Its a fact that its nearly impossible to coordinate with more than 8 players? Source? How did this so called "fact" become established? that s terrible logic, you SHOULD say its easier to coordinate with less people, which is inherently true at this scale. Its not IMPOSSIBLE to coordinate with more then 8 people, all you need is an actual command structure via separation into fire teams which this game actually supports. World of tanks is always 15 on 15 and its really pushing E-Sports. WHOA DOG, thats almost twice as many as 8. Whats more tactical about putting 8 people over a small map then 32 people over a giant map? More people=more tactics. Competitive shooters have always been about team tactics. Once you've got everyone at that higher echelon of shooting skill, team tactics really plays an important role.
Will This Be Considered A Competitive Shooter?
- Thread starter Ironfungus
- Start date
@Reise: maybe you are talking about stuff like BFE/IC and the like, but I wont consider that a "clanwar". It's just a bit more organized public play, nothing more.
That sentence alone disqualifies you totally from beeing taken seriously in this discussion.
I find BFE/IC pretty competitive tbh.
But ultimately i think it all depends on the maps, the majority of RO1 maps are overcrowded with 50 players while other maps feels very dumb with (5v5) 10 or even 16 (8v8) players.
But ultimately i think it all depends on the maps, the majority of RO1 maps are overcrowded with 50 players while other maps feels very dumb with (5v5) 10 or even 16 (8v8) players.
Maybe from 7 years of Red Orchestra clangaming?
You aren't seriously comparing a FPS with a tank only game?
Anyway, as I already wrote, the maps in RO aren't that big that you'd need more than 8vs8 to have a lot of action going on and on the other hand keep it manageable ingame and at the prematch things.
Sure, never mind the tongue-in-cheek tone we've had since it started.
So now it has to be an FPS to be competitve? Good lord, the elitism is just oozing from this thread now.
I'll let you "pros" get back to your discussion then.
Last edited:
I agree, it's extremely hard to coordinate 32 people at once.
What does that have to do with competition? Hitting a baseball isn't easy, neither is playing a round of Tennis, but those are competitive.
Just because it's hard to get 32 people to work together, doesn't mean it can't be done. Divide them into squads, assign leaders and a chain of command while the commander oversees the entire operation. I played with a realism clan for a short while in DH, we coordinated well enough with 32 players per side.
And remember, just because your coordination isn't perfect, doesn't mean you lose. The other team is dealing with the Exact same problems as you are.
Competition is proving that you are able to accomplish a set of challenges better than your opponent. In Counter Strike, it can boil down simply to which team has better aim, or better reaction times. In RO2 it would be mainly about who can coordinate the best.
I don't see the difficulty of coordination in RO2 to be detrimental to competitive games, I see it actually as being the Main Focus of the game. Just as it would be in real war, which is what we're trying to simulate anyway.
What does that have to do with competition? Hitting a baseball isn't easy, neither is playing a round of Tennis, but those are competitive.
Just because it's hard to get 32 people to work together, doesn't mean it can't be done. Divide them into squads, assign leaders and a chain of command while the commander oversees the entire operation. I played with a realism clan for a short while in DH, we coordinated well enough with 32 players per side.
And remember, just because your coordination isn't perfect, doesn't mean you lose. The other team is dealing with the Exact same problems as you are.
Competition is proving that you are able to accomplish a set of challenges better than your opponent. In Counter Strike, it can boil down simply to which team has better aim, or better reaction times. In RO2 it would be mainly about who can coordinate the best.
I don't see the difficulty of coordination in RO2 to be detrimental to competitive games, I see it actually as being the Main Focus of the game. Just as it would be in real war, which is what we're trying to simulate anyway.
Just think about any MMO where there are LARGE scale raids/warbands/whateverr you want to call them. In Warhammer Online I played in warbands 100+ strong, we all knew what we needed to do, we all knew which healers to protect, and which party we were supposed to work with.
With the proper practice, and the right structure for chain of command you can coordinate 32 players for an FPS. Just break up the 32 man team into squads and fireteams and have those players stick together and work as a unit. This is how it is done in real-life so it must work for a reason.
