and are thus harder to split.

    I find the general topic slightly interesting, but personally do not believe it is the right choice at the moment. Id imagine this hasn't come up before as it has only been recently servers could reliably managing 14 players (and that is still disputable too).

    I would however like you question the above statement, how exactly does the number of players being evenly divisible effect anything, except for number freaks who get uncomfortable around prime numbers and the number 2?

    There is nothing wrong with having lone marines, groups of 2, etc. This is what increases the importance of the play and gives more cliff hanger gameplay moments.
    Arga | ns2hub.com
    "Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited March 2012
    Well I find that having evenly divisible teams makes sudden in-field reorganization a lot easier. With teams of 5 I generally see more organic, disorganized movement around the map; teams either mass up and attack as a clump or diffuse into the map based on where each individual team member thinks help is needed. With teams of 6, I've seen instantly splitting and recombining squads with consistent membership and identity across the entire game, as well as an increased map/ally awareness from their members.

    The nice thing about all of it is that it frees the Com up from micromanaging the particular task of every marine at once, leaving him more time to focus on overall strategy and build orders.
    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.

  • ArgathorArgathor Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Posts: 682Members, Squad Five Blue
    edited March 2012
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 27 2012, 05:03 PM) »
    Well I find that having evenly divisible teams makes sudden in-field reorganization a lot easier. With teams of 5 I generally see more organic, disorganized movement around the map; teams either mass up and attack as a clump or diffuse into the map based on where each individual team member thinks help is needed. With teams of 6, I've seen instantly splitting and recombining squads with consistent membership and identity across the entire game, as well as an increased map/ally awareness from their members.

    The nice thing about all of it is that it frees the Com up from micromanaging the particular task of every marine at once, leaving him more time to focus on overall strategy and build orders.

    What exactly are you classing as organised/disorganised? Organisation has very little to do with the number of players involved in NS2 (there are never enough players in competitive teams to create disorganisation). If I am alone between Comp Lab and Flight Control defending RTs, does that somehow make me disorganised?

    It appears you appreciate mathematical beauty over the reality of the game. Flexibility (disorganisation) is a required and valuable aspect of competitive games. Having players that can group, split, defend, attack, scout, bait, etc, seamlessly shifting between any role needed is almost a requirement in competitive NS2 (unless you always play teams worse than yourself). This is in no way effected by whether or not the number of players you have in the field are evenly divisible, it is entirely dependant upon the skill/experience/awareness of your team members.

    edit: I think it is important to recognise that the current state of competitive matches in NS2 are nothing like they will eventually be. The current standard (both player skill and team strategy) is very low on the whole. Partially due to performance and partially due to the lack of time spent with a finalised game (as well as other things).
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Arga | ns2hub.com
    "Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
  • swalkswalk Say hello to my little friend. Join Date: 2011-01-20 Member: 78384Posts: 1,864Members, Squad Five Blue
    QUOTE (Argathor @ Mar 27 2012, 06:54 PM) »
    well written text

    Well said.

    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.
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    QUOTE (Argathor @ Mar 27 2012, 12:54 PM) »
    What exactly are you classing as organised/disorganised? Organisation has very little to do with the number of players involved in NS2 (there are never enough players in competitive teams to create disorganisation). If I am alone between Comp Lab and Flight Control defending RTs, does that somehow make me disorganised?...

    When I say organization, I mean your team's tactical cohesion and situational awareness. If you're alone between Comp and FC because nobody else will come to help you stop the enemy from expanding there, that's disorganized. If you're alone because your team has decided that it can not afford to let up pressure elsewhere, and that a lone marine should be sufficient to do the job, that's organized. Either way, the end result is one marine in one place, but between the two states there is a dramatic difference in things like how aware your teammates are of your actions, how ready or capable they will be to reinforce you if necessary, and how useful any intelligence you collect will be to the team as a whole.

    Flexibility does not imply, nor stem from, disorganization. One of the things I like about combatant teams of 6 is the ease with which they can be split and reassembled without losing their squad's identity. The mathematical "beauty" is merely a side-produce of the fact that evenly divisible numbers are easier to, well, divide.

    At the end of the day, these are all just my opinions. I feel like 7v7 is a much smoother experience, and I would be interested in playing any other teams that want to give it a shot. Nobody has to play anything different if they don't want to.

            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.

  • ArgathorArgathor Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Posts: 682Members, Squad Five Blue
    edited March 2012
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 27 2012, 07:50 PM) »
    ...

    I think perhaps we differ on a very basic point. I don't see anything at all wrong with a marine being alone. In some situations a marine being alone is the right thing, whether he is defending or scouting etc. Even with 6 field marines, we would still see solo marines performing jobs and squads with uneven numbers because the gameplay dictates how many players you need to perform an action not a pre-defined strategy.

    All any of us can do is share our own opinions. I think the topic was interesting, but I really do not see the value that more players bring to competitive matches. Definately there is no need to have even groups of marines all the time, infact it would be an incredibly limiting way of playing.

