7v7 as the new 6v6

135

Comments

  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited March 2012
    QUOTE (MuYeah @ Mar 29 2012, 01:47 PM) »
    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).

    I really have nothing new to add to those. I've already said I acknowledge the extra work involved in adding a player, but that I don't believe 7v7 would be impossible to organize. I think that the potential of a 7v7 game is worth trying out, even though it may mean a bit more work organizing players. Either people will like it enough to keep playing, or it will be too much of a pain for too little payoff in the long run. I don't know how it will turn out, but I think it's worth giving a try.

    People like Hampton who come in and give me their personal opinions about how 7v7 feels to them, that's something I can use to analyze the strengths and weaknesses of 7v7. Saying "6v6 is good" in a bunch of ways is fine, and often true, but it doesn't change the potential that 7v7 has, or advance the discussion in meaningful ways.
    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
    QUOTE (Techercizer @ Mar 29 2012, 09:26 PM) »
    ...

    The problem with the suggestion of playing 7v7 is more that the entire meat of the arguement is that it would 'be cool' or is 'worth a try'.

    On the other hand, there are a whole host of reasons that 6v6 works well with commanders. Infact I would also say that the fact NS2 field teams are not evenly divisible is a good thing gameplay wise (and a core reason that number is right for competitive play). I really fail to see any meat in the arguement for 7v7.

    It was an interesting topic but nothing really developed behind the 7v7 arguement.
    Arga | ns2hub.com
    "Someone's sitting in the shade today because someone planted a tree a long time ago."
  • 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 (Argathor @ Mar 29 2012, 02:34 PM) »
    The problem with the suggestion of playing 7v7 is more that the entire meat of the arguement is that it would 'be cool' or is 'worth a try'.

    On the other hand, there are a whole host of reasons that 6v6 works well with commanders. Infact I would also say that the fact NS2 field teams are not evenly divisible is a good thing gameplay wise (and a core reason that number is right for competitive play). I really fail to see any meat in the arguement for 7v7.

    It was an interesting topic but nothing really developed behind the 7v7 arguement.

    My view is that NS2 can play quite differently based on the number of players. The tactics, strategy, and teamwork associated with a 2v2 match is different than a 12v12 match. It also opens up the potential to play on larger maps (i.e. summit is technically a 'small' NS2 map and even then, I feel 6v6 is still a little too few players to properly realize the potential of the map).

    Ultimately, I still expect for 6v6 to be the default for larger tournaments because
    1. Its hard to change the status quo
    2. Smaller teams = increases the number of teams likely to enter the tournament

    However, my hope is that smaller scrims/tournaments can try larger playercounts. Personally, my goal is to eventually play in a 16v16 competitive scrim, since I think it would be both widely fun and a completely different experience from the 6v6-8v8 we're currently doing.
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    I think larger player number games would be a fantastic idea for novelty events á la highlander TF2 matches to show off the game. For example, getting the best teams from NA, EU and AUS and making some sort of draft tournament 9v9/10v10 would be hilarious.
  • TinkerTinker Join Date: 2003-03-11 Member: 14395Posts: 275Members
    Why do I keep seeing mention of CS match player counts as if it's relevant. This game is different in both play style and map size and warrants it's own consideration as to optimum player counts. If the community can only sustain 6v6 that's one thing but if it's optimum with a couple extra players you shouldn't disregard that fact because "that's not how CS does it." Doing anything solely because that's how it's always been done is foolish.
  • GrissiGrissi Join Date: 2003-08-28 Member: 20314Posts: 450Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    edited March 2012
    Accidental post.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    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.
  • LV426-ColonistLV426-Colonist Space Jockey Join Date: 2011-08-05 Member: 114269Posts: 678Members, Constellation
    edited March 2012
    6v6 for competitive gameplay. Anything else is just for fun.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    LV426-Colonist
  • RanemanRaneman Join Date: 2010-01-07 Member: 69962Posts: 450Members
    What's so great about 6 v 6 other then "we've always done it?"
    Raneman's Curated Maps
    MOST BE LOGGED ONTO STEAM COMMUNITY TO VIEW
  • Omega_K2Omega_K2 Join Date: 2011-12-25 Member: 139013Posts: 555Members, Reinforced - Shadow
    I think if you have trouble to organize matches, it's not a problem related to the player size; more of a problem with your team or the competive setup in general I guess.
    If we think about leagues, any decent league usually has some sort of rule that requires attendencing within a certain amount of time (for example 15 minutes), if a team doesn't completly show up they have to play with less players or it's an auto-loss.

