ET is at a crossroads right now, crossfire is going to analyse the 6th player debate, take some opinions and work out whether the 6th player could be responsible for Wolfensteins demise!
I've been playing Wolfenstein since it first came out and in clan format, I can rarely remember the 5on5 debate ever coming near to practicality. Infact, in RTCW I cannot even remember when this idea was really contemplated.
RTCW was a different kettle of fish though, the community was more rigid - changes were never attempted and when they were it was in desperation. RTCW is the same game today as it was when released, baring the move from MP to SW match formats.
ET on the other hand, had to change from the word go. It was never made for clan play, and had public servers with public teams in mind. To survive it was always going to have to undergo radical reform, and it is the communities acceptance of change that has given it longevity. That combined with an active admin and mod'ing community and the power of HTTP redirecting. However, that was for sake of competition and whether you like it or not, every change has moved it towards RTCW.
Changing from 6on6 to 5on5 on the other hand, is not a move towards RTCW and also is not to save the game from its public form.
It was about a year ago when playing 5on5 was first touted, met with mixed reactions but never truly accepted as a viable alternative, show matches but not leagues with prestige and no motivation to move to 5on5. However, in the summer of 2006, in Dallas, Texas - ID Software through a spanner in the works, one that may just have thrown ET on a completely different course.
Quakecon chose 5on5 because of financial decisions, in 2005 they got just 2 european teams over to Dallas, in 2006 with a late announcement they anticipated even fewer from Europe and from the States. The reality infact was that they ended up over subscribed, with 17 teams singing up for what was initially a 8 team tournament. All playing 5on5 ET in the most prestigious tournament to date.
The result? An outright success by all accounts, Quakecon provided ET memories that will simply never be forgotten, when idle, Crossfire & KiH met, each game had excitement and possibilities. The biggest question is, was that down to the magic of Quakecon? Or did 5on5 have something to do with it?
Theres no definitive answer to that, it will be another qwerk in the history of Quakecon, however it opened doors and demonstrated attacking ET.
At Quakecon the balance of power shifted from defence, to attack. It was not about how long you could hold a team, it was about how well you beat your opponent. 5on5 made the maps, just a little bit too big for you to watch every avenue. It was in Dallas where we saw idle show the true strength in their arsenal and that was to pull off attacks of sheer beauty. It was at Quakecon, that idle's defence had just one hole in it that allowed r3vers through to collect the documents on radar.
No matter the reason behind Quakecon's success, it put weight behind the argument that 5on5 is not only viable but possible. Now we're faced with the competitive prospect, if tomorrow the world changed to 5on5 for every 5 clans we'd now have 6 clans, but also the prospect of how that effects the setups of lans.
CoD is played in 5on5 in some fashion to mimic CS, and with it, it mimic's the mobility of CS. You can pickup and go to any LAN center out there and you'll be able to play a clanwar, as they've all set themselves up for the biggest team game out there. 5on5 setups also account for the vast majority of other game setups, 4on4 TDM, 5on5 CTF or 1on1, you almost cannot go wrong by having a your gaming centre arranged in tables of 5.
There is a select few games that despite their success in playing numbers and copies sold, have never made it to the LAN scene. Wolfenstein is one of the biggest victims of this atrocity. Could simply be down to having 6 players? I doubt that its anywhere near that simple, however it has to be a contributing factor.
What do the players think? I caught up with a selected few of the games top names to see their opinion on the debate.
Darky - I've played 6on6 since Eurocup RTCW, its always been great but when I played at Quakecon there was something different. The game opened up, and I really enjoyed the new experience. Maybe its the change that ET needs after these years, or maybe its because its easier to attack and more smg based, I'm not sure. However I prefer 5on5 to 6on6.
teKoa - I'm undecided, what I do know is that if it ain't Dutch, it ain't much. Both forms are fun, and to be honest I just don't mind either way.
mAx - I think if you use it for your next lan (5o5) the impact will be so big than cb will have to make a 5o5 eurocup, and it's too damn late to change the game's format mostly cause of a logistical issue. 5o5 is better in a way cause it's cheaper for the teams/sponsors, but that doesn't count for ET since the game is hardly supported. I'm not saying 5o5 is bad, I just think 6o6 is arguably better except for logistical issues. That's why bf2 hasn't much lans, it's too expensive to support and reducing the number of players would kill the game on a competition level.
So, 3 players come up with 3 different points of view. The problem is, you're talking about a monumental change, that effects every team playing the game. And you're making decisions that could split the competitive community. Quakecon may have effected 3 teams for one weekend, but lets say the next Crossfire lan goes to 5on5, with Qualifiers and months of preparation for 12 teams? What if that announcement/decision comes half way through a Eurocup season and throws a big spanner in the works for the whole season. There is an argument that has consequence for everyone and it cannot be taken lightly.
