While I'm all for trying higher team numbers, especially for larger maps, I have some points to raise.
<!--quoteo(post=1924531:date=Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) More action occurring on the map. Less downtime.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Downtime is very important for successful spectating in an RTS, it allows for analysis and a buildup of tension leading up to any large strategical moves being made. If there's constant action going on, it doesn't allow time for the deeper aspects of the game to be presented.
<!--quoteo(post=1924531:date=Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>"Also lower player numbers make sense from a spectator stand point as well."</i> Why does it make sense? So you can have action focused in one or two spots on the map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, downtime is important for that. However, not all action in the game will warrant deeper analysis. It will, most likely, fit in to already stated analysis. It is a casters job to know what is going to make the most impact on the game and it is a skill that is going to have to be gained in NS2. In addition, this is an FPS first and an RTS second. Meaning, that a lot of the RTS style of commentating or spectating won't fall exactly in line with games like SC2.
I'm wary of tailoring an important part of the game (player size) to spectators, who might not even show up. We should make sure the game is the best it could possibly be. Spectators/commentators will adjust accordingly.
<!--quoteo(post=1918521:date=Mar 27 2012, 01:01 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Mar 27 2012, 01:01 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1918521"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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:
<ul><li>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... </li><li>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. </li><li>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. </li><li>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...) </li><li>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.</li></ul>
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1924531:date=Apr 12 2012, 09:13 AM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 09:13 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is where you differ with most people who play competitively. Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why does it make sense? So you can have action focused in one or two spots on the map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Correctamundo. Try casting a 10v10 and it will just be a big mess. This is the same reason why 1v1 Starcraft is far more popular than 2v2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> This is why I call you a noob. No one that is decent would ever believe this. Only bad players would think this way. This is the exact opposite of what competitive play is about.
No is stopping you from playing 7v7 and casting it btw. Go ahead and start playing some big games, it'll probably be a better use of time than trying to convince people on the forums.
<!--quoteo(post=1924560:date=Apr 12 2012, 07:30 AM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Apr 12 2012, 07:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924560"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is where you differ with most people who play competitively. Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Oh, I thought most players that competed in team games would want their team to win, regardless whether or not they were at the top of the scoreboard.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Correctamundo. Try casting a 10v10 and it will just be a big mess. This is the same reason why 1v1 Starcraft is far more popular than 2v2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about 10s? You aren't even willing to give 7s a chance. You can stop drawing parallels to SC2 where they don't fit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is why I call you a noob. No one that is decent would ever believe this. Only bad players would think this way. This is the exact opposite of what competitive play is about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ridiculous. You have no idea what playing as a team means then. This is why I would call you a fool, but that would get us nowhere so I won't. I appreciate awesome players of course, but I don't want one person to single-handedly decide games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No is stopping you from playing 7v7 and casting it btw. Go ahead and start playing some big games, it'll probably be a better use of time than trying to convince people on the forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not trying to convince anyone. Some of your minds have been made up even with a severe lack of evidence, so that's that. Really, you should be trying to convince me since I'm a noob and all.
<!--quoteo(post=1924564:date=Apr 12 2012, 11:49 AM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 11:49 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924564"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Who said anything about 10s? You aren't even willing to give 7s a chance.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> The funny thing about the whole playercount mess is that you can always argue one bigger is better (or worse) and somewhere it stlll has to stop getting better. I guess it's a matter of what you want to emphasize in terms of gameplay.
<!--quoteo(post=1924608:date=Apr 12 2012, 09:36 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 12 2012, 09:36 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924608"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The funny thing about the whole playercount mess is that you can always argue one bigger is better (or worse) and somewhere it stlll has to stop getting better. I guess it's a matter of what you want to emphasize in terms of gameplay.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I feel 9v9 might be a little large. Not necessarily undoable, but definitely much more difficult than 7v7, and I doubt we'll be seeing 11v11 as an industry standard.
<!--quoteo(post=1924609:date=Apr 12 2012, 02:42 PM:name=Techercizer)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Techercizer @ Apr 12 2012, 02:42 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924609"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I feel 9v9 might be a little large. Not necessarily undoable, but definitely much more difficult than 7v7, and I doubt we'll be seeing 11v11 as an industry standard.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> What I was saying is that you could use the arguments seen here to state that 2v2 or 16v16 is the very best form of play and nobody could really counterargument that.
Personally I don't really have any need to push the games bigger and further away from the 5v5 'standard' unless some more substantial reason comes up. I feel right now people are kind of pushing it further away from the elements that usually make competetive games so satisfying while having only very light guesses of what could get better in bigger games, but I guess it's their business if they want to give it a try.
<!--quoteo(post=1924629:date=Apr 12 2012, 10:30 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 12 2012, 10:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924629"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->What I was saying is that you could use the arguments seen here to state that 2v2 or 16v16 is the very best form of play and nobody could really counterargument that.
Personally I don't really have any need to push the games bigger and further away from the 5v5 'standard' unless some more substantial reason comes up. I feel right now people are kind of pushing it further away from the elements that usually make competetive games so satisfying while having only very light guesses of what could get better in bigger games, but I guess it's their business if they want to give it a try.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> I completely understand that feeling, and I share it myself to some degree. I want 7v7 to be given a chance, because I've had good experiences with it, but I understand the pros of the relatively small systems competitive games have used, and am just as shy from deviating from them as most 6v6 supporters in this thread; the difference obviously being that when I went past that shyness and tried 7v7 I thought its benefits were worth the downsides.
If anyone came to me and said they wanted to push for a 3v3, 4v4, 13v13...etc. standard, I'd call them crazy and tell them how impractical those ideas are. I'd still play a match with them if they could get one organized, though, because all my preconcieved notions about how dumb it is to only have 2 fighting units on the map or how uncoordinated and congested a 12v12 slugfest would be still lack the empirical element of actually playing the type.
I feel pretty sure that I'd hate a 3v3 or 13v13 game, though. :/
When you play a competitive natural selection matches its important that you can kill the enemies that attack you, this does not in any way affect team play. There is nothing wrong with players to strive to get to the top on the scoreboard while they are playing effectively for the team.
I have often heard people say that games like quake and counter strike don't require much team play, its all aim. They could not be more wrong, high tier teams need ridicules amount of team play to be able to compete. This however is very hidden from sight and can be very hard to see when watching them play. This is the same with natural selection. It can be very hard to spot the team play and tactics that are going on the field. A good caster will however be able to highlight these moments so everyone knows what happening.
