the # of players in quake wars

(signofzeta) #1

I was playing a 3 vs 3 wolf ET game and the game kinda works. Now for ETQW, you can play 128 players, 64 players, 32 players.

Can you go as low as to do 4-6 players? I find isolated games tend to be fun.

(ayatollah) #2

I’m sure you can have a 1v1 game, and still have some amount of fun. If the frontline movement works as well as SD hope I reckon small games should be just as hectic and fun as large games.

(Bongoboy) #3

1 v 1 isn’t that much more fun than devmap, imo. But yes, we’ve had some perfectly dandy 4 v 4 games. It’s been a pleasant surprise how well the maps play with lower player headcounts.

3 v 3? A little sparse for my tastes, but yeah, I guess so. Obviously, everyone needs to know all the classes and vehicles and deployables fairly well.

(SKaREO) #4

Everyone has their own tastes.

I don’t want another 5v5 game though, I play Counter-Strike for the small fights like that. I prefer a 20v20 in public servers, especially for a game like this which requires a big team of people to do everything properly.

I hope the server providers have upgraded though, because BF2142 servers were awfully laggy. The newer games are demanding higher performance game servers.

(Kendle) #5

A recent hands-on review at GamesRadar certainly seems to back up the concept of smaller teams being able to play the game just as easily due to ET:QW’s continuing use of the ET objective system. I know SD have said 12-v-12 is their sweet spot but I certainly hope this game proves completely playable at 6-v-6 max.

(San_Pedro) #6

I hope we can see matched with 32 v 32 in the future (probably won’t be able to on release). Massive server with tons of people are my favorite. More canon fodder so to say.

(Ifurita) #7

All of those reviews keep saying the same thing over and over

(Bongoboy) #8

We could start showing them completely different games, I suppose.

“…and this is ET:QW. It’s a turn-based play-by-mail card game where you compete to make the most realistic balloon animal.”

“…and this is ET:QW. It’s a pastry simulator.”

“…and this is ET:QW. OK, it’s a Frisbee.”

“and this is ET:QW. You have to feed the Tapirs. For real. Those Tapirs. Take these oats. Go feed them.”

That should ensure a variety of write-ups. I’ll see what id and Activision think.

(premiumjones) #9

You could make a fake announcement for each of those as individual games just to see how long it takes before EA develops a miserable clone version.

(mortis) #10

I would win this competition hands down…I used to make balloon animals in restaurants when I was in college, and I still can remember how to do about 200 awesome balloon animals, including some characters like Daffy Duck, Pluto, Goofy and others… I’ll have to see if I can find an old photo of my creations… :lol:

(iwound) #11

I would prefer a 500 v 500 game in which during the heat of
battle, I would simulate going AWOL and hide out in an arcade
at the edge of the map where i could play ET.

Until the MP’s turn up and force me back into battle.

(madness) #12

You could make a fake announcement for each of those as individual games just to see how long it takes before EA develops a miserable clone version.[/quote]

I hear there is an Assault Lines gamemode in BF newest expansion. kinda like ET does it, working your way from beginning of map to the end :lol:

(McAfee) #13

Can you make a Tapir Balloon Animal?

(ShaZe) #14

You could make a fake announcement for each of those as individual games just to see how long it takes before EA develops a miserable clone version.[/quote]

LoL!!! Rolling on the floor laughing ahah :wink:

(mortis) #15

Can you make a Tapir Balloon Animal?[/quote]

Probably, lol. I’m actually out of balloons at the moment. I may make a tapir when my son’s birthday comes in May. I was already thinking about making some critters for him and his preschool friends.

(signofzeta) #16

I just played a 1 vs 1, and that was fun. I was trying to panzer a medic, and I only killed him once. Just once out of the many shots I fired.

Conclusion, in ETQW, if you see me with a law rocket or bosonic orb, then something is definitely wrong.

Unless my brother plays of course.

(B0rsuk) #17

Occassionally SD members make it sound like they mostly play 4x4 or 5x5 games. I hope it doesn’t mean the game is relatively worse balanced/tested for bigger teams.

(Dr_Tenma) #18

They also mentioned how Activision has a pretty big internal testing team, I believe. Sure SD personally keep their games small but I think the other guys at Id and Act are getting plenty of large scale testing done. I’m looking forward to some good, balanced 20v20 games.

For example, in one of those very recent interviews they mentioned the “artillery queue” they’re playing around with, where multiple Field Ops can’t spam artillery strikes in the same spot, at the same time - if they both call it at the same time and place, one will be queued to fire only after the first one finishes (maybe with a time gap between them, even). Out of control spam is probably my biggest concern for large scale games, and I’m glad at least that is getting addressed already.

(B0rsuk) #19

I’m skeptical about this artillery queue. Field Op may be my rarest choice, but I think that timing artillery or airstrike means a lot.

(einer) #20

I will play most 6on6 and sure also 12on12 because most will play it that way i think. And publik plays between 1on1 and 12on12 :lol: .