    As for organizing the matches , it's just a matter of finding a time that works for your team and making sure everyone knows about the match. Usually people should show up then, if they don't you probably have an unreliable member in your team.

    As for comparing it to other games, TF2 for example has 6v6 and 9v9 leagues. It works there. Been playing 9v9 myself and we never had trouble to organize a match even with a large international team (Mostly EU players, 2 US people as well).

    As for the game itself, 7v7 provides more options to devide up the team and is more intense, but I think people genreally have to try out 6v6 or 7v7 to see which one they prefer.
    German Slaughterhouse | GS Servers | Server Hardware
    IGN: [#OMEGA] - K2 (Hive)

    NS2 long standing issues (Fix ETA: Never):
    Bad Netcode (no adjustable tickrate, extremly delayed hit feedback, bad hitreg),
    Bad Performance (Poor Multi-threading, Mouse Lag, bad server performance, almost no multi-threading in server application)
    Bad Balance (GL Spam, semi-useless exos, poor chance of comebacks, no upkeep/or RT dimishing returns...)
    Technical Issues (Mouse Lag, Memory Leaks, Memory Corruption (and memory corruption server crashes))
    Bad Workshop implementation (down = kicks people/connection prboelms, out of date = nobody can join server),
  • XariusXarius Join Date: 2003-12-21 Member: 24630Posts: 2,186Members
    I don't see why it needs to be restricted to 6vs6 anymore. It was 6vs6 in NS1 for balance reasons, but with symmetric resource systems this should no longer be an issue. 7vs7 are more action packed imo, heck they should even consider 8vs8.
    Steamname: Unkn0wn
  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    edited April 2012
    The argument for lower number of players goes that 5v5 would be ideal if only having 4 people in the field at once doesnt fit the game - maps are too big etc. Raising the number of players increases stress on a number of factors too much to be viable.

    Basically there are several critical thresholds acting independently in the systems multi-dimensional space, defining only a small area of acceptable stability. From years of experience and the backing of others with similar experience I am going to inductively state that it's 6v6. I could give you a more definitive answer if you're willing to put up the funding of a phD ;-)

    edit: of course if you have evidence of alternate metastable regimes and the hysteretic conditions leading to such I would be willing to back a different format.

    /tongue in cheek science
    Post edited by Unknown User on
  • ogzogz Join Date: 2002-11-24 Member: 9765Posts: 646Members
    I think we should open up more opportunities than just restrict it down to 6v6

    The game is not balanced yet and perhaps when the balancing occurs, we find that a different number of players per team is more stable

    I'm talking lifeform/weapon variety, map sizes, resource system, etc.. all of it matters.



    I'm curious even now at the competitive level, does the w/l ratio change between alien/marines at different player counts

  • eh?eh? Join Date: 2012-03-03 Member: 147997Posts: 517Members
    Favors marines as you do higher player counts. Assuming nothing ridiculous like 4 onos at 9 mins or something.

    I liked 7 and 8 in the few pugs we did; mostly because marine pressure is increasingly more effective in the early game. It also gives marines a boost due to the fact they obviously have more players to cover building players.

    I still think harvesters should build slower, and their current build speed should be obtainable only by assistance from a gorge. As it would even up the idle player counts more. And battle gorges would be a lot less effective if they need to be escorted around the map to get RT's up as opposed to just tagging along skulk packs and keeping them alive.
  • Soul_RiderSoul_Rider Mod Bean Join Date: 2004-06-19 Member: 29388Posts: 2,973Members, Constellation
    If the map I am making, which is bigger than mineshaft, turns out to be a really good competitive map, it won't be played, because 6v6 is too few players.

    NS2's competitive community is going to be much larger than NS1's ever was. To even be having a discussion about what will be the competitive scene standard seems premature to me. I envision a number of different US, EU and Oceanic leagues with varying player sizes. In the end, the size of the games most interesting to the spectators will be the one that makes the grade as the standard for competitive play, whether that turns out to be 6v6 or 10v10.

    If NS2 competitive play isn't driven by spectators, then it's failed to catch the public imagination and the success associated with it won't be forthcoming.

  • MuYeahMuYeah Join Date: 2006-12-26 Member: 59261Posts: 610Members
    QUOTE (Soul_Rider @ Apr 11 2012, 06:12 AM) »
    If the map I am making, which is bigger than mineshaft, turns out to be a really good competitive map, it won't be played, because 6v6 is too few players.

