Teams and vehicles in competitive play.

[Redh3lix]

I hear a much talk amongst the ET'ers regarding the team sizes within ET:QW. Some are suggesting that teams larger than 6 vs 6 results in the degeneration of teamplay. I'd like to hear other people's opinion's on this subject.

I personally play many other FPS's (ET, FEAR, CS:S and DOD:S and BF2 primarily), and sorry for bringing up the inevitable comparison but Battlefield 2 features teams much larger than 6 vs 6. Like many others, I regularly play BF2 with teams of 16 vs 16 so have first hand experience of teamplay with such large squads. Teams of 12 or more are perfectly feasible as long as you are given the resources to control and communicate. BF2's method uses Squads, Commander and VOIP which works perfectly during a match environment. In fact, since playing with these resources, you find it offer's much more depth for tactics for any given map or situation, more so than ET imo.

Another concern I hear is fielding 16 players (for example) in a single evening. This can indeed prove problematic if you have exactly 16 members within your clan. We never seem to have a problem getting players as, like me, they're always playing :rofl:

In summary, teamplay is perfectly feasible in teams larger than 6 vs 6. What I do agree with however, and miss since my ET days, is when in a team larger than 6, you seem to loose the "closeness" aspect (looking for better word without sounding pervee). Although as time progresses, you regain this aspect in larger teams.

Another concern I hear are the use of vehicles resulting in a balance issue within the FPS genre. Again, pointing out Battlefield 2 as an example, excluding the odd dodgy patch, the balance between infantry and vehicles is perfectly balanced within BF2.

ET:QW to me, combines elements from two of my favourite games, BF2 and ET. As long as they strike a nice balance between vehicles and infantry regarding defence and attack, and unashamedly study the + points of BF2's structure, I'm sure it will prove an excellent competitive game.

[Zyklon]

Another concern I hear are the use of vehicles resulting in a balance issue within the FPS genre. Again, pointing out Battlefield 2 as an example, excluding the odd dodgy patch, the balance between infantry and vehicles is perfectly balanced within BF2.


Pardon me? If anything Bf2's vehicles are overpowered against infatry. Especially aircraft.

[Redh3lix]

Admitedly, the balance within BF2 regarding aircraft has NOW been borked since the patches. They can't seem to fix AA for some reason. Infantry and land vehicles are perfectly balanced imo.

[fuba]

Good question, its gona be 6v6 , 8v8 ... ? And how can it be played with only 12 ppl on a 24 players map size ?

[Gringo]

I suggest waiting to see how it plays first before embarking on a quest of foolish talking!

[Redh3lix]

I suggest waiting to see how it plays first before embarking on a quest of foolish talking!

You never know Gringo, maybe Splash Damage read these forums from time to time and take on board what the people who play their games have to say ....

:nag:

[Schizma]

Bf2 vehicles are balanced somewhat, except for aircraft which cant be destroyed since the AA missiles cant hit a thing and sometimes bug out and hit your teammate in a helicopter, this has happened to me a couple of times. My only concern is with the Goliaths, I hope they arent overpowered but from what I've seen in the videos they arent very fast or agile and I think thats good.

[Zyklon]

Infantry and land vehicles are perfectly balanced imo.

Tanks still take quite a bunch of rockets to get blown up. I prefered Bf1942's tanks, 1 shot up his ass and done the job.

[Mordenkainen]

From my experience even land vehicles are overpowered. Most stock maps are vehicle friendly with very little cover (that's why I like Karkand's confined streets so much). Special Ops class is your friend, otherwise you're screwed.

[fuba]

I suggest waiting to see how it plays first before embarking on a quest of foolish talking!

:nag:

[B0rsuk]

I suggest waiting to see how it plays first before embarking on a quest of foolish talking!

You never know Gringo, maybe Splash Damage read these forums from time to time and take on board what the people who play their games have to say ....

:nag:

I think they just limit themselves to short, tapir-related comments.

[EB]

tapir!

[-bacon-]

Tapir > *

[Schizma]

Yay! Tapir spam!

[Redh3lix]

Well at least I've identified the few forum idiot's from this topic :???:

Carry on.

[Gringo]

:tapir:

[kamikazee]

Well at least I've identified the few forum idiot's from this topic :???: Do not be feared, this has even spread amongst some of the SD team.

May the Tapirs be with you. (On your side, that is)

On topic: I think it is possible to keep things under contol in 6 vs 6 and over, as long as everyone knows his place and stays with the squad. This shouldn't be different with vehicls, just let the best driver drive the vehicle.

[EB]

Well at least I've identified the few forum idiot's from this topic :???:

Carry on.

We are not idiots sir...but rather: fun-loving community members.
HUGE difference.

But thanks for the observation. :nag:


:tapir:

[datoo]

http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/gallery/2002/06/21/vic_tapir.jpg

[Apocalypse]

Well at least I've identified the few forum idiot's from this topic :???:

Carry on.

