Favoured game size

(AirborneAsian) #21

8v8. More people, more kills. More people, more deaths. More people, moar fun.

(DMaster2) #22

I really like 8 vs 8, ton of action going

(_retired_) #23

6vs6 or 7vs7.
8vs8 feels like complete mayhem and freaking war. The amount of lead in the air sometimes is just mind-numbing. Forget about tactics, this is Edge of Tomorrow.
7vs7 is almost the same but has some leeway.
6vs6 probably offers best tactical balance since it’s three pairs.
5vs5 feels just odd for me and probably will never get used to it. It might have to do with the fact I don’t have friends to who to play with in the same team.

If you have more players, you organize yourself into smaller groups during the process of match. I like it since it isn’t organized team vs other organized team but more of smaller groups against each other in each part of the map.
It’s like “you and me, let’s stick together and get something done here”.

(InvaderGir) #24

I only voted for this because Dome seems like it’d be pretty bitching with 10v10s.

(_retired_) #25

Bridge, room with the drug samples in 10 vs 10. :lol:

(srswizard) #26

Anything above 6v6 is just disgusting.
I would play 5v5 pubs, if they were a thing, because then I could use similar logic while playing, as I do in competitive play.

I find it ironic how, once again, a noticeable chunk of people are voting for higher player counts, while it’s highly counter productive for objective based gameplay, yet many of these people are against pure slaying game modes (TDM, FFA).
Do you just like feeling superior to “cod kids” for having “objectives” as a buzzword to throw around?

At least 5v5 and 6v6 votes combined, make the majority of the votes, so that’s something.

(_retired_) #27

[quote=“srswizard;63308”]I find it ironic how, once again, a noticeable chunk of people are voting for higher player counts, while it’s highly counter productive for objective based gameplay, yet many of these people are heavily against pure slaying game modes (TDM, FFA).[/quote]So how it’s “highly counter productive”?

It just adds bigger team and more bodies to burn before reaching objective.

(Ghosthree3) #28

I like the objective based mode because it moves the game forward and gives variety, but I enjoy killing people more than planting C4.

(srswizard) #29

[quote=“crabbyDimension;63314”][quote=“srswizard;63308”]I find it ironic how, once again, a noticeable chunk of people are voting for higher player counts, while it’s highly counter productive for objective based gameplay, yet many of these people are heavily against pure slaying game modes (TDM, FFA).[/quote]So how it’s “highly counter productive”?

[/quote]
More spam, more randomness. Less emphasis on good performance on individual level, yet the game and the mercs are designed in such way, that a single merc can easily block off the objective area, with use of abilities, often long enough for his dead team mates to respawn again.

Or you know, just:
EV map
3+ skyhammers on defending team

(_retired_) #30

More spam, more randomness.
More need for adaption towards that spam and randomness = tactical awareness, teamwork and SKILL

Less players = less things to worry, more time to react usually “the learned way” instead of something random, unexpected and surprising

Less emphasis on good performance on individual level, yet the game and the mercs are designed in such way, that a single merc can block off the objective area, with use of abilities, often long enough for his dead team mates to respawn again.
More emphasis on team work going for the objective and less that one specific merc. And the roles do get all filled out anyway quite so.
Everybody can contribute, even those with lesser levels and only specific skill sets.

(Ghosthree3) #31

Let’s be real, the game is designed for 5v5, don’t try and justify higher game sizes for design reasons. I prefer big games too, in pub, but it’s not balanced or well designed. It’s just chaotic fun. 6v6 can feel a bit empty in pubs, and too fast if you outskill the opponents personally too much.

(InvaderGir) #32

[quote=“srswizard;63308”]

I find it ironic how, once again, a noticeable chunk of people are voting for higher player counts, while it’s highly counter productive for objective based gameplay, yet many of these people are heavily against pure slaying game modes (TDM, FFA).
Do you just like feeling superior to “cod kids” for having “objectives” as a buzzword to throw around?[/quote]

For me personally I voted for more players as in my opinion Dome seemed like a pretty big map with with a branching pathway for one of it’s objectives which may be interesting if it had a larger player count.

Not that I want the other maps to get the same treatment or anything, just something that would be cool to see on Dome solely.

(_retired_) #33

[quote=“Ghosthree3;63332”]Let’s be real, the game is designed for 5v5, don’t try and justify higher game sizes for design reasons.[/quote]Ok, let’s be real.
Who cares what the game is “designed for”? There’s no need to justify anything.
There’s no one single “this is the right and designed way to play the game correctly”.

Neither automatically bigger teams mean less objective game play or less tactical approach, that is just absurd thing to say. IT can require quite amount of individual skill in that chaos, let alone tactics to go through.

[quote=“Ghosthree3;63332”] I prefer big games too, in pub, but it’s not balanced or well designed. [/quote]That’s NOT amount of players issue even though the size of the maps comes to the picture at some point, it’s team balance and teamwork issue because they are public servers full of random dudes.

[quote=“Ghosthree3;63332”]It’s just chaotic fun. 6v6 can feel a bit empty in pubs, and too fast if you outskill the opponents personally too much.[/quote]I would agree even as newbie to the game. Chaos doesn’t mean there are no tactics involved though.

(scrub_lord) #34

Larger games just become cluster fucks and zerg rushes. Tactics and teamwork are just thrown out the window and all game balance gets destroyed.

It’s fine that people enjoy this chaotic playstyle, but you’ll never find me taking part in it.

(LifeupOmega) #35

Can’t say I really play anything higher than 6v6 if possible, although all Min 10 servers are 7v7 for some reason.

(PlayingUndead) #36

4v4. Not for Dirty Bomb necessarily, although I’d love to try it with friends. Anyway, I know Gears is a different game with different rules and all that, but I remember Gears 1 working awesome with 4v4 as well as a few other games I’ve played with friends. It was always a small and personal size such that you could always have a mental tab on everyone in a game, and whether or not you actually knew them, develop a sort of gameplay dynamic-relationship kinda thing with them where you knew how it was gonna go down when you bumped into them. Obviously map sizes need to be adjusted for such small games, but I dare to say not too much, as another thing I always kinda enjoy in multiplayer is a little bit of tension in hunting around the map.

Just a note though, I’m not saying this is how things “SHOULD BE IN DIRTY BOMB”, this is just what I usually enjoy a lot and would be interested in trying out a bit, particularly with friends filling both teams in a private lobby. I can see that so far, out of the 69 votes (heh, dude, 69.), I’m the only one who’s voted smaller, so I’m definitely not trying to push this as something for everyone.

Also, I definitely wouldn’t put 4v4 on the official server list. But for me, smaller numbers means a more personal experience, and while 1v1 is too personal for my taste, I always felt like 4v4 was right on the money.

(frolicsomeCrane) #37

I like either 6v6’s or 7v7’s, but mostly prefer 6v6. I kinda find the 5v5 in comp to be pretty imbalanced for some reason.

(litheJacket) #38

I prefer playing same room forever in 5vs5 6vs6 rooms after 2 player quit game everybody is quit and you need to find another room and i don’t like it.

(Smokahontas) #39

5v5 and 6v6 are to me also the best sizes for mm and publics. 7v7 is already a too much i think but still on the edge while 8v8 is pure chaos (those server i join extremely rarely)

(srswizard) #40

This doesn’t get brought up enough on the forums.
What a completely out of touch move it was, to make all those servers 7v7 instead of having some 6v6 or even 5v5 servers as an option.