    NS2's competitive community is going to be much larger than NS1's ever was. To even be having a discussion about what will be the competitive scene standard seems premature to me. I envision a number of different US, EU and Oceanic leagues with varying player sizes. In the end, the size of the games most interesting to the spectators will be the one that makes the grade as the standard for competitive play, whether that turns out to be 6v6 or 10v10.

    If NS2 competitive play isn't driven by spectators, then it's failed to catch the public imagination and the success associated with it won't be forthcoming.


    I do wonder which size of game will 'catch the public imagination' as you say. 1v1 games always seem to have the largest spectator viability and larger game sizes tend to dwindle in popularity. I'd assume that too many players in one game makes it difficult to figure out exactly what is going on and you run a very large risk of missing amazing kill-streaks or whatever (and also confused shoutcasters and therefore spectators).
  • WilsonWilson Join Date: 2010-07-26 Member: 72867Posts: 1,397Members
    Who the hell would watch a 10v10 game....guys who want 7v7 and above are noobs with no clue on competitive play.
    In-game name: Wilson

    My Crosshair Pack: LINK
  • Soul_RiderSoul_Rider Mod Bean Join Date: 2004-06-19 Member: 29388Posts: 2,973Members, Constellation
    Exactly Wilson, 99.9% of spectators will probably be those people :)

    Most will be non-competitive players, and the game that gives the most entertainment on the screen for watching the game will be what they want. That could be any player number. Non-Competitive players, maybe even non-ns2 players will be in the audience, and if they don't watch 6v6 and only watch 8v8, then 8v8 will be where the media and attention will be, the money tournaments will be,etc, regardless of whether you guys are still playing 6v6 or not.



  • TechercizerTechercizer 7th Player Join Date: 2011-06-11 Member: 103832Posts: 1,850Members
    edited April 2012
    QUOTE (Wilson @ Apr 11 2012, 07:07 AM) »
    Who the hell would watch a 10v10 game....guys who want 7v7 and above are noobs with no clue on competitive play.


    Way to enter a civilized discussion and start slinging insults at everyone who doesn't share your opinion, Wilson. Nothing convinces people something isn't worth trying out than calling everyone interested an ignorant noob, huh?

    Just because some people are afraid of change doesn't mean we shouldn't give it a chance. There's nothing wrong with not liking 7v7, but you can't really hate it if you've never properly tried it.
    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
    I'm just tired of trying to "convince" people who have never played any other games competitively and have no idea what they are talking about.
    In-game name: Wilson

    My Crosshair Pack: LINK
  • YuukiYuuki Join Date: 2010-11-20 Member: 75079Posts: 1,731Members
    Real competitive players plays 8v6 right now, because aliens are so imba.
  • IronHorseIronHorse NS2 Playtesting Lead Former NS2 Playtest Lead Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 5,723Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester admin
    edited April 2012
    I've played "competitively" in over 9 games in my life, been in over 20 clans probably and been to countless tournaments and I think that 7 vs 7 has potential. (how come saying that sentence out loud sounded like a commercial testimony for a product? lol)

    If but no other reason than that the game is supposed to scale to player counts - unlike NS1 - so why not if its practical?
    There's an old quote i like: “Tradition is a guide and not a jailer.”
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    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/
  • GrissiGrissi Join Date: 2003-08-28 Member: 20314Posts: 450Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    edited April 2012
    QUOTE (ironhorse @ Apr 11 2012, 10:54 PM) »
    I've played "competitively" in over 9 games in my life, been in over 20 clans probably and been to countless tournaments and I think that 7 vs 7 has potential. (how come saying that sentence out loud sounded like a commercial testimony for a product? lol)

    If but no other reason than that the game is supposed to scale to player counts - unlike NS1 - so why not if its practical?
    There's an old quote i like: “Tradition is a guide and not a jailer.”

