we Support 8's. 7's would work. The maps and classes are just too big/robust for 6's.
If clans have trouble finding people with all the CS/SOF2/Quake clans coming into the scene, you need to fire your recruiting people. Weakest excuse ever.
6's are just too small for these maps. FD with 6 people. yay. ghey.
I'm not as against 6s as most others who want 8+. However, I would MUCH prefer more than 6.
The weapons restrictions is needed no matter how many players you have. With HW restrictions allowing for only 2 panzers and limited FFE, games with more people will be a blast. 6s I am used to from RTCW but I left RTCW due to the stagnant strats and limited flexibility.
A 3 kill panzer shot is as great whether you have 8 enemies or 6. Either way, you just gave your team a 3 man advantage.
The whole dynamic strat comments are a joke to me seeing as every team in RTCW runs the same strats. FUN
By having 8, you are allowed a weak gun or 2. The objective to the game isn't to kill, its to blow up some massive guns, blow up a fuel depot, steal some gold, or steal some radar parts.
There are some tight chokepoints in the game that make it difficult to get through. With limited HW restrictions, those chokes are much easier to get through with more people. Imagine playing Mp_Base with restrictions like 2 panzers, 2 FFE, and having 8 people. I bet more people would cover radar 2.
More people means more possibilities means more variations in strats means this game wont become those stale chips nobody wants to eat.
the ladder admins are going to make an announcement soon.
Here is the deal.
League:
Preseason were going to give 6's a shot. Its preseason so chill. Lets see how it goes and if you like it or hate it email Warpath.
Ladders:
Were going to go with same restrictoions plus were going to give 7v7 a shot. This is to test it out. So we will get a feel for both styles.
I said in the biggining that we are going to try things. its a very new game with alot of diff aspects to it..so comming up with the right format will require trying diff things. We said this at the start and everyone was very supportive of that.
In addition. the TWL staff is very very active in working with a mod maker creating a mod that will make the competitive aspect of the game better.
Well it looks like things aren't set in stone yet. One of the reasons I haven't jumped on the ET League season was I wasn't interested in a 6v6 format at all.
If you do decide to stay with a 6v6 format I sure hope you don't mess with the ladder and change it from 8v8. At least it will still leave the people that do like 8v8 an option.
I support the 8v8 league, and at the very least 7v7.
I understand 6v6 provides more competition to those clans who are on a higher caliber, however... perhaps we shouldn't open this up yet. I know there's only 3 or 4 teams right now who are really in a class of their own in ET. LoT probably being the top seed.
6v6's shows off shooting skills and timing more than strategy and team work. While you can get away with this in RTCW, being that the maps are smaller and faster, in ET you need to realize that most objectives need more classes to accomplish them.
I do realize 8's need the weapon/class restrictions, but this can be done in the configs.
In conclusion, I want to say Wolfjaeger supports the 8v8 leagues. At the very least a 7v7. As of now, we've decided against joining a 6v6 league. 7v7 maybe possible.
I just wanted TWL to know our standpoint. Thanks guys.
If anything, we should consider less than 8v8 because more players = more defencive. And with maps that are already very defensive, we probably would want to stay away from having at least one 0-0 hold every stopwatch game :
Is the Campaign ladder going to be 7v7? I read on Planetwolfenstein's forum that Warpath mentioned Stopwatch ladder going 7v7 but did not mention anychange for the Campaign ladder. Can you please clarify whether or not the Campaign ladder will be going 7v7 w/ restrictions too?
ET Preseason/Ladder Changes Written by Warpath)x(
22:07
ET Preseason Kicks Off
The response to the announcement of the Enemy Territory SW League has been wonderful. To date we have 50+ teams signed up,a number that promises to grow and to create a very competitive yet enjoyable atmosphere. We are now very pleased to announce the official beginning of the league.
Monday, August 4th will be the date of the first pre-season game, the map will be Radar. The schedule of teams playing will be up by tommorow at noon so be on the look out for that. Be sure to look in the Rules Section of the Team Warfare League website for adjusted times, new rules and new things considered exploits.
The pre-season will continue for four weeks, with Labor Day being a bye week after that. The season proper will then officially commence on September the 8th(or, if needed, a week later). Throughout this entire time I will be soliciting feedback and encourage you to send me emails or PMs about the progress of the match.