These can be very small things like how marine dodges a skulk/fade to allow other marines to shoot it. Or how they marines move around together(spreading out and not in a line). There are tons of these small things that make a major impact on the game. If you start adding more players the games actually gets easier to play and less tactical. You will have more marines to do all the things that are required and that means that the game will be more about just killing the enemy team rather than smart plays. Also each player feels more important with less player count, making it more fun to play. Strategy, tactics and team play is just as important and individual skill. You won't be able to win a game if you only have tactics buy no skills to follow them.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1924667:date=Apr 12 2012, 10:16 AM:name=Grissi)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Grissi @ Apr 12 2012, 10:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924667"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Also each player feels more important with less player count, making it more fun to play. Strategy, tactics and team play is just as important and individual skill. You won't be able to win a game if you only have tactics buy no skills to follow them.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> While I'll agree that each individual gets more important with fewer players in a game, I feel that it also decreases the number of complex and/or viable strategies and tactics. Quite simply, there are only so many formations or tactics you can do with 5 people on the field, such that individual shooting skills are the most important factor atm. I think that's generally ok, since NS2 is mostly a FPS, but I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of variety in the RTS (comm) portion of competitive play.
In particular, as a comm in 6v6 competitive matches, I feel more like a manager, ensuring speedy med/ammo/nano drops, placing buildings, and checking off the tech tree upgrades rather than a RTS player developing and executing a coherent strategy. That's different from what I've seen or experienced in other FPS/RTSs that do larger competitive matchups (9v9 to 12v12 for Empires and Nuclear Dawn).
Personally, I hope to participate in up to 16v16 NS2 matches because I think it will be a totally difference experience than the current 6v6 standard.
<!--quoteo(post=1924647:date=Apr 12 2012, 12:26 PM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Apr 12 2012, 12:26 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924647"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->The only reason needed to play 6v6 is that 5v5 doesnt work. Is 6v6 good? Yes, so it should be used and balance should be built around it.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Honestly this is the most convincing argument in this thread. Basically as simple as possible that is also playable.
I think another important part of the debate many of you are taking forgranted: server performance. 12 players is barely playable on high end machines. 14 players lag even more. 16 effectively noncompetitive. 20? the server is down to single digit tick rates 5 minutes into the game. This leads back to the first argument: The smallest number that works is the best number.
I've seen no convincing reason to switch away from 6v6 (and I'm not carrying my preconceived notions over from NS1). I think 7v7 would be fine, but I've yet to see why it would be better than 6v6. I'm also unclear as to why 8v8 wouldn't then be better than 7v7, ignoring server performance. Then 9v9 vs 8v8, etc.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2012
<i>"Yes, so it should be used and balance should be built around it."</i> No, NS2 will not be balanced around 6v6 again, you know this. It will scale. Also, if using your logic of "5v5 doesn't work", i can say 7v7 works, so it should be used, too.
These are all good points, but i think its key to remember the title of this thread: 7v7 not 20v20 That's only one player more per team, and given the size of some of the maps coming (That will be bigger than mineshaft) this fits well into those points you all have to make about ensuring spectator entertainment. Your concerns such as spectator enjoyment, too little or too much downtime are all washed away when playing on a larger map. Large maps will scale with larger player numbers, obviously. compare 6v6 on tram vs 6v6 on something larger than mineshaft. (zzzzz)
@grissi : i don't think anyone is arguing against what you are saying there. I think the only mindset being refuted is Wilson's "<i>Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.</i> " Where he is inaccurately speaking for other comp players. I personally do not share this viewpoint - i want my team to win above anything remotely related to myself. I've always played this way, only in 1v1 do i want my individual skill to matter more - but hey that's me.
The OP is recommending you try an actual match this way a few times and comment on it, instead of defending the status quo. Come back after a few times of trying it and provide arguments against it, instead of discussing theory / believing your argument does not require testing.
<!--quoteo(post=1924720:date=Apr 12 2012, 08:32 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Apr 12 2012, 08:32 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924720"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I think the only mindset being refuted is Wilson's "<i>Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.</i> " Where he is inaccurately speaking for other comp players. I personally do not share this viewpoint - i want my team to win above anything remotely related to myself. I've always played this way, only in 1v1 do i want my individual skill to matter more - but hey that's me.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
You misunderstood me. I'm talking about, when you decide to compete at a game in an organised way, you want your abilities to matter. They matter more with the lower player numbers. 1v1 your ability is all that matters. Of course you want your team to win before getting high k:d or whatever. I don't understand why you would want to dilute the team by adding in more players, it just makes things less intense, individual players matter less, less is on the line, boring zzz. Go play public if you want that and have fun.
IronHorseDeveloper, QA Manager, Technical Support & contributorJoin Date: 2010-05-08Member: 71669Members, Super Administrators, Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Developer, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Subnautica Playtester, Subnautica PT Lead, Pistachionauts
edited April 2012
You want your input to matter regardless of it being competitive or not. Who plays public games and does not want their abilities to matter or not have an impact? I don't see this being backed up by anything.
how does having one more player per team make anything "less intense" ?? Our argument FOR the increase was that it makes it <b>more</b> intense, and is the opposite of what i consider to be "boring" ? I also don't have to go public if i want 7v7. As i said plenty of clans are able to do this, and we have tried it with a few of them already?
No offense, Wilson, but before you wrote your response there, did you do as the OP and everyone else has suggested? Did you try it in an actual match a few times before coming back here with that viewpoint of less intensity? <i>Or are you still discussing theory and an opinion without experience? </i> Cuz i would have agreed with you before i experienced the difference. (Same with Scardybob i would assume since he played that game too)
<!--quoteo(post=1924780:date=Apr 12 2012, 10:16 PM:name=ironhorse)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ironhorse @ Apr 12 2012, 10:16 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924780"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I also don't have to go public if i want 7v7. As i said plenty of clans are able to do this, and we have tried it with a few of them already?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Keep doing that then. I don't see what difference it makes if I approve or not.
<!--quoteo(post=1924785:date=Apr 12 2012, 04:22 PM:name=Wilson)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Wilson @ Apr 12 2012, 04:22 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924785"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Keep doing that then. I don't see what difference it makes if I approve or not.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> That's what this thread is for. Finding people who are interested in doing more 7v7, and asking players who haven't tried it if they would be willing to give it a shot and tell us what they think.
