Why 5v5 is better

by Levin • 7 Jan 2011, 08:54 • Journals
in 5v5 you need 5 players

and we all know 5 is less than 6

means you can faster gather 5 players than 6


discuss
Comments
51
▼
Vanhaomena 7 Jan 2011, 09:00
Following this logic, 1on1 is the "best" game form, unless we count 0 vs 0 (no game at all, fast as fuck eh?). It clearly is flawed.
▼
AinsleyHarriot 7 Jan 2011, 09:12
If you were talking about all game forms, but this is clearly about 5o5 vs 6o6.
Parent
▼
Vanhaomena 7 Jan 2011, 09:22
The same logic applies to any "x-1 on x-1 vs x on x" discussion.
Parent
▼
AinsleyHarriot 7 Jan 2011, 09:32
True, but I definately think he meant to mention the format 5o5/6o6.
Parent
▼
kreatiir 7 Jan 2011, 09:53
0v0 will soon be here, as et is almost deathdeadthead!
Parent
▼
SsAP 7 Jan 2011, 11:00
if i didn't know any better i'd say you were either reading through the splash damage forum OR your name there is actually takomak(or sth like that) 0o
Parent
▼
Carlos 7 Jan 2011, 11:30
clearly your name is Arne.
Parent
▼
Vanhaomena 7 Jan 2011, 14:06
Wat
Parent
▼
SsAP 7 Jan 2011, 14:38
Quote by tokamakYou need 8 players more for a 12v12 match though. That's a pretty big deal.

Obviously if logistics is all that matters then 1v1 would be the ideal competition size.
Parent
▼
Vanhaomena 8 Jan 2011, 03:43
Doesn't take a genius to come to that conclusion :p
Parent
▼
SsAP 8 Jan 2011, 11:58
was just the timing both of you came up with that conclusion that startled me ;)
Parent
▼
Mauro 7 Jan 2011, 09:01
nah Levin has got a point. 5 people is just enough to manage , when going to 6 teams will always have trouble with finding either a decent 6th or a 6th that is online to play :)
▼
wArdi 7 Jan 2011, 09:19
People take just aslong to get 5 players on the server.
▼
taZyaa 7 Jan 2011, 09:27
it's 5v5 and not 6v6 because....

6v6 admins felt it was too cluttered with 6v6. 5v5 require more team work because there is 1 less player.
Know your stuff man.
▼
AinsleyHarriot 7 Jan 2011, 09:32
Its just a LAN case.
Parent
▼
diph 7 Jan 2011, 11:05
hmm when 5 people are working together, on the other hand there are 6 people working together, which group does have more teamwork?
harder to get 6 people working together
Parent
▼
krypto 7 Jan 2011, 14:28
nop, 6on6 requires more team play than 5on5. the aim in 5on5 is more important than in 6on6 per example.
Parent
▼
wsk 7 Jan 2011, 09:33
through the years I noticed one thing:

it doesn't matter if u play 3on3, 5on5 or 6on6. you will always wait for opponents 3rd, 5th or 6th.
▼
OLBAA 7 Jan 2011, 09:38
hah indeed:P
Parent
▼
Thomm 7 Jan 2011, 12:08
Stop laughing, you have always been the last one to connect :D
Parent
▼
Gungy 7 Jan 2011, 11:09
Wise old man :D
Parent
▼
krypto 7 Jan 2011, 14:29
exactly what i think ahaha. but i noticed that is faster to get the 5th instead of 6th :P
Parent
▼
rockstAr 7 Jan 2011, 09:45
played a couple 6on6's today, non-stop fun. It's amazing having that extra medic there to help push or revive on defense.
▼
Desh 7 Jan 2011, 10:35
ye i fcking want that medic stuff back :(
Parent
▼
rockstAr 7 Jan 2011, 10:38
it's pretty great no matter where you die there's always meds to revive :P
Parent
▼
zenix 7 Jan 2011, 11:03
And thats the reason 6on6 > 5on5
The joy of playing should always be the most important.
Parent
▼
rAmbo 7 Jan 2011, 09:46
true :D
▼
Panda 7 Jan 2011, 09:51
There's always nerds saying 'et merc avi' at all hours spamming irc anyway, so just get one of them and it's nP :)))
▼
Mizzi 7 Jan 2011, 10:17
After playing both I actually prefer 5on5 then 6on6 its just to cramped :S and it is just random nades everywhere and you get kills :/ only play low wars but still if I had to choose I go for 5on5
▼
Ethr 7 Jan 2011, 10:45
that is the only annoying thing with 6on6 : increased spam
its not fun to keep getting spammy full spawns
but if you learn from your mistakes you can avoid them
Parent
▼
Desh 7 Jan 2011, 10:51
actually at 5on5, spam threat is higher... But I have noticed players do get extra alarmed and 5on5 tactics requires splitting up so....it really may look like spam is less :D
Parent
▼
dualinity 7 Jan 2011, 10:59
in 6on6, the 2 fieldops "strat" in supply is actually viable.

TWO FUCKING FIELDOPSES DUDE.

yes, i want 6v6 back.
Parent
▼
SsAP 7 Jan 2011, 11:04
so what - now it's 1 field ops and two engineers (like you'd need 3 medics then) xD
Parent
▼
Desh 7 Jan 2011, 11:35
dont worry, i like 6on6 better too. switching back is pointless but great XD though..
Parent
▼
dEVJE 7 Jan 2011, 10:39
in 4v4 you need 4 players

and we all know 4 is less than 5

means you can faster gather 4 players than 5
▼
Luc 7 Jan 2011, 10:47
in 2v2 you need 2 players

and we all know 2 is less than 5

means you can faster gather 2 players than 5
Parent
▼
taZyaa 7 Jan 2011, 10:51
in 1v1 you need 1 players

and we all know 1 is less than 5

means you can gather 1 (yourself) faster than 5
Parent
▼
lunAa 7 Jan 2011, 10:53
For sure when u play a mix its faster to get 5 players, then if u play as a team it doesnt make any differences i guess.
And about which format people should play.... 5o5 or 6o6 i rlly dont mind xD
▼
NzZ 7 Jan 2011, 11:00
Everybody makes a journal about 5v5 or 6v6 but ET is dead.
▼
Artstar 7 Jan 2011, 11:44
if it's dead then why are you so bad at it?=s surely you'd be able to reach a top level if there was nobody to compete with you.
Parent
▼
Timo 7 Jan 2011, 12:02
6 > 5
=> 6on6 > 5on5
Right?
▼
Nkd 7 Jan 2011, 14:42
i like your maths
Parent
▼
xPERiA 7 Jan 2011, 12:02
I'd go for 6on6 anytime, I don't get why we accepted being pushed over to 5on5 honestly, just because of fucking LAN's that appear once a year? why can't we just all play 6on6's even in 5on5 leagues, just join up with a 6th and READY TO POWN
▼
Edgar 7 Jan 2011, 12:40
5on5>6on6
▼
RASHOMON 7 Jan 2011, 13:46
Since people seem to enjoy playing 6o6 more than 5o5, you ll find more easily an extra player willing to play a 6o6 !
Back to top