Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
PhatPingu

Group Size. What did you Pick? 3v3, 5v5, etc...

Recommended Posts

I like zergs, but kept it at 20 vs 20 figuring my guild could muster 20 or so per rule set every night.

 

 

Yeah, I choose 20v20 as well. Twenty seems like a size for a good GvG battle to me. It's also a size my guild is aiming for to have online every night.

 

Me too... Guess we will all see each other on the battlefield!


rSHxVEY.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VN is convinced that entire nations should exist with militaries composed solely of special forces units. He is unwilling to address his cognitive dissonance.

Got any evidence that i'm convinced of that?  Or are you just imagining it?


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

VN is convinced that entire nations should exist with militaries composed solely of special forces units. He is unwilling to address his cognitive dissonance.

Oh god... where are we going to fit all these ad homenems? the walls are bursting!

 

Even with training though people can only execute as well as they can execute... you might have a handful of people in your guild that are capable of great levels of coordination, but you may not be able to cater to that level at all times because you must accommodate for the people with a lower skill-ceiling... 

The point of the training is to practice coordination. It seems that you are considering the skill caps to be inherent to a player, which is where, as I pointed out earlier, we seem to disagree. I believe that with enough training, and, of course, will from the trainee, any player can improve a considerable amount beyond where they would have in standard play because of that training. It's not because they didn't have the potential (a-la your theory of inherent skill caps) but rather because it just wasn't being tapped. So as long as the team is trained, no matter it's size, it will be skilled. I don't believe that having a larger team automatically means that its members are worse. So, while I agree a large team is more susceptible to a larger skill disparity, it is not inherent to that large team. When a guild gets together and plays, assuming it trains regularly, the team will not be any worse due to its size(except from the command structure logistics I have discussed earlier).

 

As an aside: I have found that even untrained players seem to be much more "skilled" by just being in proximity to skilled players. This seems to be because they tend to imitate the skilled players when they pay attention, so while they themselves aren't any better, they do gain an intriguing boost in their skill, at least temporarily, by being near skilled players. Furthermore: as the ratio of skilled/unskilled drops, the benefit  that the unskilled players gain seems to drop with it. So it means that any skilled team can accommodate for limited amount of unskilled players, and not suffer any considerable loss in their "skill density")

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh god... where are we going to fit all these ad homenems? the walls are bursting!

 

The point of the training is to practice coordination. It seems that you are considering the skill caps to be inherent to a player, which is where, as I pointed out earlier, we seem to disagree. I believe that with enough training, and, of course, will from the trainee, any player can improve a considerable amount beyond where they would have in standard play because of that training. It's not because they didn't have the potential (a-la your theory of inherent skill caps) but rather because it just wasn't being tapped. So as long as the team is trained, no matter it's size, it will be skilled. I don't believe that having a larger team automatically means that its members are worse. So, while I agree a large team is more susceptible to a larger skill disparity, it is not inherent to that large team. When a guild gets together and plays, assuming it trains regularly, the team will not be any worse due to its size(except from the command structure logistics I have discussed earlier).

 

As an aside: I have found that even untrained players seem to be much more "skilled" by just being in proximity to skilled players. This seems to be because they tend to imitate the skilled players when they pay attention, so while they themselves aren't any better, they do gain an intriguing boost in their skill, at least temporarily, by being near skilled players. Furthermore: as the ratio of skilled/unskilled drops, the benefit  that the unskilled players gain seems to drop with it. So it means that any skilled team can accommodate for limited amount of unskilled players, and not suffer any considerable loss in their "skill density")

I believe there are very real individual skill-ceilings... many people spend so much time trying to improve but they simply can't... no matter how many guides they study or how many coaching sessions they pay for.  I believe when you are playing at a very serious or hardcore or competitive level individual skill ceilings become a large factor in how you coordinate your own teams and how you attack other teams as well...

 

As far as accommodating a limited amount of lesser skilled players, i think it all depends... games with steep skill curves make it so the drop off from tier to tier of player is quite significant... Sure good players know how to play around weak players, but they'll never be capable of doing as much while playing with a weaker player than if they were playing with someone that was as good as them. 


Skeggold, Skalmold, Skildir ro Klofnir

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe there are very real individual skill-ceilings... many people spend so much time trying to improve but they simply can't... no matter how many guides they study or how many coaching sessions they pay for.  I believe when you are playing at a very serious or hardcore or competitive level individual skill ceilings become a large factor in how you coordinate your own teams and how you attack other teams as well...

 

As far as accommodating a limited amount of lesser skilled players, i think it all depends... games with steep skill curves make it so the drop off from tier to tier of player is quite significant... Sure good players know how to play around weak players, but they'll never be capable of doing as much while playing with a weaker player than if they were playing with someone that was as good as them. 

Sometime's the inability to improve comes, not from their lack of ability to do so, but rather a lack of knowledge on how to do so. If a player reads guides/gets coaching sessions/etc. And then expects to suddenly get better, the problem is more with the player's expectations, then their potential for improvement(This is not to say those resources are worthless, when used properly, they are quite valuable). As a player of Starcraft 2, a game with A LOT of complexity, I can say that I personally fell into this trap.

