I was going to go with <a href="http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/plonker" target="_blank">http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-d...tion-of/plonker</a> but yours is probably just as appropriate ;)
<!--quoteo(post=1981995:date=Sep 23 2012, 07:05 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Sep 23 2012, 07:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1981995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was going to go with <a href="http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/plonker" target="_blank">http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-d...tion-of/plonker</a> but yours is probably just as appropriate ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free to justify either of these views of my character in PMs (but no more in this thread), as I don't think either apply at all.
These personal attacks on RedDragon just come across as childish.
Here are some thoughts about the topic
- Granted NS2 ≠NS1, but the structures health might become an issue in a bigger game. - I myself would love to see well organized 10v10 games. But that might be to big a change to do without some type of 10v10 competitive mod with some extra balance thrown in to compensate for the extra players. - I see nothing wrong with experimenting with 7v7 and 8v8 games. - A game with more players wouldn't necessarily mean mega über rush war moving in huge groups. I love the idea of more groups with a lot of control from commander making it all work like a well oiled machine.
My stance, all for testing out 7v7 or 8v8 games. But for now 6v6 seams like the sweet spot for balance. Just my input.
Positives - more teams, less diluted gameplay, less LAN fees, more sponsors, more teams = more players wanted, importance on players is increased, more experienced players since there are more scrims and matches to play and each player is more important.
Negatives - less "roles" filled, more cookie-cutter strategies seen, differs from public play
the less people the better, always has been true with every team-based competitive title.
it is hard enough getting 12 people to reserve 3 hours to play a match. Every person you add only makes life more difficult for teams trying to schedule scrims or matches.
We have discussed all the negatives of 6v6 by now. We get it. Now if there are any positives to 7v7 or 8v8 that have not been discussed, I think this is the time.
<!--quoteo(post=1986775:date=Oct 3 2012, 03:54 PM:name=male_fatalities)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (male_fatalities @ Oct 3 2012, 03:54 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1986775"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why waste time discussing it, nothing will change.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> Why read and reply to threads when you have nothing constructive to say?
<!--quoteo(post=1987020:date=Oct 5 2012, 04:46 AM:name=Gravity Grave)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Gravity Grave @ Oct 5 2012, 04:46 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1987020"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Why read and reply to threads when you have nothing constructive to say?<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Go ahead, discuss it to death. No competitive player will listen to you, especially since ns1 6v6 was the standard for 7 years
I'll listen. I think 7v7 definitely has a place in the competitive scene, even if it's just for non-tournament show matches to blow off some steam. It's fun, it's a nice change of pace, and if both teams are up for it I see no issues with running one.
<!--quoteo(post=1986098:date=Oct 2 2012, 06:09 AM:name=NeoRussia)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (NeoRussia @ Oct 2 2012, 06:09 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1986098"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->Too many negatives for adding in more players.
the less people the better, always has been true with every team-based competitive title.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be true in symmetrical games. Hell, look at Quake and Starcraft. The most popular/watched/sponsored format in those two games which easily support balanced team play has always been 1v1. It allowed some people to truly become "legends" - e.g. Fatal1ty, Boxer, etc. etc. . Of course, they are/were on teams and in leagues, but the matches themselves are 1v1.
That works perfectly fine in those games, but you have to consider the effects different numbers of people have on an asymmetric game like this. In this game, one of the economies builds itself, whereas the other economy is built by the players. That alone is huge in terms of difference between a game with 8 players and 4 players per side (+1 com). Aliens never have to worry about making buildings - they just need to defend them.
In my opinion, if the game is extremely popular on release and shortly after, and as new players/clans come in and start playing, we will see some tournaments with higher player counts.
Right now, it's mostly veterans from NS1 playing... and guess what? They like what they know how to do best.
In general, this game is somewhat caught between trying to recapture something old, with trying to make it into something new (a la CS 1.6>CS:S>CS:GO). I'm sure if the devs remade NS1 with better graphics it would work ideally. I actually didn't play NS1 so I wouldn't know if it was good (if it was so popular it must've been), so I'm impartial to be honest - but it's kinda close to release for experimentation.
It isn't about game play, it is about practicality. Most people who play games competitively do so on their free time, while working a job, in addition to having a regular life. Scheduling a 9v9 would be a nightmare.
Heatsurge: I am guessing you haven't played a team game on a competitive level. It takes about 3 hours to run single match of ns1. It is pretty hard to get matches / scrims / gathers together as it is because getting 12 adults together to play game across family/work obligations, time zones, and organizational issues (connecting to server, network problems, food breaks, bath room breaks etc) is very hard.
unless ns2 is crazy popular, running bigger team sizes is just going to drastically reduce the number of teams, which makes the scene fragile, repetitive, and hard to find a match in.