The threat of a change is very real, and believe me when I say, its not just for the Crossfire Lan's - the question is, are Lans and all the goodness with them worth the potential damage and gamble?
I've been playing Wolfenstein since it first came out and in clan format, I can rarely remember the 5on5 debate ever coming near to practicality. Infact, in RTCW I cannot even remember when this idea was really contemplated.
RTCW was a different kettle of fish though, the community was more rigid - changes were never attempted and when they were it was in desperation. RTCW is the same game today as it was when released, baring the move from MP to SW match formats.
ET on the other hand, had to change from the word go. It was never made for clan play, and had public servers with public teams in mind. To survive it was always going to have to undergo radical reform, and it is the communities acceptance of change that has given it longevity. That combined with an active admin and mod'ing community and the power of HTTP redirecting. However, that was for sake of competition and whether you like it or not, every change has moved it towards RTCW.
Changing from 6on6 to 5on5 on the other hand, is not a move towards RTCW and also is not to save the game from its public form.
It was about a year ago when playing 5on5 was first touted, met with mixed reactions but never truly accepted as a viable alternative, show matches but not leagues with prestige and no motivation to move to 5on5. However, in the summer of 2006, in Dallas, Texas - ID Software through a spanner in the works, one that may just have thrown ET on a completely different course.
Quakecon chose 5on5 because of financial decisions, in 2005 they got just 2 european teams over to Dallas, in 2006 with a late announcement they anticipated even fewer from Europe and from the States. The reality infact was that they ended up over subscribed, with 17 teams singing up for what was initially a 8 team tournament. All playing 5on5 ET in the most prestigious tournament to date.
The result? An outright success by all accounts, Quakecon provided ET memories that will simply never be forgotten, when idle, Crossfire & KiH met, each game had excitement and possibilities. The biggest question is, was that down to the magic of Quakecon? Or did 5on5 have something to do with it?
Theres no definitive answer to that, it will be another qwerk in the history of Quakecon, however it opened doors and demonstrated attacking ET.
At Quakecon the balance of power shifted from defence, to attack. It was not about how long you could hold a team, it was about how well you beat your opponent. 5on5 made the maps, just a little bit too big for you to watch every avenue. It was in Dallas where we saw idle show the true strength in their arsenal and that was to pull off attacks of sheer beauty. It was at Quakecon, that idle's defence had just one hole in it that allowed r3vers through to collect the documents on radar.
No matter the reason behind Quakecon's success, it put weight behind the argument that 5on5 is not only viable but possible. Now we're faced with the competitive prospect, if tomorrow the world changed to 5on5 for every 5 clans we'd now have 6 clans, but also the prospect of how that effects the setups of lans.
CoD is played in 5on5 in some fashion to mimic CS, and with it, it mimic's the mobility of CS. You can pickup and go to any LAN center out there and you'll be able to play a clanwar, as they've all set themselves up for the biggest team game out there. 5on5 setups also account for the vast majority of other game setups, 4on4 TDM, 5on5 CTF or 1on1, you almost cannot go wrong by having a your gaming centre arranged in tables of 5.
There is a select few games that despite their success in playing numbers and copies sold, have never made it to the LAN scene. Wolfenstein is one of the biggest victims of this atrocity. Could simply be down to having 6 players? I doubt that its anywhere near that simple, however it has to be a contributing factor.
What do the players think? I caught up with a selected few of the games top names to see their opinion on the debate.
Darky - I've played 6on6 since Eurocup RTCW, its always been great but when I played at Quakecon there was something different. The game opened up, and I really enjoyed the new experience. Maybe its the change that ET needs after these years, or maybe its because its easier to attack and more smg based, I'm not sure. However I prefer 5on5 to 6on6. teKoa - I'm undecided, what I do know is that if it ain't Dutch, it ain't much. Both forms are fun, and to be honest I just don't mind either way. mAx - I think if you use it for your next lan (5o5) the impact will be so big than cb will have to make a 5o5 eurocup, and it's too damn late to change the game's format mostly cause of a logistical issue. 5o5 is better in a way cause it's cheaper for the teams/sponsors, but that doesn't count for ET since the game is hardly supported. I'm not saying 5o5 is bad, I just think 6o6 is arguably better except for logistical issues. That's why bf2 hasn't much lans, it's too expensive to support and reducing the number of players would kill the game on a competition level.So, 3 players come up with 3 different points of view. The problem is, you're talking about a monumental change, that effects every team playing the game. And you're making decisions that could split the competitive community. Quakecon may have effected 3 teams for one weekend, but lets say the next Crossfire lan goes to 5on5, with Qualifiers and months of preparation for 12 teams? What if that announcement/decision comes half way through a Eurocup season and throws a big spanner in the works for the whole season. There is an argument that has consequence for everyone and it cannot be taken lightly.
The threat of a change is very real, and believe me when I say, its not just for the Crossfire Lan's - the question is, are Lans and all the goodness with them worth the potential damage and gamble?
