@Tok Agree it would be super cool to have some kind of in-game matchmaking/scheduling/ladder system. You said you fully expect to see it, I’m curious what lead you to that expectation? I’d like to see it as well, but I have no expectation of doing so.
My comment on the team sizes was of course regarding the ability to field a decent sized team. A lot of that probably has to do with the popularity of the game. As stated there will probably be ladders with a variety of team sizes to start with, but I’m theororizing that one team size ends up becoming more or less the standard/most popular size for ladders. I’m sure there will be 8v8 ladders out there to start with, but it probably won’t be the most popular because of the ability to field teams consistently with 8 players.
It’s of course all guesswork at this time, inlcuding any optimal team make-up for any one objective type (which will also be map dependent), and also it depends on the enemy teams make-up (you will want to be fluid in order to counter a particular make up from the other team).
Sorry for high-jacking the original thread intent.
It’s not a wheel that needs to be invented again. Other games have done all the experimenting already. It’s a meta-feature which means it doesn’t require tinkering with the engine. To me it seems like a really cost-effective feature, it’s cheap and it makes the game all the more addictive.
I was very clear, I said IF logistics is the only thing that matters, THEN 1v1 is the preferred mode. Nothing facetious about that. The argument of both of you rested on that logistics were the most important thing. The fact that you wouldn’t want to see the game turn into a duel mode proves that you care about more than just that.
The game is balanced around 8v8, and I’m not denying the game is playable with less, but you’ll always make concessions to what the game has to offer. Having two players less on each team will mean that the players will forgo the fringe-missions and focus on the main objectives. In turn this means that multiple player-configurations, weapons and perks may become redundant in these types of matches. This by itself is not a bad thing, some people might prefer it for reasons other than mere logistics. But that doesn’t mean the game as-it-should-be needs to be inaccessible from the start.
You two are ignoring my main point, which is that a game fit for setting up and running 8v8 matches will have no problems hosting 6v6 and 5v5 matches. That means that 8v8 should be the golden standard, the bar needs to be raised to that level in order to secure the matches fit for the game as well as everything below it.
No, you’re 1v1 suggestion was an absurd suggestion BECAUSE it’s quite clearly not a dual game, so the suggestion was being arsey rather than helpful.
The game is balanced around 8v8, and I’m not denying the game is playable with less, but you’ll always make concessions to what the game has to offer. Having two players less on each team will mean that the players will forgo the fringe-missions and focus on the main objectives. In turn this means that multiple player-configurations, weapons and perks may become redundant in these types of matches. This by itself is not a bad thing, some people might prefer it for reasons other than mere logistics. But that doesn’t mean the game as-it-should-be needs to be inaccessible from the start.
Stopwatch is the main objective for leagues and ladders, those fringe missions will be getting left to the wayside regardless to try and set the fastest time possible, no amount of players will change the way the game is played in a competitive manor, because the main objectives will always be the focus.
You two are ignoring my main point, which is that a game fit for setting up and running 8v8 matches will have no problems hosting 6v6 and 5v5 matches. That means that 8v8 should be the golden standard, the bar needs to be raised to that level in order to secure the matches fit for the game as well as everything below it.
Again you seem to be under this bizarre impression that I want them to stop catering to 8v8 and focus purely on 5/6 players, which at this point would be ludicrous anyway. Then you say if it works for 8v8 then it’ll work for 5v5/6, which I said at the beginning! Your main point from what I saw was “other games do it, so this game should”, such a shallow focus, especially when comparing how an MMO works to an fps. But you also seem to be giving views on how the comp scene should be run without any actual knowledge or experience on the subject yourself (else the suggestion of mercs and PUG’s wouldn’t have happened).
I’m not going to bother arguing with someone who only reads what he wants to read in my comments. My first post was clear, my second explained it to the point even the dimmest of wit should understand it. I’m not going to pursue this further.
Another case in point:
The only one who mentioned mercs in this thread was you.
I’m the one that mentioned them by name, you mentioned them in function… not hard to grasp mate. "oh those things with 4 wheels that transport people " “yes the suggestion of using cars” “whoa wait there, I never said cars!”. You aiming for troll of the week?
And as for the absurdity of suggesting 1v1 on a team based shooter, by a company notorious for team based shooters, on a game marketed heavily for promoting team based gameplay … yeah that ones shouting volumes about just how arsey your suggestion was… it fits I guess. See my comment on the last point
The argument of both of you rested on that logistics were the most important thing.
Most important thing, also implies there is something else that is valued. Theres a duality.
If logistics was the only thing that was valued, then turning a team based game to 1v1 would be fine.
In there lies the hypocrisy of a person that writes “someone who only reads what he wants to read in my comments”. All that was taken from any of the comments on the subject was the word ‘logistics’. Equally hypocritical is suggesting that someone is ‘dim-witted’ after getting banned for posting on a game developers website that they pirate games. Seems a very dim-witted thing to do from where I’m standing…
[QUOTE=Humate;253971]Most important thing, also implies there is something else that is valued. Theres a duality.
If logistics was the only thing that was valued, then turning a team based game to 1v1 would be fine.[/QUOTE]
Yes indeed.
Formulating it as ‘most’ was handing them an olive branch as their sole argument rested on logistics. But I’m glad I got the ‘we don’t want duel games’ out of them, it sets the record straight again.
[QUOTE=tokamak;253975]Yes indeed.
Formulating it as ‘most’ was handing them an olive branch as their sole argument rested on logistics. But I’m glad I got the ‘we don’t want duel games’ out of them, it sets the record straight again.[/QUOTE]
There’s a difference between ‘we don’t want’ and ‘this is not’… a BIG, obvious difference.
[QUOTE=tokamak;253975]Yes indeed.
Formulating it as ‘most’ was handing them an olive branch as their sole argument rested on logistics. But I’m glad I got the ‘we don’t want duel games’ out of them, it sets the record straight again.[/QUOTE]
oh dear… after re reading the thread its now clear.
yes chris was inaccurate when he said “purely” logistical reasons… but seriously, it didnt require an entire page of discussion about it in my opinion.
One full team= two smaller ones.
Team A:
Two heavy assaults, -and four medium/heavies consisting of two shooters (one smg ad one long range), one engineer and one medic. That’s the attacking ground team of 6.
Team B:
A duo of medium/skinny recon/stealth/operatives that focuses on demolition/sideobjectives/interrogation/behind enemy lines tactics.
here some perspective:
i guess the often mentioned sweet-spot (8vs8) results simply from the fact, that there’s so much to do (variety of objectives/sub-objectives/support) that a lower number cannot complete those. this is even more critical taking into account that the timer therefore has been balanced. hence smaller teams could only work properly in different gametypes (CTF / TDM / etc.). since those are out of the question (mods left aside) no use fussing IMO…