The reason 6v6 is a nice number, is that it is the smallest team size where ns1 / ns2 game style works. Sure bigger might work too, but what is the actual advantage of this?
I have yet to hear a specific example of a positive aspect of bigger team sizes, with respect to competitive play.
I haven't played in a tournament where money was involved, but we did play some friendly comp. matches in Battlefield 2142 and BF:BC2 back in the day, which were 10v10 I think (Or maybe even more? Can't remember).
The logistics were annoying, sure, but we just set a time in the evening (usually on the weekends) and then whoever could make it, made it. A lot of the matches we actually had a "queue" of players waiting to go in, should someone have to drop out (like a "bench").
If (and that's a big if) bigger gaming clans which have 20+ mature, active people start playing NS2 a lot after release, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put together a team of 10-12 on a weekend.
Then again, I guess we're talking about different levels of competitiveness maybe. If it comes to a tournament where money is at stake (entry fee / winner takes pot) and where people practice all day (i.e. sponsored or life circumstances allow), maybe there wouldn't be so many people willing to play :-) .
Don't forget we are in a closed beta right now for a game which was rather unknown before it appeared on steam (except to NS1 veterans obviously, and those are mostly what the beta is comprised of right now) and started appearing on places like reddit - the numbers could explode on release day.
If the numbers of people and clans playing and interested in this game a few weeks into release are the same as today though, I definitely agree - scraping more than 6v6 people willing to play even semi-seriously will be nigh impossible.
<!--quoteo(post=1987293:date=Oct 5 2012, 01:09 PM:name=HeatSurge)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (HeatSurge @ Oct 5 2012, 01:09 PM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1987293"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I haven't played in a tournament where money was involved, but we did play some friendly comp. matches in Battlefield 2142 and BF:BC2 back in the day, which were 10v10 I think (Or maybe even more? Can't remember).
The logistics were annoying, sure, but we just set a time in the evening (usually on the weekends) and then whoever could make it, made it. A lot of the matches we actually had a "queue" of players waiting to go in, should someone have to drop out (like a "bench").
If (and that's a big if) bigger gaming clans which have 20+ mature, active people start playing NS2 a lot after release, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put together a team of 10-12 on a weekend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you only can pull together those big teams on weekends, it will be just show-matches and an occasional tournament thrown in just for the novelty. Most active clans will put in several matches a week just on weekday evenings, and it is currently pretty hard to find the players for those all the time. Sure, you could expand your roster or get mercs for those extra-large weekday evening games, but then you really need to have a deep bench, which causes all kinds of trouble. I'd just rather have an tighter core group that plays a lot together and thus plays better together. So, I for one see the 6v6 as the best solution for competitive play.
<!--quoteo(post=1987541:date=Oct 5 2012, 11:21 AM:name=Katana-)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Katana- @ Oct 5 2012, 11:21 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1987541"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->still haven't heard why 10v10 / 9v9 /8v8 is better than 6v6...<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd--> There has been one actual argument besides it is fun. Sherem liked 8v8 because of all the additional strategies that were made possible. Then there are those like me who like the competitive level play and find it fun to have more than 6 people on a team.
Very few people actually are asking for 6+ per team. There are more who just like the idea for fun.
Comments
it was just taken over to ns2
monkey see monkey do.
Enjoy! ^_^
Enjoy! ^_^<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--quoteo(post=1981995:date=Sep 23 2012, 07:05 AM:name=Tweadle)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (Tweadle @ Sep 23 2012, 07:05 AM) <a href="index.php?act=findpost&pid=1981995"><{POST_SNAPBACK}></a></div><div class='quotemain'><!--quotec-->I was going to go with <a href="http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-definition-of/plonker" target="_blank">http://onlineslangdictionary.com/meaning-d...tion-of/plonker</a> but yours is probably just as appropriate ;)<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
Feel free to justify either of these views of my character in PMs (but no more in this thread), as I don't think either apply at all.
Here are some thoughts about the topic
- Granted NS2 ≠NS1, but the structures health might become an issue in a bigger game.
- I myself would love to see well organized 10v10 games. But that might be to big a change to do without some type of 10v10 competitive mod with some extra balance thrown in to compensate for the extra players.
- I see nothing wrong with experimenting with 7v7 and 8v8 games.
- A game with more players wouldn't necessarily mean mega über rush war moving in huge groups. I love the idea of more groups with a lot of control from commander making it all work like a well oiled machine.
My stance, all for testing out 7v7 or 8v8 games. But for now 6v6 seams like the sweet spot for balance.
Just my input.