Unfortunately, we will only be scheduling matches for teams that have 5 players or more on their roster so make sure to have everyone signed up.
Enemy Territory Ladder Changes
The administration staff at TWL, after reviewing the progress of the ladders under the current ruleset, has decided to make some alterations in order to ensure more competitive and balanced gameplay. As of next week, beginning Sunday, August 3rd we will be implementing the following changes in the ladders:
Team sizes will be, by default, 7v7. Teams can agree, however, to play with either 6's or 8's. If there is a dispute, the default team size will be enforced.
Heavy Weapons Restriction will be set at 34% for matches.
2 panzer limit will be enforced.
All servers matches will be played on are to use ET_Tourneymod.
New server configs and the ET_Tourneymod(which is to be unveiled later this week) are to be available in the downloads section of the website.
As always, this is a learning process and we feel this is a step in the right direction. Currently, the game has been quite slanted in favor of the defenders when teams of similar skill levels meet. The above restrictions are in order to avoid the large amount of spam generated in matches and to make gameplay more fun for both sides.
They need to state specifically what exactly is in this new 'competition mod'. How can it be required when no one knows what is even being changed? Or did I miss a link somewhere, heh?
The campaign ladder will be mirroring the SW ladder as far as team size. We're going to give it a test and see how it goes.
Personally, I think 8v8 is about the worst idea ever. By the time the second map comes around, I can promise you that a team with 4 level 2+ FieldOps will not let you past a choke point. It's nothing but continual spam (even with weapon restrictions) and is just ugly. Now this is just my opinion and has no bearing on the direction that the ladder goes, so don't worry.
And I agree with Wannacookie, 6v6 is teh win. It makes the game 10x more intense, makes you carefully choose classes, prevents teams from running 4 panzers and 4 field ops, etc.
RTCW went through this whole team size thing about 6 months into it and in the end, 6v6 turned out to be the perfect size, as I think, will ET. Post edited by Shattersoul at 7/29/2003 10:41:56 AM
records of each preseason match in regards to how many players per team was decided on should be kept & looked at. these records should, without question, be incorporated into the final decision on the league format.
i've stated my opinions on this matter before, so i'll be brief & say that bigger maps are better, & require more ppl. i take all my rage & focus it into that tiny little dot that i use for a crosshair
Originally posted by: Shattersoul The campaign ladder will be mirroring the SW ladder as far as team size. We're going to give it a test and see how it goes.
Personally, I think 8v8 is about the worst idea ever. By the time the second map comes around, I can promise you that a team with 4 level 2+ FieldOps will not let you past a choke point. It's nothing but continual spam (even with weapon restrictions) and is just ugly. Now this is just my opinion and has no bearing on the direction that the ladder goes, so don't worry.
And I agree with Wannacookie, 6v6 is teh win. It makes the game 10x more intense, makes you carefully choose classes, prevents teams from running 4 panzers and 4 field ops, etc.
RTCW went through this whole team size thing about 6 months into it and in the end, 6v6 turned out to be the perfect size, as I think, will ET.
This isn't RTCW, and doesn't play like RTCW. Maps are much larger, there is more variety, and going to 6's neuters the gameplay AND the choices. With only 6 there would be no variance in classes, and I could see it degenerating into the same aged strats already used. Please don't make this the same game you guys are already playing.
I don't know why I'm bothering though, because in the end I know that is exactly what will happen. I'm hoping in vain that I'll get through to someone who might realize that this is NOT RTCW2. There's been no votes, no open polls, and no evidence posted. All I've seen is "we've heard" or "general consensus". I have yet to see any answers to my questions. It ticks me off that I like this game and want to play it, but these changes being made are alienating me and others.
So early into this game and you're already trying to eliminate the things that make ET different from RTCW. I guess one positive, you won't have to deal with me anymore once you do it.
How is 6v6 eliminating any classes? Sure, you need to use your head more and not just spawn 4 panzers 2 MG42's and 2 Field ops to spam the hell out of the other team, but that's called trying harder.
Plus, (and no, I don't have EXACT numbers with me) but I can assure you that I am having to forefit 3-5 teams a DAY between the 2 ladders for either not having enough signed up or not enough able to play. Take out 2 people, and I'll bet that goes down to 1 or 2 every week.
