12v12 and 8v8?

During the first two seasons of BF2 the leagues ran a 12v12 and 8v8 league parallel to each other. Though I'm sure 8v8 will always be the primary, there seems to be a lot of interest in 12v12 as well. I imagine we could have 1-2 good seasons of 12v12 and 3-5 of 8v8.

Thoughts?

ps. I'm not talking about some bullshit ladder either, leagues.

Ladders are fun, 2v2 Armor.

P.S. Can't play yet, working on getting upgrade.

Well here we go...

You have no idea how hard I laughed when I saw his post.

Originally posted by: rivaL Gr3nade
Well here we go...

I hope you aren't criticizing a perfectly legitimate question?

Originally posted by: red|Swifty

Originally posted by: rivaL Gr3nade
Well here we go...

I hope you aren't criticizing a perfectly legitimate question?

I believe that comment was pointed towards this:

Originally posted by: iD|LaserSights
Ladders are fun, 2v2 Armor.

P.S. Can't play yet, working on getting upgrade.

I agree. Because Laser is back on the forums, I am sure to earn at least a 1 month forum ban sometime soon.


Laser: SHUT THE FUCK UP NOBODY CARES.


See.

Originally posted by: red|Swifty

Originally posted by: rivaL Gr3nade
Well here we go...

I hope you aren't criticizing a perfectly legitimate question?

he is bad. and i hope you dont plan on posting in here again baddie

Originally posted by: iD|LaserSights
Ladders are fun, 2v2 Armor.

P.S. Can't play yet, working on getting upgrade.

Better hurry up, cause isuck and i want to rape you.

Originally posted by: Word2yall
I agree. Because Laser is back on the forums, I am sure to earn at least a 1 month forum ban sometime soon.


Laser: SHUT THE FUCK UP NOBODY CARES.


See.

I'm still on my last ban because of you guys pushing me to act up toward your remarks about me. LOL Grenade

2v2 would be nice for sure...

I like 10v10 more than 12's to be honest..

PS: why wont Caspian get some love, feels like a traditional battlefield map.

See: Gonzaga, el al, aberdeen, tobruk, Market Garden, Wake, Bocage, Baxe. (And misc bf2 maps that were more than just glorified cod 4 maps)

All sorta cut from the same mold, in consideration of vehicles etc...

- Awaits the infy trolls to go apeshit on me
- Will then point to metro as round 1 of this tourney, Bazar as 3, and crossing as 5 (though i do like those maps =) )
- My only point is a map such as Caspian or even canals for round 1 would be a better indication of a teams ability as a whole, strats etc.
- And im not just saying this cause my team got eliminated Im not a a troll, just wanting Caspian to get some love though we wont see it till 10v10 i fear

Post edited by AcuteChronic at 11/3/2011 9:58:15 PM

al el was the shiznits. Caspian is awesome

Originally posted by: iD|LaserSights

Originally posted by: Word2yall
I agree. Because Laser is back on the forums, I am sure to earn at least a 1 month forum ban sometime soon.


Laser: SHUT THE FUCK UP NOBODY CARES.


See.

I'm still on my last ban because of you guys pushing me to act up toward your remarks about me. LOL Grenade

Well laser, it's because we all like you so much.


Go slit your wrists.

Originally posted by: iD|LaserSights

Originally posted by: Word2yall
I agree. Because Laser is back on the forums, I am sure to earn at least a 1 month forum ban sometime soon.


Laser: SHUT THE FUCK UP NOBODY CARES.


See.

I'm still on my last ban because of you guys pushing me to act up toward your remarks about me. LOL Grenade

Cause usux

I would love to play 12v12. I honestly think 10v10 might be the best fit for the 32 man maps.

Originally posted by: captgarrett
During the first two seasons of BF2 the leagues ran a 12v12 and 8v8 league parallel to each other. Though I'm sure 8v8 will always be the primary, there seems to be a lot of interest in 12v12 as well. I imagine we could have 1-2 good seasons of 12v12 and 3-5 of 8v8.

Thoughts?

ps. I'm not talking about some bullshit ladder either, leagues.

Figured it would basically default to this, otherwise just merge into a 10v10?

10 v 10.

The ladders will be shared with everyone next week.

Unfortunately, the recent patch did not help us...

---

TWL|Chowder
TeamWarfare Competition Staff
Email: chowder@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_bf

One 10v10 league sounds like the best fit. DC lasted quite a few seasons with that format. We've seen 12v12 lose a lot of steam after only one season and 8v8 is just too small.

I see either 10v10 or 12v12 working well. The main concern with these is how long they will hold out. It's always easier in the beginning as team rosters are full and everyone is eager to play. However, give it 6 months and see how well those rosters are holding up. This has always been the issue with the larger team sizes, and it's much tougher these days to find players unlike the days of DC, which is why 10v10 lasted so long back then.