Making it work is only dependant on how serious you want to take the game.
With the proper practice, and the right structure for chain of command you can coordinate 32 players for an FPS. Just break up the 32 man team into squads and fireteams and have those players stick together and work as a unit. This is how it is done in real-life so it must work for a reason.
Making it work is only dependant on how serious you want to take the game.
Of course it can work out. It's just not good to make this huge battles the standard for a game. I mean a game can be played in different flavors, but you should try to make something the "standard" which will be the healthiest for the game. It's a decision between having 10 clans playing 5 matches in 2 weeks and hundreds of clans playing 10 matches a day 
Last edited:
This was doomed to spiral into a "I'm more experienced so I'm right" -kind of discussion from the start. But I can't resist poking my head in.
When it comes to player numbers vs competitive play, I think that's more of a matter of opinion on what competitive means. In my experience from several different games and competitive clans (including from RO), I feel 8v8 can be just as competitive as higher numbers in one fight. I've been in several big ones and they can be just as eye-poppingly exiting and interesting as small ones. It just takes more organization and a more skilled commander to make a difference, since one person on the team won't accomplish much by himself.
It takes a good team to win a big fight - good players are more important the smaller fight you get into.
8v8 fights are further from how public battles play out than a 16v16 is, yes - but that dosn't make it any more competitive than a battle with two great clans going at it in a 16v16.
As I stated; it's more of a matter of opinion of what the word entails in gaming-terms (and you are totally entitled to have a different one).
When it comes to player numbers vs competitive play, I think that's more of a matter of opinion on what competitive means. In my experience from several different games and competitive clans (including from RO), I feel 8v8 can be just as competitive as higher numbers in one fight. I've been in several big ones and they can be just as eye-poppingly exiting and interesting as small ones. It just takes more organization and a more skilled commander to make a difference, since one person on the team won't accomplish much by himself.
It takes a good team to win a big fight - good players are more important the smaller fight you get into.
8v8 fights are further from how public battles play out than a 16v16 is, yes - but that dosn't make it any more competitive than a battle with two great clans going at it in a 16v16.
As I stated; it's more of a matter of opinion of what the word entails in gaming-terms (and you are totally entitled to have a different one).
Last edited:
And what size of battles the clans prefer.
That is; if you were talking about the size of battles and not the size of the clan community. My bad if so.
Last edited:
I think there's more than enough room for both if there are enough interested parties. Nobody is suggesting we replace 8 v 8 e.t.c with 32 v 32 across the board, but attempting to say it's impossible to effectively control more than 8 players or that more players can't be competitive is just silly imho
Last edited:
Phew, I think there may be two different meanings of competitive at this thread. The OP stated that he has some experience in Call of Duty, CS and such games and asked if RO2 will be as competitive as they are and asked for some details. From this experience at games I guessed he meant the "esport-"competitive way and not the "epic battle"-competitive.
What I said was that there won't be 32vs32 matches at any "esport" competitions at all and I'm still very persuaded about this point because you need some kind of different preparation, a massive roster and so on.
As I said at my first post it's probably great fun for lots of people to play 32vs32 matches but this hasn't much in common with that questions the OP asked for.
What I said was that there won't be 32vs32 matches at any "esport" competitions at all and I'm still very persuaded about this point because you need some kind of different preparation, a massive roster and so on.
As I said at my first post it's probably great fun for lots of people to play 32vs32 matches but this hasn't much in common with that questions the OP asked for.
One might define it as "There will be fewer players engaged in competitive 32on32 than 8on8, thus making 8on8 more competitive."
But I would say that if you play 32on32, you are probably more after the experience. If you play 8on8, you are probably more after the competition. That is why I would in general call 8on8 more competitive due to the mindset of the people playing it. But that's me.
RO2 should be defined as a competitive game as the tools needed to engage in competitive gaming will be there. How big the competitive community will be is another question. Being competitive shouldn't really be about what is hard and easy, it should just be about the functionality. Obviously though a game that is way to easy to master is not suitable for competitive gaming as everyone will easily become as good as one can get.