You mean to tell me we'll see anything other than medic/engineer combinations with 6v6, with the occasional soldier thrown in? As much as things change, they stay the same.
I give up. Do whatever. I gave my honest opinions. Run your ladder/league as you wish.
Originally posted by: Shattersoul Med/Soldier/FO/CO/E = 5 Classes
Plus, (and no, I don't have EXACT numbers with me) but I can assure you that I am having to forefit 3-5 teams a DAY between the 2 ladders for either not having enough signed up or not enough able to play. Take out 2 people, and I'll bet that goes down to 1 or 2 every week.
Forfieting due to not having enough people show isn't a way a true twl admin speaks. Other twl admins handle other games with larger team size. 10+ members/team and twl admins were able to take care of it and ride it smooth. I've seen twl evolve from day one, and this is the first I've heard from an admin complaining about team size.
Not to scorn you shatter, you as well are doing a good job, but listen to the community of teamspeak instead of creating a debate agaisnt them.
Originally posted by: Wulfen You mean to tell me we'll see anything other than medic/engineer combinations with 6v6, with the occasional soldier thrown in? As much as things change, they stay the same.
I give up. Do whatever. I gave my honest opinions. Run your ladder/league as you wish.
How you run your strats and what classes you use to run them is for you to decide.
And as far as how a "true" twl admin speaks, what I said still stands firm.
[quote="ReV3al]twl admins were able to take care of it
Exactly, which is what I am trying to do by posing the questions and probably polls to see what the community wants.
Truth is, personally, I think 6's is the smartest way to go. But for the campaign ladder, since I don't play in it, I really don't care if it's 10v10, except that the forefits will go up even more and that's just silly. But hey, we'll let the players decide what they want, that's what we're about.
I'm willing to try 7's but still am leaning to 8's. As for defense most of the time your gonna have 5-6 out front keeping the other side busy while your gonna need 2-3 doing back ground defense things, like laying mines, building fortifacations and stuff. With a 2 panzer limit (thank god) and 34% heavy weapons it should be fine. This game obviously isn't anything like rtcw and the league format shouldn't be the same. With all the quake, cs, and sof2 players i've seen playing ET no one should have problems finding enough players. Step up your recruiting and stop being so snobby and only recruit invite level guns. If you can't get enough players to field 7 or 8 in a match/scrim then WAH don't play the game.
My preference is still 8's or at least 7's, but certainly not 6's. The reasons given for 6's that I've heard are:
1. Reduce spam. At a 34% g_heavyweaponsrestriction, that's still 2 of everything and 2 LTs tossing tons of airstrikes and arty. If spam is such a big deal, make the g_heavy a draconian number like 10, 15, or 25%. In fact, a 25% g_hwr for 8's would result in the same panzer, mortar, mg42 limits, AND result in less arty/airstrike spam. I personally wouldn't mind reducing heavy weapons to 1 per team with sharper limits on airstrike and arty spam. I agree, let's bring the focus back to the SMGs/rifles.
So, we currently have to same number of panzers/airstrikes/arty as in 8's, but now their effects are being applied against a 6-man team, not an 8-man team. Doesn't really sound like they are being de-emphasized.
2. 6's result in better emphasis on "star-players". From what I recall, this is a team game and the game should be won by the TEAM that can put together the best coodinated effort, not the biggest collection of "star-players". I hear that Quake 3 and UT2K do a good job of rewarding star players and their performance
3. 6's make it easier to field teams. I'd concede this point, but so far we haven't had any problems fielding 8 nor have we run into any matches where the opponent played short or forfeited because they didn't have enough. I hope that the real issue isn't that 8-man teams are just too many star egos in one place.
IRT to the teams that have forfeited because they can't come up with 8. Is that because they are actively trying to come up with 8 and can't or is it because they are just too damn lazy to do so. If the latter, then reducing team size to 6 won't improve things in either ladder or league. Now you'll just have teams that can play by regulation, but will probably be too lazy to practice or offer a reasonable match.