---

Clayman
TeamWarfare Senior Operations Director
Email: clayman@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_bf

Originally posted by: iD|LaserSights

Originally posted by: Word2yall
I agree. Because Laser is back on the forums, I am sure to earn at least a 1 month forum ban sometime soon.


Laser: SHUT THE FUCK UP NOBODY CARES.


See.

I'm still on my last ban because of you guys pushing me to act up toward your remarks about me. LOL Grenade

lol@ the you guys made me do it, typical cant take responsibility for his actions obamaight. The thrills of BF3, Laser and xshades in the same area...

gg

Originally posted by: AcuteChronic
2v2 would be nice for sure...

I like 10v10 more than 12's to be honest..

PS: why wont Caspian get some love, feels like a traditional battlefield map.

See: Gonzaga, el al, aberdeen, tobruk, Market Garden, Wake, Bocage, Baxe. (And misc bf2 maps that were more than just glorified cod 4 maps)

All sorta cut from the same mold, in consideration of vehicles etc...

- Awaits the infy trolls to go apeshit on me
- Will then point to metro as round 1 of this tourney, Bazar as 3, and crossing as 5 (though i do like those maps =) )
- My only point is a map such as Caspian or even canals for round 1 would be a better indication of a teams ability as a whole, strats etc.
- And im not just saying this cause my team got eliminated Im not a a troll, just wanting Caspian to get some love though we wont see it till 10v10 i fear

Gonzaga was my favorite map of all time.

Originally posted by: Clayman
I see either 10v10 or 12v12 working well. The main concern with these is how long they will hold out. It's always easier in the beginning as team rosters are full and everyone is eager to play. However, give it 6 months and see how well those rosters are holding up. This has always been the issue with the larger team sizes, and it's much tougher these days to find players unlike the days of DC, which is why 10v10 lasted so long back then.

6 month is longer then bc2's 8v did

id be happy with 6 months of 12v12.. im dieing to beable to have tankers and choppers and jets all at once.. instead of 1 or the other..

Originally posted by: Clayman
I see either 10v10 or 12v12 working well. The main concern with these is how long they will hold out. It's always easier in the beginning as team rosters are full and everyone is eager to play. However, give it 6 months and see how well those rosters are holding up. This has always been the issue with the larger team sizes, and it's much tougher these days to find players unlike the days of DC, which is why 10v10 lasted so long back then.

I understand what you're saying but with the amount of people playing BF3 right now, it certainly couldn't be too hard for teams to find an extra couple of decent players to add to their rosters.

I suggest 10vs10 or higher.

10vs10 allows for most if not all maps to be played and is not a significantly greater burden relative to 8v8 in terms of team size.

In addition it's important to remember that 8v8, while popular in the later periods of BF1942, was chosen in BF2 and BF2142 for two reasons; there were 16 player maps built into the game and to a much lesser extent the prize tournament high required 8v8 from a logistics and operations perspective. This was also the case for BC2 which was conclusively an infantry centric game tailored for 8vs8 play.

None of these are the case for BF3. BF3's smallest maps are designed for 32 players. A majority of BF3's maps contain at least one heavy vehicle/aircraft, with most having 2 or more. Out of all of these maps perhaps one or two, such as metro or bazaar, would not be conducive to 10v10 play but looking at these maps they represent not only extremes relative to other BF3 maps given their close quarters, linear design, and infantry centric nature, but they are by no means representative of battlefield franchise as a whole. Would we frame BF1942 competition around the Berlin or Coral sea? Of course not because they represent the extremes of the battlefield franchise. Let's not do the same with BF3 and accept the fact the maps are designed for team sizes larger than teams of 8.

I honestly think a 10v10 league, 12v12 bracket tourney, and 8v8 ladder is the way to go.

Ladders need to be self sufficient so 8 is easier to field.
Leagues are generally easier to run and admins don't. Need to sit in matchcoms and moderate ladders to get played.
Tourneys are filled with teams that will definately field teams and 12 is understoodgoing in, don't field u don't advance, easy as that...

Discuss

Originally posted by: Daskrolator
I suggest 10vs10 or higher.

10vs10 allows for most if not all maps to be played and is not a significantly greater burden relative to 8v8 in terms of team size.

In addition it's important to remember that 8v8, while popular in the later periods of BF1942, was chosen in BF2 and BF2142 for two reasons; there were 16 player maps built into the game and to a much lesser extent the prize tournament high required 8v8 from a logistics and operations perspective. This was also the case for BC2 which was conclusively an infantry centric game tailored for 8vs8 play.