    While everyone is welcome to play matches with as many players as they like, I think it is slightly dangerous to change things without a strong ideal behind it. Change for changes sake is bad.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    Arga | ns2hub.com
    "Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    QUOTE (Argathor @ Mar 27 2012, 02:58 PM) »
    I think perhaps we differ on a very basic point. I don't see anything at all wrong with a marine being alone. In some situations a marine being alone is the right thing, whether he is defending or scouting etc. Even with 6 field marines, we would still see solo marines performing jobs.

    All any of us can do is share our own opinions. I think the topic was interesting, but I really do not see the value that more players bring to competitive matches. Definately there is no need to have even groups of marines all the time, infact it would be an incredibly limiting way of playing.

    I should clarify: I said there was nothing wrong with marines being alone, as long as that was a tactical decision made by the Com or someone with map awareness. You can split 6 players into parties of one quite easily; there's absolutely no requirement or limitation on the way you organize your forces

            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.

  • ArgathorArgathor Join Date: 2011-07-18 Member: 110942Posts: 682Members, Squad Five Blue
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 27 2012, 08:03 PM) »
    I should clarify: I said there was nothing wrong with marines being alone, as long as that was a tactical decision made by the Com or someone with map awareness. You can split 6 players into parties of one quite easily; there's absolutely no requirement or limitation on the way you organize your forces

    Then how is a field team being evenly divisible remotely relevant, when they will be split up into uneven groups anyway?
    Arga | ns2hub.com
    "Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    QUOTE (Argathor @ Mar 27 2012, 03:33 PM) »
    Then how is a field team being evenly divisible remotely relevant, when they will be split up into uneven groups anyway?

    They have the option not to be uneven, which is impossible with a prime number.

            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.

  • ÒŗăNģёÒŗăNģё Join Date: 2012-02-09 Member: 144437Posts: 133Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
    I think its more tactically important to have 6v6, 5 marines 5 aliens in the field splitting up the team 3 to 2 is a tactical decision and will have ramifications for poor choices and would allow one side to out push the other
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    Gotta go with that ^. Having the single lone/odd player makes for more exciting gameplay. It probably speeds up games somewhat as well.
  • hamptonhampton Join Date: 2011-08-31 Member: 119370Posts: 186Members, Constellation
    tried 7v7 today. fun but frantic. wouldn't recommend it. stay thirsty.

    image
    aka GORGEOUS GORGE
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    Glad to see people trying it and giving feedback. Were there any size-specific specific issues that cropped up for you, or did it just not feel like an improvement in general?

            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.

  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 29 2012, 01:12 PM) »
    Glad to see people trying it and giving feedback. Were there any size-specific specific issues that cropped up for you, or did it just not feel like an improvement in general?


    Are you just going to ignore the cumulative decades of fps community organising experience pointing out why its a bad idea to increase game size or are you only interested in discussing whether prime numbers or not? I would actually enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter since you seem to be the main force pushing for larger game sizes.

    Cheers,
  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    QUOTE (MuYeah @ Mar 29 2012, 08:59 AM) »
    Are you just going to ignore the cumulative decades of fps community organising experience pointing out why its a bad idea to increase game size or are you only interested in discussing whether prime numbers or not? I would actually enjoy reading your thoughts on the matter since you seem to be the main force pushing for larger game sizes.

    Cheers,

    I really don't know what more you want me to say. I've already said that I thought 6v6 had some valid strengths that shouldn't be overlooked, and I've already said it might not be right for everyone. I've heard all the arguments, and a lot of them seem reasonable. There's nothing wrong with liking 6v6; I just believe that 7v7 has the potential to be better, and that it's worth exploring.

            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.

  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited March 2012
    Dang forums went and goofed on me. Double post.
    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.

  • PyromaniacPyromaniac Join Date: 2009-02-20 Member: 66498Posts: 160Members
    edited March 2012
    6v6 is already pushing it logistically for organization. 7v7 would definitely ruin any chances of lan tournaments and cripple both the quality and quantity of teams. Competitive matches with increased players have generally been asides for other games and would be interesting but the standard should remain 6v6.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • derWalterderWalter Join Date: 2008-10-29 Member: 65323Posts: 634Members
    thats now what counterstrike always should have been!

    5vs5 for life!!

    because u cant have 2x3 teams u have to do TACTICS 2-1-2 or what ever :)

    it makes the game simply more tactical
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 29 2012, 05:09 PM) »
    I really don't know what more you want me to say. I've already said that I thought 6v6 had some valid strengths that shouldn't be overlooked, and I've already said it might not be right for everyone. I've heard all the arguments, and a lot of them seem reasonable. There's nothing wrong with liking 6v6; I just believe that 7v7 has the potential to be better, and that it's worth exploring.


    It's more about 6v6 being about the limit that most community's can function under and there being a tonne of reasons why lowering the number of players is better than raising them. The game should cater to the player count rather than the other way around (as you are suggesting).
Sign In or Register to comment.