4. 6's make for more creative strats. Totally disagree here. I think with 6's, strats will stagnate down into the "camp one objective" defense and "lemming rush" offenses. With 8's, a team can split off a 2-3 man team to flank, suppress, etc while still maintaining a sizable 5-6 man attack team. It will be much harder to do that in 6's, everyone will tend to stick together - as they currently do in RTCW.
5. Games are more fun with 6's vs 8's. IMO, very subjective. My best games have been those with 8-10 per team, not 6.
Overall though, it seems like the major concern about ET is the high level of spam and the resultant tie rounds. I'm not sure how going to 6's fixes that, but it could be addressed by keeping 8's, but changing g_heavyweaponsrestriction - the variable that actually limits causes of spam.
FWIW, WJ (#2 SW Ladder) and Rotators (#3 SW Ladder) just fought it out 8 v 8 on Oasis, with Rotators taking it 2-0-2 in some very tough, well-fought games. Listening to the shoutcast, it sounded like there was a good mix of classes - including coverts, no 8 LT defenses, plants and defuses, creative attacks, and ultimately Rotators won. So there were 2 tie rounds, big deal. This happens in RTCW too and the teams there deal with it just fine. I still remember a 7 round match WJ had with AM on Ice. 4 rounds is nothing. Bottom line, a team still won, the action was intense, and the game didn't degenerate to who could arty the chokepoint/assault ramp the best.
As much as people want this to be RTCW, it sure isn't. ET imo isn't even close to RTCW. 7v7 works to perfection. The maps are too huge for only 6v6. I suggest giving 7v7 a shot and then if u want to make a change for the season, u only either add/subtract one or keep it the same. -!cF-Killa Sin
#icf gamesnet
http://www.icforces.com
Maybe it's because I come from T2, but I'd rather have a smaller ladder of solid 8 or 10 man teams with varied strats, then a larger ladder of teams with barely 6 guys and stale strats.
Granted I never played RTCW, but dynamic teamplay comes with larger teamsizes. 7 man vs. 14 man, there's a lot of differences between strats in the t2 world.
I think a lot of the "issues" over team size are being mis-represented. Both the positive and the negative comments.
Quite simply smaller teams are easier to organise and maintain. RTCW Clans currently struggle to field even 6 players, with a lot of Clans constantly recruiting to keep their squad sizes up. And that's with 6-a-side. Make it 8 and it becomes an even bigger issue. Plus, organising players (i.e. getting them to turn up at the same place at the same time for a match) is obviously easier to do if you've only got 6 to consider instead of 8.
Whether the game plays better or not is subjective, and everyone has their own opinion. Most arguments for one or the other can be counted with perfectly good arguments against.
I know that doesn't help much, and would prefer some proper experimentation to determine the best team size. I suspect ET will follow the RTCW route and go from 8 to 7 to 6, and I suspect Campaign ladders will become less popular as teams switch to Stopwatch. But that's purely speculative at the moment.
The one thing that does iritate me about debates such as this though, is the constant RTCW bashing. "don't make ET like RTCW! pls!" as if that's a bad thing! RTCW is the slickest, fairest, most balanced, multi-class team game around. What exactly is so wrong about taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET equally as good?
You guys need to understand why RTCW is such a successful team game before denouncing every effort to make ET more like it.
The one thing that does iritate me about debates such as this though, is the constant RTCW bashing. "don't make ET like RTCW! pls!" as if that's a bad thing! RTCW is the slickest, fairest, most balanced, multi-class team game around. What exactly is so wrong about taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET equally as good?
You guys need to understand why RTCW is such a successful team game before denouncing every effort to make ET more like it.
If we wanted RTCW, we would PLAY RTCW. ET does take many positive aspects of RTCW, but is different enough to attract new players. Why mess with that? I think 7s or 8s is the way to go.
The one thing that does iritate me about debates such as this though, is the constant RTCW bashing. "don't make ET like RTCW! pls!" as if that's a bad thing! RTCW is the slickest, fairest, most balanced, multi-class team game around. What exactly is so wrong about taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET equally as good?
You guys need to understand why RTCW is such a successful team game before denouncing every effort to make ET more like it.
If we wanted RTCW, we would PLAY RTCW. ET does take many positive aspects of RTCW, but is different free enough to attract new players. Why mess with that? I think 7s or 8s is the way to go.