Positives - more teams, less diluted gameplay, less LAN fees, more sponsors, more teams = more players wanted, importance on players is increased, more experienced players since there are more scrims and matches to play and each player is more important.
Negatives - less "roles" filled, more cookie-cutter strategies seen, differs from public play
the less people the better, always has been true with every team-based competitive title.
Why read and reply to threads when you have nothing constructive to say?
Go ahead, discuss it to death. No competitive player will listen to you, especially since ns1 6v6 was the standard for 7 years
the less people the better, always has been true with every team-based competitive title.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
That would be true in symmetrical games. Hell, look at Quake and Starcraft. The most popular/watched/sponsored format in those two games which easily support balanced team play has always been 1v1. It allowed some people to truly become "legends" - e.g. Fatal1ty, Boxer, etc. etc. . Of course, they are/were on teams and in leagues, but the matches themselves are 1v1.
That works perfectly fine in those games, but you have to consider the effects different numbers of people have on an asymmetric game like this. In this game, one of the economies builds itself, whereas the other economy is built by the players. That alone is huge in terms of difference between a game with 8 players and 4 players per side (+1 com). Aliens never have to worry about making buildings - they just need to defend them.
In my opinion, if the game is extremely popular on release and shortly after, and as new players/clans come in and start playing, we will see some tournaments with higher player counts.
Right now, it's mostly veterans from NS1 playing... and guess what? They like what they know how to do best.
In general, this game is somewhat caught between trying to recapture something old, with trying to make it into something new (a la CS 1.6>CS:S>CS:GO). I'm sure if the devs remade NS1 with better graphics it would work ideally. I actually didn't play NS1 so I wouldn't know if it was good (if it was so popular it must've been), so I'm impartial to be honest - but it's kinda close to release for experimentation.
Heatsurge: I am guessing you haven't played a team game on a competitive level. It takes about 3 hours to run single match of ns1. It is pretty hard to get matches / scrims / gathers together as it is because getting 12 adults together to play game across family/work obligations, time zones, and organizational issues (connecting to server, network problems, food breaks, bath room breaks etc) is very hard.
unless ns2 is crazy popular, running bigger team sizes is just going to drastically reduce the number of teams, which makes the scene fragile, repetitive, and hard to find a match in.
The reason 6v6 is a nice number, is that it is the smallest team size where ns1 / ns2 game style works. Sure bigger might work too, but what is the actual advantage of this?
I have yet to hear a specific example of a positive aspect of bigger team sizes, with respect to competitive play.
The logistics were annoying, sure, but we just set a time in the evening (usually on the weekends) and then whoever could make it, made it. A lot of the matches we actually had a "queue" of players waiting to go in, should someone have to drop out (like a "bench").
If (and that's a big if) bigger gaming clans which have 20+ mature, active people start playing NS2 a lot after release, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put together a team of 10-12 on a weekend.
Then again, I guess we're talking about different levels of competitiveness maybe. If it comes to a tournament where money is at stake (entry fee / winner takes pot) and where people practice all day (i.e. sponsored or life circumstances allow), maybe there wouldn't be so many people willing to play :-) .
Don't forget we are in a closed beta right now for a game which was rather unknown before it appeared on steam (except to NS1 veterans obviously, and those are mostly what the beta is comprised of right now) and started appearing on places like reddit - the numbers could explode on release day.
If the numbers of people and clans playing and interested in this game a few weeks into release are the same as today though, I definitely agree - scraping more than 6v6 people willing to play even semi-seriously will be nigh impossible.
The logistics were annoying, sure, but we just set a time in the evening (usually on the weekends) and then whoever could make it, made it. A lot of the matches we actually had a "queue" of players waiting to go in, should someone have to drop out (like a "bench").
If (and that's a big if) bigger gaming clans which have 20+ mature, active people start playing NS2 a lot after release, I don't see why they wouldn't be able to put together a team of 10-12 on a weekend.<!--QuoteEnd--></div><!--QuoteEEnd-->
If you only can pull together those big teams on weekends, it will be just show-matches and an occasional tournament thrown in just for the novelty. Most active clans will put in several matches a week just on weekday evenings, and it is currently pretty hard to find the players for those all the time. Sure, you could expand your roster or get mercs for those extra-large weekday evening games, but then you really need to have a deep bench, which causes all kinds of trouble. I'd just rather have an tighter core group that plays a lot together and thus plays better together. So, I for one see the 6v6 as the best solution for competitive play.
There has been one actual argument besides it is fun. Sherem liked 8v8 because of all the additional strategies that were made possible. Then there are those like me who like the competitive level play and find it fun to have more than 6 people on a team.
Very few people actually are asking for 6+ per team. There are more who just like the idea for fun.
6v6 is the tried and true.