But I would say that if you play 32on32, you are probably more after the experience. If you play 8on8, you are probably more after the competition. That is why I would in general call 8on8 more competitive due to the mindset of the people playing it. But that's me.
RO2 should be defined as a competitive game as the tools needed to engage in competitive gaming will be there. How big the competitive community will be is another question. Being competitive shouldn't really be about what is hard and easy, it should just be about the functionality. Obviously though a game that is way to easy to master is not suitable for competitive gaming as everyone will easily become as good as one can get.
I would most assuredly say this game will be a definite competitive shooter. The extreme realism alone will make most hardcore fps'ers turn to RO2 for a more realistic competitive experience. I'm just waiting for the reviews (from someone other than a g4 retards) which will really start getting this game out to the public. My friend in iraq right now almost shat a brick when I showed him the gameplay features, he was almost immediately like well **** BF3...
I pretty much don't understand what most people are saying
1) Yes, It's harder to co-ordinate 32 people compared to 8 people. Generally though, in most team sports, you have a thing called reserves. It won't be "32" people in a clan and thats it. It'll be about 50-60 so you have enough to play. Think guilds in MMO's.
1.1) It's a skill to lead. Leading 8 people or leading 32 people? It all comes down to a chain of command really. If you mean this type of co-ordination then its not that hard. People just arn't use to it or willing to be good at it.
2) The reason we do smaller games at eSport events is convenience. Nobody is suggesting that we should all hook up in one room to play though. I'm fairly certain a lot of people would be interested in 32 vs 32 player clan battles. Whilst maintaining interest in smaller scale too.
2.1) It's also fairly obvious that the more players there are...the more going on in a game. The more active a game is the more interesting it is to spectate as their is hardly any down time.
3) I'm a person who likes to look at things at different angles. And considering I've never seen the angle of "what would eSport be like if it was on a larger scale" I find it rather disheartening that people would be even semi-against such a thing. A kind of ignorance or arrogance if you wish!
4) Ever played MAG? MAG has some very large clans and is a great shooting game. It's possible to have 128vs128 clan battles. I've only ever been in a group of 50 though and we once faced up against another clan. It was a great feeling to be a part of it. I can only imagine what it was like to watch. You'd eventually start to notice key players in both clans. Those that you want to keep your eye on in the battle. Unlike smaller games where every member of your team is essentially a hero because theres only 4 of you. It's easy to keep track.
This is not how larger games should be done. We shouldn't be trying to keep track of each individual player. But try to zoom out and look at the bigger picture.
1) Yes, It's harder to co-ordinate 32 people compared to 8 people. Generally though, in most team sports, you have a thing called reserves. It won't be "32" people in a clan and thats it. It'll be about 50-60 so you have enough to play. Think guilds in MMO's.
1.1) It's a skill to lead. Leading 8 people or leading 32 people? It all comes down to a chain of command really. If you mean this type of co-ordination then its not that hard. People just arn't use to it or willing to be good at it.
2) The reason we do smaller games at eSport events is convenience. Nobody is suggesting that we should all hook up in one room to play though. I'm fairly certain a lot of people would be interested in 32 vs 32 player clan battles. Whilst maintaining interest in smaller scale too.
2.1) It's also fairly obvious that the more players there are...the more going on in a game. The more active a game is the more interesting it is to spectate as their is hardly any down time.
3) I'm a person who likes to look at things at different angles. And considering I've never seen the angle of "what would eSport be like if it was on a larger scale" I find it rather disheartening that people would be even semi-against such a thing. A kind of ignorance or arrogance if you wish!
4) Ever played MAG? MAG has some very large clans and is a great shooting game. It's possible to have 128vs128 clan battles. I've only ever been in a group of 50 though and we once faced up against another clan. It was a great feeling to be a part of it. I can only imagine what it was like to watch. You'd eventually start to notice key players in both clans. Those that you want to keep your eye on in the battle. Unlike smaller games where every member of your team is essentially a hero because theres only 4 of you. It's easy to keep track.
This is not how larger games should be done. We shouldn't be trying to keep track of each individual player. But try to zoom out and look at the bigger picture.