There, fixed it for you.
I probably prefer 6 or 7, but will use a same tired argument that other people are using against small team size by saying you should go play BF1942 if you want 8v8.
See, it doesn't make much sense, just like saying people should go back to RTCW if they want to play 6v6 doesn't make sense. All these people keep saying over and over how different ET is from RTCW. If it's so different, though, how does making it 6v6 suddenly make it the same as RTCW?
Originally posted by: Kendle The one thing that does iritate me about debates such as this though, is the constant RTCW bashing. "don't make ET like RTCW! pls!" as if that's a bad thing! RTCW is the slickest, fairest, most balanced, multi-class team game around. What exactly is so wrong about taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET equally as good?
You guys need to understand why RTCW is such a successful team game before denouncing every effort to make ET more like it.
If it was so successful teams wouldn't struggle to keep 6 a side. Hell Tribes 1 could still hold teams with 10 a side.
Your arguments kinda cancelled each other out. And there's nothing wrong with 'taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET' BETTER and NOT the same.
I mean, I've already seen that people are intent on keeping this like RTCW, and ultimately I know that's how it's going to play out. I know it just wouldn't be fair to make RTCW teams get used to something different and have to organize their teams 2 players better. Heaven forbid...
I've basically already given up on this place. It's going to end up like the other 3-4 small-scale RTCW ladders/leagues. You're all content to trash Campaign, the ladder admins are ignoring it in favor of SW, and you'll only have yourselves to blame when the largest part of your community leaves to play something else.
If you're content to keep the same community you had for RTCW, so be it.
If it was so successful teams wouldn't struggle to keep 6 a side. Hell Tribes 1 could still hold teams with 10 a side.
RTCW is a mature game, existing players leave through natural wastage (that happens with all games) and new players are not coming in cos it' not the "hot new" game on the shelves anymore.
ET's situation is very different. It's FREE and has cross-game appeal, with many players coming from other WWII games as well as CS and Q3.
Originally posted by: Wulfen
..there's nothing wrong with 'taking the positives from RTCW and using them to make ET' BETTER and NOT the same.
Totally agree, but a lot of what I see here is people (like you) arguing against anything that makes ET "too RTCW-ish" out of sheer pig-headedness. Yes, take the positives from RTCW to make ET better, just don't dismiss those postives out of hand simply because they came from *spit* RTCW *spit*.
The reason people argue in favour of Stopwatch over Campaign is not because "Stopwatch is how we did it in RTCW", but because quite simply Stopwatch is fairer. Many other games are played Stopwatch, does that make them RTCW?
Stopwatch isn't very popular in any other games either. It reminds me of Assault in UT. Sure there was a niche crowd for it, but I wouldn't exactly call it a budding community. I think the same applies here. But that's a different argument, and I've already stated my opinions on that(which were wasted on deaf ears, from what I can tell).
As to the team size discussion: If ET's situation is so different why are you using the RTCW argument to try to limit it to 6 per side? Just looking at the maps there's no reason to play with small teams. Almost everyone I've heard has said that it needs to be at least 7v7, if not 8's. I've asked repeatedly where they(admins) got that teams wanted 6v6. I heard 'general consensus' with absolutely no proof or evidence behind it. I asked who the community was that wanted the RTCW-like rules/league for ET. Again, no concrete answers. I've asked what exactly is in this Campaign mod, who is deciding what goes into it? No answer. I asked for map/campaign results on the ladder, to see any valid inbalances. As far as I know, I haven't seen those results, but I would like to.
You can call it pigheadedness I suppose( ), but in a community like this, questions like that shouldn't be met with silence or ambiguity. All I want is to see that what is being said is true. I don't want opinions as to why ET should be played 6v6. Show me why 8v8 with weapon restrictions won't work. Show me that Allies have a huge balance problem, with map results. Show me exactly how any competition mods will work, and how you're deciding what goes into it.
Sorry to make this a general rant, Kendle, I didn't really address much of this to you directly. But it really bothers me when the ladder/league for players by players doesn't seem to want to listen to them, or acknowledge who exactly they ARE listening to. If it's the RTCW crowd they are targetting, then damn well come out and say so, so I don't have to waste my time arguing for how I'd like it.