None of these are the case for BF3. BF3's smallest maps are designed for 32 players. A majority of BF3's maps contain at least one heavy vehicle/aircraft, with most having 2 or more. Out of all of these maps perhaps one or two, such as metro or bazaar, would not be conducive to 10v10 play but looking at these maps they represent not only extremes relative to other BF3 maps given their close quarters, linear design, and infantry centric nature, but they are by no means representative of battlefield franchise as a whole. Would we frame BF1942 competition around the Berlin or Coral sea? Of course not because they represent the extremes of the battlefield franchise. Let's not do the same with BF3 and accept the fact the maps are designed for team sizes larger than teams of 8.

I'm done here. From now on Daskro voices all of my opinions.

As this game was literally was just released a week ago, this game could easily sustain a 12v12 ladder. 10v10 is basically 8v8 with ringers and isn't as significant in game play differential as 12v12 would be (obviously).

IMO, 12v12>10v10 in every respect.

Look at this 8v8 league, nearly every team is fielding 16+ players. Perhaps decent 12v12 would help the broad player base this game has and gains simultaneously.
Post edited by ÇreamzØr° at 11/4/2011 11:41:28 AM

Originally posted by: ÇreamzØr°
As this game was literally was just released a week ago, this game could easily sustain a 12v12 ladder. 10v10 is basically 8v8 with ringers and isn't as significant in game play differential as 12v12 would be (obviously).

IMO, 12v12>10v10 in every respect.

Look at this 8v8 league, nearly every team is fielding 16+ players. Perhaps decent 12v12 would help the broad player base this game has and gains simultaneously.

Teams have 16+ players right NOW. It almost always dies down. 10v10 seems to be the most sustainable option IMO. Varying the sizes of the ladders and leagues just complicates things and stretches teams because strats would be different.

Please just make a 12v12 league and let us demonstrate how viable it actually is. Nobody wants to play on a ladder format anymore.
______________________________________________________________________________________________
HP-nL

1v1 Operation Firestorm only

Originally posted by: Aaron_
1v1 Operation Firestorm only

+ conquest large map

Id be ok with a 12v12 ladder and an 8v8 league. Conquest only. TDM and rush can go to hell

Clay speaks the truth. You have to remember, to do a league takes 4 months. 2 weeks of preseason, 8 weeks of regulation play, 4 weeks of playoffs, then 2 weeks between each season to decompress and reset.

imo, 10v10 only for the league based on map suitability should be the standard. Thats the catch with every game, tradition vs evolution, and what you are given to work with.

12v12 will hardly be stratable and hard working teams will get frustrated. 10 is a good number to keep a close knit team.

If you notice its the pub teams that want 12 yeah I said it....
Post edited by NT1 at 11/4/2011 12:43:01 PM

(here we go Clay, sorry)

I know something I would like to see though, for a league, even if it just got 1 or 2 seasons. 20v20. You partnered up with another team for the duration. It actually wouldnt be that hard to do, but would be a bit labour intensive to keep track of, would have to forum sticky the pairs so everyone know who they were playing.

I know, I know, not realistic, but would be fun.

Infantry only Canals.. US has to swim to shore.

Originally posted by: djruko

Originally posted by: Clayman
I see either 10v10 or 12v12 working well. The main concern with these is how long they will hold out. It's always easier in the beginning as team rosters are full and everyone is eager to play. However, give it 6 months and see how well those rosters are holding up. This has always been the issue with the larger team sizes, and it's much tougher these days to find players unlike the days of DC, which is why 10v10 lasted so long back then.

6 month is longer then bc2's 8v did

BC2 wasn't a true successor to BF2, so it was no surprise the team rosters didn't hold up since many teams didn't make the transition.

I tend to lean more towards 10v10, but that comes from my days in DC. With the introduction of 8v8 back in BFV, things changed. The two are just a bit too similar imo and I'd personally go with 12v12 in order to get a larger difference between the two different competitions.

---

Clayman
TeamWarfare Senior Operations Director
Email: clayman@teamwarfare.com
IRC: #teamwarfare, #twl_bf

Originally posted by: NT1
12v12 will hardly be stratable and hard working teams will get frustrated. 10 is a good number to keep a close knit team.

If you notice its the pub teams that want 12 yeah I said it....

I didn't realize 20id was a pub team. 12v12 would be just as "stratable" as any other. Any "hardworking" team shouldn't care what size it is. I agree 12v12 in BF2 did have a little more of a pub feel to it. But that's one of the things that made it fun.

I say 10v10 or 12v12, get Metro off the damn list, since it is probably the dumbest, most one-sided map I have ever seen, use it for the 5v5 infantry silliness.

Originally posted by: Clayman

BC2 wasn't a true successor to BF2, so it was no surprise the team rosters didn't hold up since many teams didn't make the transition.

I tend to lean more towards 10v10, but that comes from my days in DC. With the introduction of 8v8 back in BFV, things changed. The two are just a bit too similar imo and I'd personally go with 12v12 in order to get a larger difference between the two different competitions.

BF3 plays more like BC2 than it does BF2.