You said "No". Okay. There's nothing wrong with that. It does beg the question of why you're still hanging around posting here, if you're not one bit interested in trying 7v7. There's a dozen other threads for organizing 6v6 matches.
NOTE *I'm an NA player and shoutcaster, this is my NA exp (except for cod :P)*
Lots of miss information in this thread. As a former tribes 2, dod 1.3, vcod, and cs competitive player I can tell you theres one reason and only one reason for lower team numbers. LOGISTICS.
Its far easier to get teams to lans when the game runs 4 vs 4 and 5 vs 5 as most lan centers have 20 pc's. This formula forms the basis for any strong competitive community and allows for larger events to appear (think mlg and cpl) and for those events to have experienced teams show up and thus proper the game further.
PRIME EXAMPLE, cod1 (vcod) was originally 6 vs 6. As a community we made the very very hard choice to move to 5 vs 5. It benefited us greatly as teams could get more sponsors and leagues could get more teams and thus appeal to sponsors who saw 300 teams (5 vs 5) as opposed to 230 (6 vs 6)
There is a reason tf2 never took of in the competitive realm, 6 vs 6 is a very very hard format to support these days. It was easy when FPS games like RTCW made the mold but now Console games have pushed leagues and sponsors to ask "why not 4 vs 4".
So the better question to ask is should the community conform to the new competitive norm or stick to its roots and ride out 6 vs 6 knowing that it might severely hamper competitive growth.
Many people who say "I played games with 8 vs 8 and 10 vs 10, it workks!". They view there games competitive health through rose colored glasses. They always tend to say hey game X was the best. But in reality it was small and only played by a minority. Your game might be healthy but it will never grow past it initial influx of players (think bf2). Bf2 is a prime example, going from 10 vs 10 to 8 vs 8 and eventually the most popular and most team garnering mod to ever grace the series was 5 vs 5 infantry only and 4 vs 4 rush for those who enjoy the later iterations. Point being you need to see you game in perspective, do you just want a small game with a niche community? or do you want a game to grow to a a semi CS type level with year big tournaments. Either form works, but you must grasp that to grow sacrifices must be made.
*EDIT* You want to avoid running many different sizes, eventually one format will steal from the other. Its better to settle on one team size and one format for the primary arena of competitive play. Its good to have choice but you must have 1 universal "THIS IS THE COMP STANDARD" type game. If you have 5 different team size modes all begging to be the comp standard you going to find that teams will pick just one which will dmg others as well as create much hostility within the community.
As for the remarks about spectating appeal, please don't think this way. You can worry about how people view a a competitive title when it grows to great heights. Primary concern should be building a community and leagues that are focused on growth and balance. The primary audience for smaller community games is that very same community. Even for bigger titles the viewer base is rarely non players. Some games break this mold like SC and Quake but very few do, the more complex a game looks the less likely someone is to watch it from out side the community.
Thats my two cents and my first post. I'm looking for ward to playing ns2 more CHEERS!!!!
<!--quoteo(post=1924867:date=Apr 13 2012, 10:40 AM:name=jus7addwater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jus7addwater @ Apr 13 2012, 10:40 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924867"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->There is a reason tf2 never took of in the competitive realm, 6 vs 6 is a very very hard format to support these days. It was easy when FPS games like RTCW made the mold but now Console games have pushed leagues and sponsors to ask "why not 4 vs 4".
So the better question to ask is should the community conform to the new competitive norm or stick to its roots and ride out 6 vs 6 knowing that it might severely hamper competitive growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Less than 6 is not viable for the type of game NS2 is and how it deals with map control, and with that the balance of health/damage on certain units and classes. Map sizes too. NS2 would need to be rebalanced entirely for it to work, and it would throw higher player counts off.
Though I understand your point, if it means that NS2 will have to change so much to be successful at international Lan events then I don't think I want that.
That was a very interesting post, your experience is wide and grounded in reality. Hope to see you post more around these here parts!
It's interesting to see an example of a community (vcod) who chose to reduce team size. I remember the huge TF2 debate between 8v8 and 6v6 as standard allllll the way back when crits weren't even removed by that promod yet.
It really feels like those arguing for higher game sizes are basing their decisions only on the micro-scale of what is fun to play in-game. When you scale it up to a full community you do get a tonne of issues and that is something that you don't need experience playing 7v7 to predict.
<!--quoteo(post=1924964:date=Apr 13 2012, 08:37 AM:name=MuYeah)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (MuYeah @ Apr 13 2012, 08:37 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924964"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->It really feels like those arguing for higher game sizes are basing their decisions only on the micro-scale of what is fun to play in-game. When you scale it up to a full community you do get a tonne of issues and that is something that you don't need experience playing 7v7 to predict.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> One noteworthy thing about what seems to be working now and what works in the future is how undeveloped the NS2 competetive scene still is. Most high tier gamers are still avoiding the whole thing due to performance and all that.
In general the better the gamers get, the more 'roaming space' they can effectively cover. This goes with SC2 map sizes, NS1 map control and all that. For example playing a 6v6 pub game of NS1 feels absolutely impossible because people aren't very efficient in getting things done and controlling the map. Meanwhile playing against a high tier team makes you feel they are everywhere even with 5 marines on the field.
What this means with NS2 is that 7v7 working right now doesn't necessarily apply once the competition really starts kicking in. As people get better, they will cover more area and get their tasks done in an efficient manner, probably making 6v6 a lot more crowded and action packed than it is right now.
A distinction needs to be made between a competitive scene and what we now call an "eSport." A thriving competitive community can exist without being an eSport (I hate this word so much). Where do you see NS2 fitting in? Is it up to the developers or players to decide which path the game takes? Or does it just happen naturally? While I appreciate people looking at the "macro-scale," the game might not even get to that place.
What's best for the "eSport" side of things may not necessarily be the best for the actual game play, if that makes sense.
By the way, this really could be an entirely different thread. It's incredible to me that people can earn tens of thousands of dollars playing at a venue in Las Vegas with over 50k people watching online. Will this continue to grow or will the bubble burst?
How many more arguments do we need why 6v6 is fine?
Just because the main focus of the game would be 6v6, doesnt mean that there couldnt be some scaling adjustments that make it also work well enough for higher playernumbers <u>that dont need as finetuned balance</u>. (like for fun competitive games or pubs with 7v7-16v16players.)
The higher the player number the more it is pure zerging than tactics anyway... edit: i would even say a ns2_combat mod with big enough maps would be more fun for such playernumbers but thats kinda offtopic.