Aw come on, am sure the people who hangs around here (esp those here since the early days of ET) are really nice people.

Actually I was pretty concern having vehicles in an FPS game because obviously vehicles owns infantry. But seeing how it was said that any infantry would not feel helpless against vehicles, it kinda assured me abit.

I guess we just have to see and hope QW will not become the n00bfest BF2 is now..

[Nail]

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]

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]

Nail, I hope you didn't mean clan guys being "obsessive e-strokers"? :D

[Apocalypse]

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

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. :D

Ah the good old days. :(

[taken]

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]

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

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". :(

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

Back on topic please...

[EB]

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:
ET:QW to me...............As long as they ......unashamedly study the + points of BF2's structure, I'm sure it will prove an excellent competitive game.

[Redh3lix]

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]

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]

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

[Dazzamac]

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]

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 :P

[Redh3lix]

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]

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

[Apocalypse]

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? ;)

[Redh3lix]

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? ;)

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]

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.

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: .

[Florisjuh]

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]

....or all soldiers (with heavy explosive devices)

[SCDS_reyalP]

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.
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.

[kamikazee]

I've played BF2 with some bots the other day, and I must say that it stays chaotic at best.

The commander has interesting options, but I think that those are not necessary in ET gameplay. There are only a few objectives at a time, while BF 2 needs defence all over the map.

[SCDS_reyalP]

The commander has interesting options, but I think that those are not necessary in ET gameplay. There are only a few objectives at a time, while BF 2 needs defence all over the map.
The original topic was "competitive play". In clan play, you pretty much need someone calling the shots, regardless of whether the game supports a "commander" role or not. ISTR SD has previously stated that they considered a commander and decided against it.

I've only pubbed bf2, so I have no idea how that works out in clan play, but on pubs, the commander role is a bit hit or miss. A good commander can make a big difference, both by doing things that only commanders can do (arty, supply drops, UAV etc.) and directing attacks.

[Redh3lix]

As commander in BF2, I have coms to all squad leaders who subsequently direct their squad members. Regarding public play, verbal communication via VOIP makes a HUGE difference. I doubt SD will include VOIP in ET:QW but I sincerly hope they do. Feel free to get on BF2Nation.co.uk -Annihilation server- and get in my squad (when I'm not commander). You'll see a VAST difference in gameplay.

In fact, I think all FPS's should include in game coms. imo.

Unfortunately, the best commanders in BF2 are dedicated (non combat) ones who simply stay within the command screen throughout the match. I'm glad SD decided against this.

Thinking about it, (kicking myself) there's a reason Battlefied 2 doesn't support other game modes. I believe it's because it would render the commander and squad structure obsolete as the player WILL have direct objectives to carry out and will require much less assistance regarding the outcome of the match.....

[Lanz]

I doubt SD will include VOIP in ET:QW but I sincerly hope they do.
It's already implemented according to some of the reviews I've read.

[Redh3lix]

It's already implemented according to some of the reviews I've read.

EXCELLENT! I hope so.

[Apocalypse]

Bah. Just use TeamSpeak. I dunno wat's the fuss about including VoIP in games. I certainly do not wish to hear some teen boy screaming at me in pub games. :/

[Redh3lix]

Bah. Just use TeamSpeak. I dunno wat's the fuss about including VoIP in games. I certainly do not wish to hear some teen boy screaming at me in pub games. :/

I'm 31 :( 90% of people who use BF2N's public coms are out of their teens. You usually find the "young 'uns" dont use coms because they're to embarassed or shy. I personally dont give a damn. :)

[Apocalypse]

I understand the rationale is to improve pub games through better communication. Truth be told, I've only witness that a handful of times in BF2. Most of the time, people do not use it and I think you know as well as I do that BF2 in pubs are ....

I just hope that such an implementation do not drive the bandwidth requirements through the roof.. Have lousy netcode is going to be killer for a pure multiplayer game...

[Redh3lix]

I've read somewhere (sorry, can't find source) that they've concentrated a great deal on the netcode for ET:QW.

I agree, it's not used anywhere near a much as it should be. Again, I use it all the time and it certainly encourages other gamers to aswell. It's more personal than listening to a VSAY saying "go there" or whatever.

Get on the BF2Nation server, we use VOIP all the time, or feel free to get on GN's public coms BF2 channel:

http://www.gamersnation.co.uk/index.php?name=Forums&file=viewtopic&t=1790

Don't be shy.

[Apocalypse]

I'm shy. :D

Though admitted I find it pretty amusing hearing all those Brit and American accent from time to time over VOIP. I'm asian. :D

[Redh3lix]

I'm shy. :D

Though admitted I find it pretty amusing hearing all those Brit and American accent from time to time over VOIP. I'm asian. :D

We get tons of nationalities on coms. Quite a few from Netherlands for some reason. All good company and we all have a laugh. As I say, get on coms, you don't have to say anything at first, just give us the silent treatment like everyone who joins coms for the first time.