    If you have played any team based games competitively then you surely know how hard it can be to maintain just 5 active players with minimum extras. This is mainly because games usually don't take priority over other things in live. People need to spent their time at work,school, with family/friends and other things. Its very common for players to suddenly go inactive because of real live or they got interested in other games. This does change a little bit if there is a chance of getting money by playing well.
    ---
    Now I'm not talking about maintaining a team for 2-4 months, that's easy. I'm talking about keeping a team active for more than a year with the same active members, teams need to be able to stay active for very long to reach very high level and if NS2 wants to last it needs to have a strong competitive scene. Otherwise it will wither out in time (would be kinda embarrassing if ns2 would not last at least 9 years, that would mean that ns1 lasted longer). (Now I'm hoping that ns2 will get better and actually have a high skill ceiling).
    --
    There is also the issue where each individual will have less impact on the game. Price money will also be diverted between more players, that means less reward for all that work to get on the top. That's very bad for a new game.
    --
    Currently I see more negative parts of changing the game to 7v7 than 6v6, I'm yet to see a very good and a solid argument why this should be changed. Some suggested it would have more tactics/strategy involved but it actually works the other way around. It will be much easier to manage with more players to do everything that needs to be done. I also can't see this help spectate value at all, it seems to me its already working quite well from the streams.
    --
    Now I'm not saying that 7v7 is wrong or is not possible. But there is currently no reason to change this. If you look at the good and bads with both player numbers in mind its seems clear to me that 6v6 better.
    Now if someone can give a very solid and good argument why 7v7 that clearly rivals 6v6 then players will try it out. Until then you probably won't see many 7v7 or 8v8 games.
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    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.
  • TremanNTremanN Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Posts: 96Members
    The only reason why 6v6 is the norm is because of balance leftover from NS1. I find it weird that people are clamoring that NS2 isn't NS1, so we should not expect the same abilities, gameplay, etc as in the original. The same people (I'm assuming, because I am ass) say that 6v6 should stay because that's how it was done in NS1. Have some consistency. If the game performance is up to par, the gameplay can handle it, and community is interested in it (which obviously there is) there's no good reason NOT to try it.

    Don't give me that "oh it's too hard to get enough players." Are you ###### kidding me? WoW has 25 man raids (right? haven't played for a long time), Tribes Ascend does 8s, TFC did 8s and up to 10s, and QWTF went up to 12s on certain maps.

    The only reasons why it wouldn't work are the size of the community (which won't be an issue because NS2 is going to go on a meteoric rise once released), balance is ###### at higher numbers (possibly but there hasn't been enough competitive testing to rule it out), or performance issues (which is a huge issue right now so only time will tell or am I lying about that, trolls?)

    Recruit more players. Have epic games. Everyone wins.
  • nadylinadyli Join Date: 2007-11-01 Member: 62791Posts: 109Members, Squad Five Blue
    QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 08:38 AM) »
    The only reason why 6v6 is the norm is because of balance leftover from NS1. I find it weird that people are clamoring that NS2 isn't NS1, so we should not expect the same abilities, gameplay, etc as in the original. The same people (I'm assuming, because I am ass) say that 6v6 should stay because that's how it was done in NS1. Have some consistency. If the game performance is up to par, the gameplay can handle it, and community is interested in it (which obviously there is) there's no good reason NOT to try it.

    Don't give me that "oh it's too hard to get enough players." Are you ###### kidding me? WoW has 25 man raids (right? haven't played for a long time), Tribes Ascend does 8s, TFC did 8s and up to 10s, and QWTF went up to 12s on certain maps.

    The only reasons why it wouldn't work are the size of the community (which won't be an issue because NS2 is going to go on a meteoric rise once released), balance is ###### at higher numbers (possibly but there hasn't been enough competitive testing to rule it out), or performance issues (which is a huge issue right now so only time will tell or am I lying about that, trolls?)

    Recruit more players. Have epic games. Everyone wins.


    No.
    meh
  • GrissiGrissi Join Date: 2003-08-28 Member: 20314Posts: 450Members, Constellation, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
    QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 12:38 AM) »
    The only reason why 6v6 is the norm is because of balance leftover from NS1. I find it weird that people are clamoring that NS2 isn't NS1, so we should not expect the same abilities, gameplay, etc as in the original. The same people (I'm assuming, because I am ass) say that 6v6 should stay because that's how it was done in NS1. Have some consistency. If the game performance is up to par, the gameplay can handle it, and community is interested in it (which obviously there is) there's no good reason NOT to try it.

    Don't give me that "oh it's too hard to get enough players." Are you ###### kidding me? WoW has 25 man raids (right? haven't played for a long time), Tribes Ascend does 8s, TFC did 8s and up to 10s, and QWTF went up to 12s on certain maps.

    The only reasons why it wouldn't work are the size of the community (which won't be an issue because NS2 is going to go on a meteoric rise once released), balance is ###### at higher numbers (possibly but there hasn't been enough competitive testing to rule it out), or performance issues (which is a huge issue right now so only time will tell or am I lying about that, trolls?)