PS: the fact why we talk about teamsize in the thread is(or it might just be the topic title? o_O), nobody really believes scaling can be done well enough for everything(and seriously how could it? you'd need to make almost everything dynamic on playernumbers - pres alone is far from enough) - so we need to decide the basic format to balance around. Otherwise why would you care about trying to push so many ppl that think 6v6 is the best compromise over to a higher playercount?
So you might think going the middle way between 7v7-10v10 would grant maybe better overall balance maybe?... tho thats for playercounts most of the current competitive scene doesnt care about... the ones that are affected the most by every tiny balance problem.
edit: while the topic is about 6v6 vs 7v7 in general i kinda felt like this fits - just some overall addition because i got a feeling uwe wants us to get into 7v7 or higher playercounts because it might be easier to balance the middle way like i already said. (considering that playtesters, and hugh posted so positiv towards higher numbers tho i might just be paranoid :P)
That was a very interesting post, your experience is wide and grounded in reality. Hope to see you post more around these here parts!
It's interesting to see an example of a community (vcod) who chose to reduce team size. I remember the huge TF2 debate between 8v8 and 6v6 as standard allllll the way back when crits weren't even removed by that promod yet.
It really feels like those arguing for higher game sizes are basing their decisions only on the micro-scale of what is fun to play in-game. When you scale it up to a full community you do get a tonne of issues and that is something that you don't need experience playing 7v7 to predict.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you, I already like this community from just the posts. Far less hostility then other games i've been into.
As your post indicates you really only know what will work when competition starts, if there is a serious flaw with 6 vs 6 you will notice it. In CoD2 one minor issue we faced was the questions of weapon limits (should we use 1 shotgun or 2 or 3 or 4/ 1 or 2 snipers) we quickly found as teams scrimmed heavily that certain gun dominate the combat space both defensively and offensively. So we choose to impose a limit of 1 per side. While not a direct comparison it illustrates the point that teams need to be heavily scrimming 6 vs 6 for its flaws or merits to appear. On that note anyone need a ringer :P
<!--quoteo(post=1924978:date=Apr 13 2012, 02:26 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 13 2012, 02:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924978"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One noteworthy thing about what seems to be working now and what works in the future is how undeveloped the NS2 competetive scene still is. Most high tier gamers are still avoiding the whole thing due to performance and all that.
In general the better the gamers get, the more 'roaming space' they can effectively cover. This goes with SC2 map sizes, NS1 map control and all that. For example playing a 6v6 pub game of NS1 feels absolutely impossible because people aren't very efficient in getting things done and controlling the map. Meanwhile playing against a high tier team makes you feel they are everywhere even with 5 marines on the field.
What this means with NS2 is that 7v7 working right now doesn't necessarily apply once the competition really starts kicking in. As people get better, they will cover more area and get their tasks done in an efficient manner, probably making 6v6 a lot more crowded and action packed than it is right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats brilliant point. Maps literally decided how a team plays, what are good and bad tactics. You can see this in CS, some maps promote rushing some promote defense, still other promote more cautious balanced approaches. That being said getting a list of maps that are good and bad for competition is key. I've yet to scrim the game ( I scrimmed the first ns 10 times :'( ) so all my points are speculative so forgive them if they are forward and out of place. I think you need a competitive map list. Maps must be at least manageable by newer teams that might not have the strategies to run them effectively. This is crucial, you want a high skill ceiling for more advanced teams to grow and improve but you don't want maps that instantly build a wall for any newer player / team who lacks strats. 2 newer teams should eb able to have fun and be competitive in 6 vs 6 without the stress of one side snowballing the other.
<!--quoteo(post=1924990:date=Apr 13 2012, 03:16 AM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 13 2012, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924990"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A distinction needs to be made between a competitive scene and what we now call an "eSport." A thriving competitive community can exist without being an eSport (I hate this word so much). Where do you see NS2 fitting in? Is it up to the developers or players to decide which path the game takes? Or does it just happen naturally? While I appreciate people looking at the "macro-scale," the game might not even get to that place.
What's best for the "eSport" side of things may not necessarily be the best for the actual game play, if that makes sense.
By the way, this really could be an entirely different thread. It's incredible to me that people can earn tens of thousands of dollars playing at a venue in Las Vegas with over 50k people watching online. Will this continue to grow or will the bubble burst?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a very valid sport, i'm very guilty to using both terms interchangeably. I think everyone wants to be a starcraft 2 or a cs but it usally unlikely. But I think most competitive communities want to be at the size where they have 1 or 2 leagues, they have 4 or 5 tournaments and maybe 3 or 4 lans each year. I think that is a good solid mid size goal to aim for. While going competitive might bring sacrifice it is made up for in new found longevity of a title. I assume ns3 is not in the pipes so you dont have a cod type situation where teams get barely a year to play 1 game before they are bombarded with a newer title. I remember the first NS while small in size had a long life span and survived in CAL until the league collapsed. That its the benefit of a good competitive community. But we can reap the rewards of games like sc2 and cs, right now lots of pc centered companies are rediscovering the benefits of making small micro sponsorships as opposed to big budget breaking ones. These micro sponsorships are easily had for tournaments and usually correspond with wider game exposure which would be, in my opinion, excellent for ns2.
<!--quoteo(post=1925012:date=Apr 13 2012, 05:42 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Apr 13 2012, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925012"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many more arguments do we need why 6v6 is fine?
Just because the main focus of the game would be 6v6, doesnt mean that there couldnt be some scaling adjustments that make it also work well enough for higher playernumbers <u>that dont need as finetuned balance</u>. (like for fun competitive games or pubs with 7v7-16v16players.)
The higher the player number the more it is pure zerging than tactics anyway... edit: i would even say a ns2_combat mod with big enough maps would be more fun for such playernumbers but thats kinda offtopic.
PS: the fact why we talk about teamsize in the thread is(or it might just be the topic title? o_O), nobody really believes scaling can be done well enough for everything(and seriously how could it? you'd need to make almost everything dynamic on playernumbers - pres alone is far from enough) - so we need to decide the basic format to balance around. Otherwise why would you care about trying to push so many ppl that think 6v6 is the best compromise over to a higher playercount?
