Why 4v?

5v is way better. When the hell did 4v become the gold standard?

Far as I can tell it's BC2's fault.

4 people in a squad. naturally, 4v4

Originally posted by: _B3a$t_
4 people in a squad. naturally, 4v4

ya i get that, but just make 2 squads.

Wtf? Who the hell cares? Its 1 extra player.......

i, too, am wishing they allowed more than 4 players in SQR standard.

i know it can be done... but the game doesn't support it technically.

5v5 sqr or even 6v6 sqr would be awesome.

Originally posted by: JackBurton[x]
i, too, am wishing they allowed more than 4 players in SQR standard.

i know it can be done... but the game doesn't support it technically.

5v5 sqr or even 6v6 sqr would be awesome.

sure it does. just play normal rush but with 5 people, or 6.
Post edited by .c.recon at 11/28/2011 5:14:06 PM

in sr you can spawn on anyone in team no matte how big...

you can run as many players as you want in Squad Rush as long as the server has slots. The scoreboard will only reflect the top 4 scores though.

Hey a 5v5 Squad rush would be great

Originally posted by: .c.recon
sure it does. just play normal rush but with 5 people, or 6.

hence...

Originally posted by: me
i know it can be done...

then what does "but the game doesn't support it technically." mean?

Squad Rush will only allow 8 players. 4 on each side. Even if you wish to have 5 it is not possible. I believe this is what recon is stating.

If you wish for more then play some rush. Only an additional point. My 2 cents.

---

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

Well, I'm saying have a ladder or whatever that is "normal rush" which will allow for more that 4v.

Why marry yourself to SQUAD rush? Really no difference I can see and Normal rush let's you use more people.

I personally never like the 4v format and I think alot of people would prefer to play with more than just 4 in the Rush format.

6v6 infantry only

6v6 Rush scrims have been fun. Make sure it's infy-only though.

I think the setting of a 4v4 is pretty neat. Loved it since bc2. Anyone who has a problem with it is probably a vehicle noob or is a cod fanboi and wants to make bf3 like what they expected mw3 to be...

Originally posted by: HectiK =D
6v6 infantry only

We'd be in for this.

Originally posted by: HectiK =D
6v6 infantry only

^^^

Originally posted by: .c.recon
5v is way better. When the hell did 4v become the gold standard?

Far as I can tell it's BC2's fault.

i'd like to know when "rush" became the standard.

Originally posted by: grey maniac

Originally posted by: .c.recon
5v is way better. When the hell did 4v become the gold standard?

Far as I can tell it's BC2's fault.

i'd like to know when "rush" became the standard.

Yeah, this is the same kind of retarded logic that people think 8v8 is a good idea on the smaller conquest maps.

We've scrimmed 6v6 and 5v5 CQ before, IO of course, and LOVED it...

I'd love to see a 5v5 or 6v6 CQ ladder myself.

Originally posted by: JackBurton[x]

We've scrimmed 6v6 and 5v5 CQ before, IO of course, and LOVED it...

I'd love to see a 5v5 or 6v6 CQ ladder myself.

^^^

Originally posted by: JackBurton[x]

I'd love to see a 6v6 CQ ladder myself.

yes

Originally posted by: DocGolem1

Yeah, this is the same kind of retarded logic that people think 8v8 is a good idea on the smaller conquest maps.

because i don't like rush, i'm retarded ? ? ?
Post edited by grey maniac at 12/1/2011 3:04:15 AM

Too many ladders of the same type splits the community unnecessarily.

If you want to run 5v5, 6v6, etc... work it out in match comms, but don't get pissy if the other team wants to stick to the regular numbers. Most teams can usually field extra players, but some can't.