    Recruit more players. Have epic games. Everyone wins.

    I don't see why it matters that ns1 was played 6v6 in this discussions. The only question that remains is if the game should be played 6v6 or it should be played with more players.
    The reason why it should stay 6v6 has nothing to do with how many players will be playing the game or about the performance issues. There is just no good argument about why it should be changed.
    Also if you read my post above I didn't say that 7v7 or 8v8 was a bad idea, I simply said there is no reason to change it because there is no good argument behind it. 6v6 is working very well and the question is why we would change it.
    I think it would be better investment of your time giving a good argument why increasing the player number instead of telling everyone how other games work. I can't really see the relevance in how other games work when this discussion is just about ns2.

    I hate to repeat myself but if the good parts about 7v7 is on par or better than its for 6v6 then the competitive players will go for it. However I am yet to see a very good argument why this should be changed.
    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.
  • WilsonWilson Join Date: 2010-07-26 Member: 72867Posts: 1,397Members
    The only valid reason for changing competitive play to 7v7 as standard would be if the game was literally broken and unbalanced at lower player numbers. Competitive play is ideally with the lowest number of players possible as this makes it more about the individual players skill level and competing with each other which is what competitive play is all about. The larger the team, the easier it is for other players to carry weaker ones.

    Also lower player numbers make sense from a spectator stand point as well.

    Traditionally in other games I've played, the teams that had larger organised games were more public clans focused on having fun rather than on competitive play.
    In-game name: Wilson

    My Crosshair Pack: LINK
  • TremanNTremanN Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Posts: 96Members
    QUOTE (Grissi @ Apr 12 2012, 02:11 AM) »
    I think it would be better investment of your time giving a good argument why increasing the player number instead of telling everyone how other games work. I can't really see the relevance in how other games work when this discussion is just about ns2.


    Clearly, I was bringing that up to address how it's "so hard to have even 5 active players" or whatever phrasing you used.

    QUOTE
    The only valid reason for changing competitive play to 7v7 as standard would be if the game was literally broken and unbalanced at lower player numbers.

    The only reason for keeping it 6v6 is because no one has tried higher player numbers for any length of time. I'm advocating at least trying it before bringing up reasons why it WON'T work.

    QUOTE
    Competitive play is ideally with the lowest number of players possible as this makes it more about the individual players skill level and competing with each other which is what competitive play is all about. The larger the team, the easier it is for other players to carry weaker ones.


    I don't think that is the point of competitive play at all. Maybe this is because I'm trash at NS2, but 'individual skill' shouldn't matter as much as how good your teamplay is. The larger the team, the easier it is to see the importance of teamwork and strategy.

    QUOTE
    No.

    Yes.

    QUOTE
    Also lower player numbers make sense from a spectator stand point as well.


    Why does it make sense? So you can have action focused in one or two spots on the map?


    Why do I think higher player numbers could work? Numbered lists make things n0ice.

    1) More action occurring on the map. Less downtime.
    2) The possibility of different tactics/strategies being employed.
    3) One amazing player can't make as much of an impact. I don't care how good you are. This is a team based shooter/RTS. I want to get nerdchills from awesome teamplay, not a marine that can kill 4 skulks with a shotgun. Cool.
    4) Coming from an American, bigger is always better. Always
  • IronHorseIronHorse NS2 Playtesting Lead Former NS2 Playtest Lead Join Date: 2010-05-08 Member: 71669Posts: 5,723Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester admin
    edited April 2012
    Like i said: "If its practical"
    this includes the ability to gather more players. (as well as a lot of other things) Which some clans like 420 and 156 have no issues doing and from the looks of it on the rosters, the same could be for others.

    Tremann has some good points.
    Adding to that list, another "argument" is that for the same reasons you would assume 6v6 is more fun than 3v3, you can make about 7v7 versus 6v6.
    More intensity, more options, more organizing and coordination required.

    @wilson: There is a very long, heated thread regarding K/D ratio importance you might take interest in. :)
    Post edited by Unknown User on
    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/
  • fanaticfanatic This post has been edited. Join Date: 2003-07-23 Member: 18377Posts: 1,723Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue
    hey guys

    lets try to reinvent the wheel
  • TremanNTremanN Join Date: 2002-11-13 Member: 8471Posts: 96Members
    hey guys

    new things are scary lets not try anything new
Sign In or Register to comment.