So you might think going the middle way between 7v7-10v10 would grant maybe better overall balance maybe?... tho thats for playercounts most of the current competitive scene doesnt care about... the ones that are affected the most by every tiny balance problem.
edit: while the topic is about 6v6 vs 7v7 in general i kinda felt like this fits - just some overall addition because i got a feeling uwe wants us to get into 7v7 or higher playercounts because it might be easier to balance the middle way like i already said. (considering that playtesters, and hugh posted so positiv towards higher numbers tho i might just be paranoid :P)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Games like bf2 (>.< sorry for comparing it to ns2) play better with larger teams for the fun factor and the overall game design. But the fact of the matter is it much much harder to run competition with larger team sizes. 16 vs 16 bf2 matches where far more fun then 8 vs 8, however they simple where that much harder to support out of match day. Teams would have to pre arrange scrims as opposed to them simply messaging for one. It is a very frustrating process and turns many players off imo.
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1925093:date=Apr 13 2012, 11:30 AM:name=jus7addwater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jus7addwater @ Apr 13 2012, 11:30 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925093"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->As your post indicates you really only know what will work when competition starts, if there is a serious flaw with 6 vs 6 you will notice it. In CoD2 one minor issue we faced was the questions of weapon limits (should we use 1 shotgun or 2 or 3 or 4/ 1 or 2 snipers) we quickly found as teams scrimmed heavily that certain gun dominate the combat space both defensively and offensively. So we choose to impose a limit of 1 per side. While not a direct comparison it illustrates the point that teams need to be heavily scrimming 6 vs 6 for its flaws or merits to appear. On that note anyone need a ringer :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> We've largely being doing that throughout the beta, since the game isn't really balanced yet. For example, a current scrim rule you'll see in competitive matches is that the alien team can't go onos until the second hive is built, since one hive onos is overpowered right now.
<!--quoteo(post=1925097:date=Apr 13 2012, 11:41 AM:name=ScardyBob)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (ScardyBob @ Apr 13 2012, 11:41 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925097"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->We've largely being doing that throughout the beta, since the game isn't really balanced yet. For example, a current scrim rule you'll see in competitive matches is that the alien team can't go onos until the second hive is built, since one hive onos is overpowered right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I literally only bought the game last week :'( I need exp :P
ScardyBobScardyBobJoin Date: 2009-11-25Member: 69528Forum Admins, Forum Moderators, NS2 Playtester, Squad Five Blue, Reinforced - Shadow, WC 2013 - Shadow
<!--quoteo(post=1925104:date=Apr 13 2012, 12:19 PM:name=jus7addwater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jus7addwater @ Apr 13 2012, 12:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I literally only bought the game last week :'( I need exp :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> No worries and welcome :)
Also, you might want to check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/naturalselection2hd" target="_blank">NS2HD's youtube channel</a> for NS2 beta competitive casts as he has a good selection going all the way back to the alpha/early beta.
Also, you might want to check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/naturalselection2hd" target="_blank">NS2HD's youtube channel</a> for NS2 beta competitive casts as he has a good selection going all the way back to the alpha/early beta.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1925104:date=Apr 13 2012, 03:19 PM:name=jus7addwater)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (jus7addwater @ Apr 13 2012, 03:19 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925104"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I literally only bought the game last week :'( I need exp :P<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Play @ <a href="http://www.ensl.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ensl.org/</a>
Sign up for the NS2 gathers. You'll get good fast.
Comments
<!--quoteo(post=1924531:date=Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->1) More action occurring on the map. Less downtime.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Downtime is very important for successful spectating in an RTS, it allows for analysis and a buildup of tension leading up to any large strategical moves being made. If there's constant action going on, it doesn't allow time for the deeper aspects of the game to be presented.
<!--quoteo(post=1924531:date=Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 12 2012, 06:13 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924531"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec--><i>"Also lower player numbers make sense from a spectator stand point as well."</i>
Why does it make sense? So you can have action focused in one or two spots on the map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Yes, actually. At least at any one time.
I'm wary of tailoring an important part of the game (player size) to spectators, who might not even show up. We should make sure the game is the best it could possibly be. Spectators/commentators will adjust accordingly.
However, there are several forces acting on 'optimum team size' for any competitive game outside of the gameplay itself:
<ul><li>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...
</li><li>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.
</li><li>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.
</li><li>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...)
</li><li>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.</li></ul>
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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Hey guys. re read this.
This is where you differ with most people who play competitively. Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why does it make sense? So you can have action focused in one or two spots on the map?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Correctamundo. Try casting a 10v10 and it will just be a big mess. This is the same reason why 1v1 Starcraft is far more popular than 2v2.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->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.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This is why I call you a noob. No one that is decent would ever believe this. Only bad players would think this way. This is the exact opposite of what competitive play is about.
No is stopping you from playing 7v7 and casting it btw. Go ahead and start playing some big games, it'll probably be a better use of time than trying to convince people on the forums.
Oh, I thought most players that competed in team games would want their team to win, regardless whether or not they were at the top of the scoreboard.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Correctamundo. Try casting a 10v10 and it will just be a big mess. This is the same reason why 1v1 Starcraft is far more popular than 2v2.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Who said anything about 10s? You aren't even willing to give 7s a chance. You can stop drawing parallels to SC2 where they don't fit.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->This is why I call you a noob. No one that is decent would ever believe this. Only bad players would think this way. This is the exact opposite of what competitive play is about.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Ridiculous. You have no idea what playing as a team means then. This is why I would call you a fool, but that would get us nowhere so I won't. I appreciate awesome players of course, but I don't want one person to single-handedly decide games.
<!--quoteo--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE </div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->No is stopping you from playing 7v7 and casting it btw. Go ahead and start playing some big games, it'll probably be a better use of time than trying to convince people on the forums.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Not trying to convince anyone. Some of your minds have been made up even with a severe lack of evidence, so that's that. Really, you should be trying to convince me since I'm a noob and all.
The funny thing about the whole playercount mess is that you can always argue one bigger is better (or worse) and somewhere it stlll has to stop getting better. I guess it's a matter of what you want to emphasize in terms of gameplay.
I feel 9v9 might be a little large. Not necessarily undoable, but definitely much more difficult than 7v7, and I doubt we'll be seeing 11v11 as an industry standard.
What I was saying is that you could use the arguments seen here to state that 2v2 or 16v16 is the very best form of play and nobody could really counterargument that.
Personally I don't really have any need to push the games bigger and further away from the 5v5 'standard' unless some more substantial reason comes up. I feel right now people are kind of pushing it further away from the elements that usually make competetive games so satisfying while having only very light guesses of what could get better in bigger games, but I guess it's their business if they want to give it a try.
