No idea what the particular reason for tribes is but I've noticed that virtually every competitive ruleset out there tends towards some absurdly low playercount. HL engine games get as low as 3v3 and 5v5 in mods that are designed for at least 12 players per team. The most common argument I've heard that is actually a real argument and not just a generic slur to whoever's asking is that lower playercounts "simulate" a higher playercount match.
Really I think it's just that wherever you go there just aren't that many comp players able to be on at a given time to pull that off.
We actually had a decent discussion about the ladder with the T2 TWL admin yesterday. There aren't enough people willing to play to run a 10man ladder. 7v7 is definitely not the best way to go, but we really don't have other options unless people start getting their acts together and playing T2 the way it is supposed to be played (with actual organized teams).
We actually had a decent discussion about the ladder with the T2 TWL admin yesterday. There aren't enough people willing to play to run a 10man ladder. 7v7 is definitely not the best way to go, but we really don't have other options unless people start getting their acts together and playing T2 the way it is supposed to be played (with actual organized teams).
yeah i was scratching my head going tribes ctf being played with only 14 people total?
it does dilute the gameplay a bit. But it's not so bad. 7 man really brings out the best players, and you really suffer if you have any deadweight.
Many 14 man teams had some really bad players (even very good teams) that could hide behind the rest of the team. You can't do that so much in 7 man
I still dream of someday enlightening the masses of Deagle/AK CS Nubs and seeing twin ladders rise up for base and classic with so many players and teams they can even do 32v32 clan battles.
Then I wake up and remember that the single most populous FPS has a competitive community that is strongly pushing for 3v3 ladders just so they can fulfill some strange fetish of having a game that nobody plays and then they can go and masturbate while watching the splash screen.
main reason I still think is mainly for management. It's a lot easier to get 3 people on the same schedules vs having 10 people on the same schedule. Used to be that when we had the 16 man matches they'd end up being 12 vs 16 or 8 vs 10...etc we'd rarely get a full 16 vs 16 unless it was a real popular tribe or one of the top tribes in TWL because they had all the players to fill their teams because everyone wanted to play with them to be on a winning team. I think the reason they ended up with 7v7 was because 7 people was probably the average player count for large team games.
main reason I still think is mainly for management. It's a lot easier to get 3 people on the same schedules vs having 10 people on the same schedule. Used to be that when we had the 16 man matches they'd end up being 12 vs 16 or 8 vs 10...etc we'd rarely get a full 16 vs 16 unless it was a real popular tribe or one of the top tribes in TWL because they had all the players to fill their teams because everyone wanted to play with them to be on a winning team. I think the reason they ended up with 7v7 was because 7 people was probably the average player count for large team games.
GokouZWAR
dude we easily did 10 v 10 everyday in tribes1.. i hate that excuse !!!!!!! I think the player population is the only reason... need more people
7v7 started out as the "side ladder" in Tribes 2 back in base to get around the nearly impossible 16v16 player count. When classic came out, it was a 14v14 and 7v7 ladder respectively. Eventually there weren't enough players to support the massive 14 player teams anymore and 14v14 died out, leaving 7v7 as the final venue for competition.
Anyone here remember the "Massive" servers that the Univ. of Wisc. Madison used to run?
They actually had 64 player teams! The carnage was... unbelievable. Damn, I miss those days. But I stopped playing T2 because the old servers I used to play just dried up.
The best gameplay always seemed to be 16 player teams. We had enough people to really split up the roles for d and o.
That being said, I'd have to agree that 10 might be pushing it if you are having trouble fielding teams. The Renegade Horsemen had maybe thirty people who played fairly often when I was with them. That meant we could generally get 10 to 16 people together fairly easy. When the number is down to 10, it becomes a lot harder. Especially when the team has older players that have other time constraints. (I'm one of them, currently trapped in another country with horrible wi-fi.)
What I wish they had put into T2 was the squad voice chat that BF2 has. Then you can do quite a bit with even just 7 player teams. Ventrilo can do the same, but it really is cleaner to have it as part of the game. (Yes, Tribes taught those BF coders what "real" team play was before they wrote the first line of code. But even back in T2 it would have been a great feature.)
euro had 14v14 base ladder, but with very low activity.
our standard ladders where 10v10 base and 12v12 classic (im not sure on this...)
but i have to say, i enjoyed the 14base wars more then 10 but jeah, its not that easy to get 14 ppl online at a specific day, and having like 30ppl clans is 1) bad because u dont have a standard team and 2) because u wont have alot teams in total then.
if i remember correct, we had like 10 teams playing the 14ladder in the end, but 20+ playing the 10ladder....
Comments
Really I think it's just that wherever you go there just aren't that many comp players able to be on at a given time to pull that off.
Used to have 16v16 matches.
But we still need more teams - at least double the current amount before opening a larger ladder.
right on Kryand. I agree 100%.
Many 14 man teams had some really bad players (even very good teams) that could hide behind the rest of the team. You can't do that so much in 7 man
Then I wake up and remember that the single most populous FPS has a competitive community that is strongly pushing for 3v3 ladders just so they can fulfill some strange fetish of having a game that nobody plays and then they can go and masturbate while watching the splash screen.
Trying to manage a 32 person team could be difficult.
GokouZWAR
dude we easily did 10 v 10 everyday in tribes1.. i hate that excuse !!!!!!! I think the player population is the only reason... need more people
They actually had 64 player teams! The carnage was... unbelievable. Damn, I miss those days. But I stopped playing T2 because the old servers I used to play just dried up.
The best gameplay always seemed to be 16 player teams. We had enough people to really split up the roles for d and o.
That being said, I'd have to agree that 10 might be pushing it if you are having trouble fielding teams. The Renegade Horsemen had maybe thirty people who played fairly often when I was with them. That meant we could generally get 10 to 16 people together fairly easy. When the number is down to 10, it becomes a lot harder. Especially when the team has older players that have other time constraints. (I'm one of them, currently trapped in another country with horrible wi-fi.)
What I wish they had put into T2 was the squad voice chat that BF2 has. Then you can do quite a bit with even just 7 player teams. Ventrilo can do the same, but it really is cleaner to have it as part of the game. (Yes, Tribes taught those BF coders what "real" team play was before they wrote the first line of code. But even back in T2 it would have been a great feature.)
Tribes 2: Best Sci-fi Team Game Ever!
our standard ladders where 10v10 base and 12v12 classic (im not sure on this...)
but i have to say, i enjoyed the 14base wars more then 10
if i remember correct, we had like 10 teams playing the 14ladder in the end, but 20+ playing the 10ladder....