Teams and vehicles in competitive play.

(Nail) #21

calling long term members of this site idiots on your third day of being here shows more than a little immaturity, you seem to be one of those “must be in a clan and flash my stats in my sig” guys, me, I never liked being in a clan, was once and it was truly frustrating, no fun at all. I play games for fun, been playing ET since release, DF2 before that, games are made for fun first, for the average player, not for obsessive e-strokers

(digibob) #22

Tapir, tapir tapir. Tapir tapir?

:tapir:

On a more sensible note, lets not have this thread derailed, please continue discussion in a less tapir focused manner!

(Lanz) #23

Nail, I hope you didn’t mean clan guys being “obsessive e-strokers”? :smiley:

(Apocalypse) #24

Ah… That’s really a shame because joining a clan for ET was the best thing I’ve ever done for a game that I love. I guess it was the crowd that you were with? I am 27 and most of our clanmates are around my age or older. And they totally rocks.

Not to mention the awesome feeling of supporting each other to complete the objective and screaming at each other in TS over the noob that defused your friendly dyna to plant his. :smiley:

Ah the good old days. :frowning:

(taken) #25

I hope 6vs6 will be standard in Quakewars clanwars, to take up the fight with other large competitive games the game needs to be playable at lans, and bigger than 6 ppl per team=hard to attend lans.

And to build a ultra active/skilled squad is hard and it gets harder for every man ekstra you have to find, in bf2 you need to have 8 to 10 ppl for a 8vs8 lineup. The ideal would be to have 6 active players and 6 spots in the team. This is not possible when you got more than 5-6 players. (my experience) I have played bf2 at a large lan (and won), but then the game was played 5on5 inf only and this was not as fun as it could have been. If the game dosent fit lan gameing you have to cut out some parts of the game to make it fit, this is what you do at most large bf2 lans and this is not ideal, hope Quakewars will fit the Lan profile. Using the whole game in Lans, not only a cut out part.

larger than 6 players per team = harder to compet on a high level and at offline events.

(Redh3lix) #26

Apologies if I upset you, but I expected a sensible conversation (or at least a welcoming one, being my third day 'n all) from “mature long term members”. :frowning:

No, I’m not clanned and look at my sig carefully… click on it if you wish :cool:

Back on topic please…

(EB) #27

Well, Red…I’ll shrug it off but no more insults, ok ?

The ET competition community, IMO, has always liked the 6 vs. 6 match. You will probably get the same reply from most of the comp players if you ask them.
-If you want opinions from PUB-lic players…you might want to specifically ask for that.

Personally, I find 6 vs 6 to be “drab”.
Camping somewhere to pop 3 to the enemy head’s backside, yeck.
Anyone can stay quiet/hide and then attack from the shadows…but who can be the crazy soldier that wreaks havoc all over the terrain ?

I prefer the large 60+ player servers as it never leaves me “not looking behind my back”…which I think makes great constant and fast gameplay.

If the net code of ETQW is as good as I am hoping, then I will have a 60(or more) player server with chaos reigning supreme.

Rock on HUGE SERVERS !

BTW…this was lame:

(Redh3lix) #28

Since playing BF2 EB, I tend to agree with you regarding 6 vs 6 being a little drab.

BF2 is in fact a good game and very well made in the sense of squad play, commanders etc. So I don’t see any shame in borrowing ideas from other games…is what I meant.

(Redh3lix) #29

hmmm, again, I didn’t illustrate my point very well.

Here:

When developing a game of such large teams sizes, in order to maintain that “teamplay” aspect on say, a 64 man server, Battlefield 2 offers Squads, VOIP and a commander. This will stop the server becoming a free for all, objectiveless mess.

… is what I meant when I said “unashamedly study the workings of BF2” etc.

(Gringo) #30

I dont really care how many players are in comp matches as im sure us vpl fellows will still get whipped either way!

(Dazzamac) #31

Imo a team of any number can function if everyone knows their role. 6v6 is there both to allow the smaller clans to be able to compete with the big ones that have 20-30 members on a level playing field. I personally find that 10v10 is a nice number for a game of ET, any less and your sacrificing certain options and any more and things get a bit chaotic, I do my best to avoid the 64 slot servers for the fact that it becomes carnage to the point of stupidity. Though in saying that, most of the maps these days are designed for 6v6 matches and playing 32v32 on it isn’t a good idea anyway.

If the maps are open enough to support bigger teams then there’ll be bigger team to play on it, from what I’ve seen the combat on QW seems to be centralised like ET is so I’m betting the team sizes will be similar.

(GlobalWar) #32

With Bigger teams it’s more difficult for clan matches.
When i started with Q2 some years ago we played 4 vs 4 which was easy to always have 4 members around for a scrim.
It became more difficult with RTCW and ET playing 6vs6… In BF2 it’s hell to have 8 guys inline for a scrim…it takes a lot more planning…

So i hope it will be 6 vs 6 or 8 vs 8 max.

I dont want to manage a clan of 50 people :stuck_out_tongue:

(Redh3lix) #33

I scrim in BF2 at least once every two weeks as a commander of 16 players. It’s by no means a simple task, although it works VERY well most of the time and is perfectly feasible purely because you are given the opportunity to issue orders via a chain of command from; Commander > Squad leader > Squad members. With this in mind, it allows for much more scope tactically in any given map or situation. More so than ET.

All my opinion of course before the flaming.

Btw, I’m only using BF2 as a prime example of larger team sizes in gameplay.

In fact, for those of you who don’t believe me, please feel free to participate in the next scrim… www.bf2nation.co.uk

(nUllSkillZ) #34

W:ET is much too fast for a commander I think.
And if the player moving speed ist the same in ET:QW.

(Apocalypse) #35

As a BF2 commander, you job is to simply command. Sure you would be very occupied but that’s it, you hide in the back line.

In ET, you fight and command. You only intel is your teammates. You have to make instant tactical decision while fighting, reviving (somehow they are usually medic in my clan), watching the command map and commanding at once!

So you tell me which is harder? :wink:

(Redh3lix) #36

Yeah, I certainly dont dispute that ET requires faster thinking requiring tactical decisions. BF2 is indeed slower but the commander dictates the match outcome in many instances purely by the amount of work he put’s in regarding spoting enemy’s, supply drops, UAV’s, waypoints aswell as global verbal communication. This isn’t the point I was illustrating earlier anyway. My point is that, in my opinion, I think games with such a large number of players would benefit from such a command structure as BF2. I’m certainly NOT saying copy BF2’s in any shape or form by any means and in fact I hope they introduce a whole new concept. Either way, it’s going to prove an excellent game no matter what tbh.

(Apocalypse) #37

Ah yes, I get it now. And I agree with you. A match with large number of players on both side will be utter chaos without a dedicated commander role.

But to copy BF2 is like :moo: .

(Floris) #38

I think you don’t really need a commander, because the server already does that for the players, somewhere they said when a covert spots an artillery gun, the server would assign a soldier to destroy it etc.

(EB) #39

…or all soldiers (with heavy explosive devices)

(SCDS_reyalP) #40

If you think the auto assignment is going to make better decisions than an informed human commander, maybe you should lay off the :beer:

Myself, I wouldn’t want to try to play clan games with 16 people on a side. Organizing 6 or 7 is hard enough, regardless of commander.