Personally I don't really have any need to push the games bigger and further away from the 5v5 'standard' unless some more substantial reason comes up. I feel right now people are kind of pushing it further away from the elements that usually make competetive games so satisfying while having only very light guesses of what could get better in bigger games, but I guess it's their business if they want to give it a try.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
I completely understand that feeling, and I share it myself to some degree. I want 7v7 to be given a chance, because I've had good experiences with it, but I understand the pros of the relatively small systems competitive games have used, and am just as shy from deviating from them as most 6v6 supporters in this thread; the difference obviously being that when I went past that shyness and tried 7v7 I thought its benefits were worth the downsides.
If anyone came to me and said they wanted to push for a 3v3, 4v4, 13v13...etc. standard, I'd call them crazy and tell them how impractical those ideas are. I'd still play a match with them if they could get one organized, though, because all my preconcieved notions about how dumb it is to only have 2 fighting units on the map or how uncoordinated and congested a 12v12 slugfest would be still lack the empirical element of actually playing the type.
I feel pretty sure that I'd hate a 3v3 or 13v13 game, though. :/
I have often heard people say that games like quake and counter strike don't require much team play, its all aim. They could not be more wrong, high tier teams need ridicules amount of team play to be able to compete. This however is very hidden from sight and can be very hard to see when watching them play.
This is the same with natural selection. It can be very hard to spot the team play and tactics that are going on the field. A good caster will however be able to highlight these moments so everyone knows what happening.
These can be very small things like how marine dodges a skulk/fade to allow other marines to shoot it. Or how they marines move around together(spreading out and not in a line). There are tons of these small things that make a major impact on the game. If you start adding more players the games actually gets easier to play and less tactical. You will have more marines to do all the things that are required and that means that the game will be more about just killing the enemy team rather than smart plays.
Also each player feels more important with less player count, making it more fun to play. Strategy, tactics and team play is just as important and individual skill. You won't be able to win a game if you only have tactics buy no skills to follow them.
While I'll agree that each individual gets more important with fewer players in a game, I feel that it also decreases the number of complex and/or viable strategies and tactics. Quite simply, there are only so many formations or tactics you can do with 5 people on the field, such that individual shooting skills are the most important factor atm. I think that's generally ok, since NS2 is mostly a FPS, but I'm a bit disappointed in the lack of variety in the RTS (comm) portion of competitive play.
In particular, as a comm in 6v6 competitive matches, I feel more like a manager, ensuring speedy med/ammo/nano drops, placing buildings, and checking off the tech tree upgrades rather than a RTS player developing and executing a coherent strategy. That's different from what I've seen or experienced in other FPS/RTSs that do larger competitive matchups (9v9 to 12v12 for Empires and Nuclear Dawn).
Personally, I hope to participate in up to 16v16 NS2 matches because I think it will be a totally difference experience than the current 6v6 standard.
Honestly this is the most convincing argument in this thread. Basically as simple as possible that is also playable.
I think another important part of the debate many of you are taking forgranted: server performance. 12 players is barely playable on high end machines. 14 players lag even more. 16 effectively noncompetitive. 20? the server is down to single digit tick rates 5 minutes into the game. This leads back to the first argument: The smallest number that works is the best number.
I've seen no convincing reason to switch away from 6v6 (and I'm not carrying my preconceived notions over from NS1). I think 7v7 would be fine, but I've yet to see why it would be better than 6v6. I'm also unclear as to why 8v8 wouldn't then be better than 7v7, ignoring server performance. Then 9v9 vs 8v8, etc.
No, NS2 will not be balanced around 6v6 again, you know this. It will scale. Also, if using your logic of "5v5 doesn't work", i can say 7v7 works, so it should be used, too.
These are all good points, but i think its key to remember the title of this thread: 7v7 not 20v20
That's only one player more per team, and given the size of some of the maps coming (That will be bigger than mineshaft) this fits well into those points you all have to make about ensuring spectator entertainment.
Your concerns such as spectator enjoyment, too little or too much downtime are all washed away when playing on a larger map. Large maps will scale with larger player numbers, obviously. compare 6v6 on tram vs 6v6 on something larger than mineshaft. (zzzzz)
@grissi : i don't think anyone is arguing against what you are saying there. I think the only mindset being refuted is Wilson's "<i>Most players who wish to compete with others in organised games want their individual skill to matter more.</i> " Where he is inaccurately speaking for other comp players. I personally do not share this viewpoint - i want my team to win above anything remotely related to myself. I've always played this way, only in 1v1 do i want my individual skill to matter more - but hey that's me.
The OP is recommending you try an actual match this way a few times and comment on it, instead of defending the status quo.
Come back after a few times of trying it and provide arguments against it, instead of discussing theory / believing your argument does not require testing.
You misunderstood me. I'm talking about, when you decide to compete at a game in an organised way, you want your abilities to matter. They matter more with the lower player numbers. 1v1 your ability is all that matters. Of course you want your team to win before getting high k:d or whatever. I don't understand why you would want to dilute the team by adding in more players, it just makes things less intense, individual players matter less, less is on the line, boring zzz. Go play public if you want that and have fun.
how does having one more player per team make anything "less intense" ?? Our argument FOR the increase was that it makes it <b>more</b> intense, and is the opposite of what i consider to be "boring" ?
I also don't have to go public if i want 7v7. As i said plenty of clans are able to do this, and we have tried it with a few of them already?
No offense, Wilson, but before you wrote your response there, did you do as the OP and everyone else has suggested? Did you try it in an actual match a few times before coming back here with that viewpoint of less intensity? <i>Or are you still discussing theory and an opinion without experience? </i> Cuz i would have agreed with you before i experienced the difference. (Same with Scardybob i would assume since he played that game too)
Keep doing that then. I don't see what difference it makes if I approve or not.
That's what this thread is for. Finding people who are interested in doing more 7v7, and asking players who haven't tried it if they would be willing to give it a shot and tell us what they think.
You said "No". Okay. There's nothing wrong with that. It does beg the question of why you're still hanging around posting here, if you're not one bit interested in trying 7v7. There's a dozen other threads for organizing 6v6 matches.
NOTE *I'm an NA player and shoutcaster, this is my NA exp (except for cod :P)*
Lots of miss information in this thread. As a former tribes 2, dod 1.3, vcod, and cs competitive player I can tell you theres one reason and only one reason for lower team numbers. LOGISTICS.
Its far easier to get teams to lans when the game runs 4 vs 4 and 5 vs 5 as most lan centers have 20 pc's. This formula forms the basis for any strong competitive community and allows for larger events to appear (think mlg and cpl) and for those events to have experienced teams show up and thus proper the game further.
