Enemy Territory vs BF

LoLth

I was reading on that there enemy territory website that it will only be 16 v 16 player maps.... (or is it 16 players in total for 8v8 ? )...

Surely this is going to make it much less popular than a good 32 v 32 player game of whatever flavour of battlefield takes your fancy.. Smaller maps are fun but I personally prefer the huge battles (when will someone work out a way for 100 v 100 player battles??? ).

Cunny-Funt

Dame I hope thats not the case, the vids ive seen make it look like the maps are freckin huge!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UtVRgM2JyU4

LoLth wrote:

(when will someone work out a way for 100 v 100 player battles??? ).

Armed Assault can have as many players as it wants. Its only limited by the server. (doubt you'll see many servers holding more then 200 though)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xh9LQyAYeFM

LoLth

"Enemy Territory pits up to 24 players together in a 12 on 12 objective-based battle."

from: http://pc.ign.com/articles/723/723487p1.html

so its even worse than 16 v 16

Steven

It's not going to be the same game as BF2. It will be designed for 12v12, and will play accordingly.

You can't assume that a particular feature is going to be awful just because it would suck in another game. Can you imagine a game of 32v32 quakeworld?

The game will succeed or fail on the implementation of the gameplay and the engine (or good marketing), not because of team sizes.

Giblet

Its all about fun not about numbers. Sure Quake 1v1 is great

Cunny-Funt

yeah and considereing what you seem to be able to do in this game (ie build stuff) its still gonna have that large scale battle feel!

I cant wait for this btw, when the hell is it out?

LoLth

Steven wrote:

It's not going to be the same game as BF2. It will be designed for 12v12, and will play accordingly.

Apart from the seemingly huge maps that is. Dont know about you but I find that its a lot more time consuming hunting down 1 guy on a large map than finding 10 guys. From the screenshots it appears, to me, to be very similar to BF2. Great, htere are lots of kits and lots of vehicles.... my team cant utilise them all because we only have 12 people. to me , 12 v 12 is a large deathmatch, not a squad based combat game. But, that is just my opinion.

Steven wrote:

You can't assume that a particular feature is going to be awful just because it would suck in another game. Can you imagine a game of 32v32 quakeworld?

The game will succeed or fail on the implementation of the gameplay and the engine (or good marketing), not because of team sizes.

I never assumed or said that the game would be "awful" , I just think it wouldnt be as attractive to some players because of the team size. Why were players so excited about the increase in team sizes from BF1942 to BF2 ? Gameplay , marketing, graphics and , most importantly FUN play the role of deciding whether a game is popular or not but in a combat simulation, team size does factor into it. A lot of people draw a direct correlation between number of players and amount of fun to be had.

For example: In BF I prefer 64 player games to 16 player, I prefer team games to FPS solo games (with the exception of Farcry which I loved single player but not multiplayer - every rule has an exception!) or single player DM type, I prefer Combat mission to Hidden and Dangerous.

I'm not saying that fans wont love this game. I strongly suspect that I will like it a lot and fully intend gettin git when it comes out. What I am asking is whether people will prefer it to battlefield where I would see the public preference being for a larger scale game. more players = merrier imho.


1v1 quake was good but wasnt my preferred. I preferred RA or team DM or CTF.

Jazzy

Giblet wrote:

Its all about fun not about numbers. Sure Quake 1v1 is great

pity u suck ^^

edit - LoLth, u obviously havent played deathmatch then.

look at any pro teams playing BF, CoD, ET, etc.... when do u ever see 32v32 ? i think ur thinking "more numbers = better" which is silly tbh. ive got to finish this can b4 my mate shows up so ill get back to it once done

LoLth

Jazzy wrote:

edit - LoLth, u obviously havent played deathmatch then.

emmmm, ok. you got me, I havent been playing DM quake since the beginning...

Jazzy wrote:

look at any pro teams playing BF, CoD, ET, etc.... when do u ever see 32v32 ? i think ur thinking "more numbers = better" which is silly tbh.

No, i'm equating it with more FUN and adding that this is my opinion and is an opinion which may be shared by others which is not silly tbh. There are many instances where more numbers do not equal better. Squad based combat is not one of those from my experience. Just because you dont see 32 v 32 pro games doesnt mean they arent fun. Nor am I a pro player, nor do I have any interest in being a pro player. I play chess for fun, I dont have a little timeclock and a rulebook, doesnt mean I dont know how to play chess or have an invalid opinion.

ET:QW is being written as a competitor to the BF, CoD market as a move away from quake which was primarily a deathmatch game and has long leaned more towards the single player vs everyone else style of play. BF is a team based game of unit vs unit combat. That is the comparision I am drawing between the two. I am wondering if ET:QW has hit the right note to challenge the BF series.

Obviously, with QW not having been released yet, this is all speculation. I have enjoyed the quake series and fully intend getting and playing ET:QW. perhaps I will revive the question then.

Fobia

It hasn't changed all that much. Well, it has, but if you didn't like 1v1 quake you probably wont like QW DM, either..

I'm sure regardless of what happens, 32vs32 will occur. Be it a mod or a patch etc. If there's a demand for something it'll happen. I wouldn't worry about it.

The problem with Lolth's/Jazzy's posts is they have different ideas of "fun" in games. To Jazzy it's playing competively or watching the best people in the world battle it out for a title, the thrill of winning etc. (no?) But LoLth just wants to be one of 64 players in some crazy carnage. I'd imagine winning barely even matters in those games

On another note, my main annoyance with ET:QW is once it out, it'll no doubt become what most people perceive when "qw" is mentioned. God help us if #qw.ie becomes an ET channel.

LoLth

Fobia wrote:

On another note, my main annoyance with ET:QW is once it out, it'll no doubt become what most people perceive when "qw" is mentioned. God help us if #qw.ie becomes an ET channel.

wonder if anyone has the "elliot" nick yet ...

True enough, I'm never really too pushed about the winning except from a teamwork/strategy point of view. I'm not sure I see ET:QW giving enough scope to be more than just tactical. But, as you say, where there is demand , there is a mod (fingers crossed on a large scale mod for QW).

However, while yes, large contests are sometimes carnage and chaos thats usually when you have a crap commander. Sometimes though, you get a good commander and the game becomes feints / tactical objectives and an overall plan as opposed to kneejerk reaction.

TheHairyFairy

In the discussion about map sizes one fundamental point has been missed. In BF2 64 player conquest, seeing that EA where too lazy to add in additional game modes, ie push, any player can attack any flag. This means that the battle can be anywhere on the map, and in the case of big maps, miles away from where you are at the moment. Personally give me 16 player maps in BF2 any day, and better still inf only.

With ET:QW however the battle is concentrated to one point in the map at any one time, ie one front. Now concentrate 24 players into one active front on a map, even if its a bigger map than say 32 player on BF2, and you will have one damn nasty fight.

TheHairyFairy

Also for any IRC users we have channel #quakewars.ie grabbed. Jump in and chat up ETQW.

Jazzy

stev is sexier then K-Fed