 

*Story about how executions matters more then just game-knowledge*

 

Overall, it is usually a lack of practice, not a lack of ability to gain skill. Anyone can practice and get better. It is just a REALLY slow REALLY painful process, due to the nature of how a skill curve progresses.

 

As for accommodating weak players: Of course drop-out level players cant be helped. But players with basic game-knowledge seem to benefit a lot of playing with higher-skilled players. Assuming the amount of skilled players is not diluted by unskilled ones.

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The question is way too vague.

 

12v12 for open world PvP, ya good number

20vs20 for PoI fights, again, good choice

150v150 for sieges... ya go for it

 

 

no matter how I answer, I'm screwing over one or more of these scenarios

 

Agreed to this.

 

Personally I picked 12v12 because that (10 to 12 people) is around the size my own group is, so that will be the combat we will most likely be aiming for (I don't count us rolling over significantly smaller groups as "combat".), but we're planning to sit around in the faction based campaigns so 20v20 and 100v100 as part of a larger "army" are equally important to us.

 

 

 

To that other debate, skill of a group has nothing to do with its size.

That depends completely on organisation, recruitment standarts of the group and when the group is big enough the talent of its sub leaders.


Constant optimism will not solve your problems,


but it will annoy enough people to be worth the effort.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I need to remember to take the survey ????

 

I'd like to say 0, there shouldn't be party coupling, it's an open world PvP game, there's no point in coupling people except to communicate and to share group specific buffs, which the latter I'd rather not exist.

 

But I need to see the context of the survey... why it's inaccessible from my phone, I don't understand ????

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Man I need to remember to take the survey

 

I'd like to say 0, there shouldn't be party coupling, it's an open world PvP game, there's no point in coupling people except to communicate and to share group specific buffs, which the latter I'd rather not exist.

 

But I need to see the context of the survey... why it's inaccessible from my phone, I don't understand

The servey was sent via Email, so if you unsubscribed from the newsletter, you didn't receive it. Also, the question wasn't concerning party size, it was concerning the ideal size for an engagement.


Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I have the survey in my email, it just won't function.

 

And if the question is engagement size, than it should be asymmetric, not how many vs a similar amount, but the maximum capable regardless of sides, and I sincerely hope it's factoring more than 2 sides.

 

How about 5 vs 8 vs 50 vs 2 vs 20 in a fortification.?

Edited by bahamutkaiser

a52d4a0d-044f-44ff-8a10-ccc31bfa2d87.jpg          Before you criticize someone, walk a mile in their shoes... Than if they're upset, they'll be a mile away, and barefoot :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And if the question is engagement size, than it should be asymmetric, not how many vs a similar amount, but the maximum capable regardless of sides, and I sincerely hope it's factoring more than 2 sides.

 

Precisely the point so many of us have been making about why it's a bad question.


I mean, I'm assuming "fluffer" is just another pjorative term for carebears, whales, etc. Of course, I could be incorrect, but I doubt it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Precisely the point so many of us have been making about why it's a bad question.

I wouldn't say its a bad question. Most of the value of a servey does not come from its direct answers, but rather from what those answers imply. In this case, they are polling to see what scale they should balance the game around(I don't mean in the sense of equality in the playing field, I mean in the sense of what systems they should use to steer engagements to a certain size)

Edited by TragicNumberOne

Might I interest you in a low-interest mortgage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I picked 8x8, what I consider ideal for frequent open-world encounters.

 

Bigger battles are fun too, but I'd rather the 50+ x 50+  stuff be more occasional and for control of something significant like a keep/castle :)


tiPrpwh.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What was the largest option? I chose that. I fully understand that smaller engagements will be much more common and I enjoy those heavily, but it will also be quite disappointing if there isn't the occasional war.

 

 That would be 500v500, which is what I chose. Mostly because at the time I was thinking in terms of max population.

Edited by Corvus Silver

7111d4fea662ddcedc732a7b7c3ebe1e.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

An example of my ideal size for PvP engagement, considering the context (GvG, no structure, near a bridge, pre-launch TERA) : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZFy7vIDrfmA

 

I want to see 500vs500 too!   :P

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huCahcu50pQ

 

11:00 minutes in.

 

*Lacari misses a lot of attacks I know

**Maybe, just maybe Sciocco loses a 5v5 at the end

***Yes, GvGing with Lacari is just like that with his screaming and raging

 

Not sure where the videos are of the 4chan guilds beating everyone, EVERYONE else in the betas.


gCWxS8u.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue with the massive numbers (i.e. 150v150) is that it's not a realistic engagement. I very much doubt that you will ever see those numbers in an open field. More than likely those numbers will be seen in a castle siege and in that case, smaller engagements will breakout throughout the terrain.

 

I chose 5v5 because I feel like that's all anyone can really process, maybe upward of 10 or 12 but beyond that and you really aren't able to focus on additional allies or enemies. At around 20+, other players just become extra stuff happening around your immediate engagement. If you decide to turn your attention to something outside the allies and enemies in your immediate vicinity then you lose focus of those players.

Why not? We saw way bigger engagements happen in Darkfall and it was a blast.


Member of The BlackHand Order

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...