PRIME EXAMPLE, cod1 (vcod) was originally 6 vs 6. As a community we made the very very hard choice to move to 5 vs 5. It benefited us greatly as teams could get more sponsors and leagues could get more teams and thus appeal to sponsors who saw 300 teams (5 vs 5) as opposed to 230 (6 vs 6)
There is a reason tf2 never took of in the competitive realm, 6 vs 6 is a very very hard format to support these days. It was easy when FPS games like RTCW made the mold but now Console games have pushed leagues and sponsors to ask "why not 4 vs 4".
So the better question to ask is should the community conform to the new competitive norm or stick to its roots and ride out 6 vs 6 knowing that it might severely hamper competitive growth.
Many people who say "I played games with 8 vs 8 and 10 vs 10, it workks!". They view there games competitive health through rose colored glasses. They always tend to say hey game X was the best. But in reality it was small and only played by a minority. Your game might be healthy but it will never grow past it initial influx of players (think bf2). Bf2 is a prime example, going from 10 vs 10 to 8 vs 8 and eventually the most popular and most team garnering mod to ever grace the series was 5 vs 5 infantry only and 4 vs 4 rush for those who enjoy the later iterations. Point being you need to see you game in perspective, do you just want a small game with a niche community? or do you want a game to grow to a a semi CS type level with year big tournaments. Either form works, but you must grasp that to grow sacrifices must be made.
*EDIT* You want to avoid running many different sizes, eventually one format will steal from the other. Its better to settle on one team size and one format for the primary arena of competitive play. Its good to have choice but you must have 1 universal "THIS IS THE COMP STANDARD" type game. If you have 5 different team size modes all begging to be the comp standard you going to find that teams will pick just one which will dmg others as well as create much hostility within the community.
As for the remarks about spectating appeal, please don't think this way. You can worry about how people view a a competitive title when it grows to great heights. Primary concern should be building a community and leagues that are focused on growth and balance. The primary audience for smaller community games is that very same community. Even for bigger titles the viewer base is rarely non players. Some games break this mold like SC and Quake but very few do, the more complex a game looks the less likely someone is to watch it from out side the community.
Thats my two cents and my first post. I'm looking for ward to playing ns2 more CHEERS!!!!
So the better question to ask is should the community conform to the new competitive norm or stick to its roots and ride out 6 vs 6 knowing that it might severely hamper competitive growth.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Less than 6 is not viable for the type of game NS2 is and how it deals with map control, and with that the balance of health/damage on certain units and classes. Map sizes too.
NS2 would need to be rebalanced entirely for it to work, and it would throw higher player counts off.
Though I understand your point, if it means that NS2 will have to change so much to be successful at international Lan events then I don't think I want that.
That was a very interesting post, your experience is wide and grounded in reality. Hope to see you post more around these here parts!
It's interesting to see an example of a community (vcod) who chose to reduce team size. I remember the huge TF2 debate between 8v8 and 6v6 as standard allllll the way back when crits weren't even removed by that promod yet.
It really feels like those arguing for higher game sizes are basing their decisions only on the micro-scale of what is fun to play in-game. When you scale it up to a full community you do get a tonne of issues and that is something that you don't need experience playing 7v7 to predict.
One noteworthy thing about what seems to be working now and what works in the future is how undeveloped the NS2 competetive scene still is. Most high tier gamers are still avoiding the whole thing due to performance and all that.
In general the better the gamers get, the more 'roaming space' they can effectively cover. This goes with SC2 map sizes, NS1 map control and all that. For example playing a 6v6 pub game of NS1 feels absolutely impossible because people aren't very efficient in getting things done and controlling the map. Meanwhile playing against a high tier team makes you feel they are everywhere even with 5 marines on the field.
What this means with NS2 is that 7v7 working right now doesn't necessarily apply once the competition really starts kicking in. As people get better, they will cover more area and get their tasks done in an efficient manner, probably making 6v6 a lot more crowded and action packed than it is right now.
What's best for the "eSport" side of things may not necessarily be the best for the actual game play, if that makes sense.
By the way, this really could be an entirely different thread. It's incredible to me that people can earn tens of thousands of dollars playing at a venue in Las Vegas with over 50k people watching online. Will this continue to grow or will the bubble burst?
Just because the main focus of the game would be 6v6, doesnt mean that there couldnt be some scaling adjustments that make it also work well enough for higher playernumbers <u>that dont need as finetuned balance</u>. (like for fun competitive games or pubs with 7v7-16v16players.)
The higher the player number the more it is pure zerging than tactics anyway... edit: i would even say a ns2_combat mod with big enough maps would be more fun for such playernumbers but thats kinda offtopic.
PS: the fact why we talk about teamsize in the thread is(or it might just be the topic title? o_O), nobody really believes scaling can be done well enough for everything(and seriously how could it? you'd need to make almost everything dynamic on playernumbers - pres alone is far from enough) - so we need to decide the basic format to balance around. Otherwise why would you care about trying to push so many ppl that think 6v6 is the best compromise over to a higher playercount?
So you might think going the middle way between 7v7-10v10 would grant maybe better overall balance maybe?... tho thats for playercounts most of the current competitive scene doesnt care about... the ones that are affected the most by every tiny balance problem.
edit: while the topic is about 6v6 vs 7v7 in general i kinda felt like this fits - just some overall addition because i got a feeling uwe wants us to get into 7v7 or higher playercounts because it might be easier to balance the middle way like i already said. (considering that playtesters, and hugh posted so positiv towards higher numbers tho i might just be paranoid :P)
That was a very interesting post, your experience is wide and grounded in reality. Hope to see you post more around these here parts!
It's interesting to see an example of a community (vcod) who chose to reduce team size. I remember the huge TF2 debate between 8v8 and 6v6 as standard allllll the way back when crits weren't even removed by that promod yet.
It really feels like those arguing for higher game sizes are basing their decisions only on the micro-scale of what is fun to play in-game. When you scale it up to a full community you do get a tonne of issues and that is something that you don't need experience playing 7v7 to predict.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thank you, I already like this community from just the posts. Far less hostility then other games i've been into.
As your post indicates you really only know what will work when competition starts, if there is a serious flaw with 6 vs 6 you will notice it. In CoD2 one minor issue we faced was the questions of weapon limits (should we use 1 shotgun or 2 or 3 or 4/ 1 or 2 snipers) we quickly found as teams scrimmed heavily that certain gun dominate the combat space both defensively and offensively. So we choose to impose a limit of 1 per side. While not a direct comparison it illustrates the point that teams need to be heavily scrimming 6 vs 6 for its flaws or merits to appear. On that note anyone need a ringer :P
<!--quoteo(post=1924978:date=Apr 13 2012, 02:26 AM:name=Bacillus)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Bacillus @ Apr 13 2012, 02:26 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924978"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->One noteworthy thing about what seems to be working now and what works in the future is how undeveloped the NS2 competetive scene still is. Most high tier gamers are still avoiding the whole thing due to performance and all that.
In general the better the gamers get, the more 'roaming space' they can effectively cover. This goes with SC2 map sizes, NS1 map control and all that. For example playing a 6v6 pub game of NS1 feels absolutely impossible because people aren't very efficient in getting things done and controlling the map. Meanwhile playing against a high tier team makes you feel they are everywhere even with 5 marines on the field.
What this means with NS2 is that 7v7 working right now doesn't necessarily apply once the competition really starts kicking in. As people get better, they will cover more area and get their tasks done in an efficient manner, probably making 6v6 a lot more crowded and action packed than it is right now.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats brilliant point. Maps literally decided how a team plays, what are good and bad tactics. You can see this in CS, some maps promote rushing some promote defense, still other promote more cautious balanced approaches. That being said getting a list of maps that are good and bad for competition is key. I've yet to scrim the game ( I scrimmed the first ns 10 times :'( ) so all my points are speculative so forgive them if they are forward and out of place. I think you need a competitive map list. Maps must be at least manageable by newer teams that might not have the strategies to run them effectively. This is crucial, you want a high skill ceiling for more advanced teams to grow and improve but you don't want maps that instantly build a wall for any newer player / team who lacks strats. 2 newer teams should eb able to have fun and be competitive in 6 vs 6 without the stress of one side snowballing the other.
<!--quoteo(post=1924990:date=Apr 13 2012, 03:16 AM:name=TremanN)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (TremanN @ Apr 13 2012, 03:16 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1924990"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->A distinction needs to be made between a competitive scene and what we now call an "eSport." A thriving competitive community can exist without being an eSport (I hate this word so much). Where do you see NS2 fitting in? Is it up to the developers or players to decide which path the game takes? Or does it just happen naturally? While I appreciate people looking at the "macro-scale," the game might not even get to that place.
What's best for the "eSport" side of things may not necessarily be the best for the actual game play, if that makes sense.
By the way, this really could be an entirely different thread. It's incredible to me that people can earn tens of thousands of dollars playing at a venue in Las Vegas with over 50k people watching online. Will this continue to grow or will the bubble burst?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Thats a very valid sport, i'm very guilty to using both terms interchangeably. I think everyone wants to be a starcraft 2 or a cs but it usally unlikely. But I think most competitive communities want to be at the size where they have 1 or 2 leagues, they have 4 or 5 tournaments and maybe 3 or 4 lans each year. I think that is a good solid mid size goal to aim for. While going competitive might bring sacrifice it is made up for in new found longevity of a title. I assume ns3 is not in the pipes so you dont have a cod type situation where teams get barely a year to play 1 game before they are bombarded with a newer title. I remember the first NS while small in size had a long life span and survived in CAL until the league collapsed. That its the benefit of a good competitive community. But we can reap the rewards of games like sc2 and cs, right now lots of pc centered companies are rediscovering the benefits of making small micro sponsorships as opposed to big budget breaking ones. These micro sponsorships are easily had for tournaments and usually correspond with wider game exposure which would be, in my opinion, excellent for ns2.
<!--quoteo(post=1925012:date=Apr 13 2012, 05:42 AM:name=Koruyo)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Koruyo @ Apr 13 2012, 05:42 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1925012"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->How many more arguments do we need why 6v6 is fine?
Just because the main focus of the game would be 6v6, doesnt mean that there couldnt be some scaling adjustments that make it also work well enough for higher playernumbers <u>that dont need as finetuned balance</u>. (like for fun competitive games or pubs with 7v7-16v16players.)
The higher the player number the more it is pure zerging than tactics anyway... edit: i would even say a ns2_combat mod with big enough maps would be more fun for such playernumbers but thats kinda offtopic.
PS: the fact why we talk about teamsize in the thread is(or it might just be the topic title? o_O), nobody really believes scaling can be done well enough for everything(and seriously how could it? you'd need to make almost everything dynamic on playernumbers - pres alone is far from enough) - so we need to decide the basic format to balance around. Otherwise why would you care about trying to push so many ppl that think 6v6 is the best compromise over to a higher playercount?
So you might think going the middle way between 7v7-10v10 would grant maybe better overall balance maybe?... tho thats for playercounts most of the current competitive scene doesnt care about... the ones that are affected the most by every tiny balance problem.
edit: while the topic is about 6v6 vs 7v7 in general i kinda felt like this fits - just some overall addition because i got a feeling uwe wants us to get into 7v7 or higher playercounts because it might be easier to balance the middle way like i already said. (considering that playtesters, and hugh posted so positiv towards higher numbers tho i might just be paranoid :P)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Games like bf2 (>.< sorry for comparing it to ns2) play better with larger teams for the fun factor and the overall game design. But the fact of the matter is it much much harder to run competition with larger team sizes. 16 vs 16 bf2 matches where far more fun then 8 vs 8, however they simple where that much harder to support out of match day. Teams would have to pre arrange scrims as opposed to them simply messaging for one. It is a very frustrating process and turns many players off imo.
We've largely being doing that throughout the beta, since the game isn't really balanced yet. For example, a current scrim rule you'll see in competitive matches is that the alien team can't go onos until the second hive is built, since one hive onos is overpowered right now.
I literally only bought the game last week :'( I need exp :P
No worries and welcome :)
Also, you might want to check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/naturalselection2hd" target="_blank">NS2HD's youtube channel</a> for NS2 beta competitive casts as he has a good selection going all the way back to the alpha/early beta.
Also, you might want to check out <a href="http://www.youtube.com/naturalselection2hd" target="_blank">NS2HD's youtube channel</a> for NS2 beta competitive casts as he has a good selection going all the way back to the alpha/early beta.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Merci
Play @ <a href="http://www.ensl.org/" target="_blank">http://www.ensl.org/</a>
Sign up for the NS2 gathers. You'll get good fast.