BHack

Bommando, having never actually played TF2 - doesn't seem to realize how carefully and delicately you have to tweak the gameplay experience for perfection. This decision was made after hours of play testing and realizing smaller team sizes really make this mode shine.

^_^

__________________
Secretary of Keepin it Real

Zoopy

I would say 3 teams of 6 works the best, although that maximizes players waiting,

Kristian

The problem with three teams of six is that you get no variation in the teams. It is fun, I admit, to have the camaraderie of your own team - but I think that churning players to prevent the same crappy team from losing over and over and the same uber team from winning a high % of the time is important as well.

__________________

BHack

Actually, I would say that 3 teams of 6 is probably the best setup as well.

I thought, like you mentioned, that it would create 3 distinct teams that rotated in and out of play together. Play arena for a couple hours like this and you find out that that isn't what happens at all. Player population is way too fluid - because of all the joins and drops the teams don't really stick together at all.

At first I though this sucked, but then when we set it so that almost no one waited and the teams were almost totally stagnant, I realized this sucked horribly as well. There was no back and forth, the dominant team just cruised through the map and the losers bailed.

So, the two things that came out of it for me were:

1. You need to have teams that rotate out at least half of their players when they lose.

2. The mode seems to favor small teams more than large teams. It goes quicker, your life is worth more, and thus you have more involvement in the round.

6 man teams seemed to be about perfect, go figure, thats the valve default. On an 18 man server though that leads to sit outs which people don't like. It's a tradeoff though, sit out some or have more fun when you are playing.

__________________
Secretary of Keepin it Real

Kristian

If you read my previous posts, you'll see that I'm totally in favor of sitouts. The only distinction I was drawing is between three teams of six and, say, two teams of six + three/four sitting out.

I'm not really rabid either way, and if players dropping will keep the teams churning, then maybe that will work well.

Though I must admit that I'm not totally sold... It seems that the most "balanced" approach would be six+six+three/four.

__________________

Beatnik

The good thing is that we'll have plenty of time to fine tune it. We don't need to arrive at a final ideal configuration right away, and something tells me after this weekend we'll all have a better idea what config(s) works and what doesn't.

You can call me Beatnik, the consensus builder.

Random

I agree with the idea of having a team sitting out half the size of a normal time (so in a 6 vs 6 there is 2-4 people sitting out), not sure if you can do it though.

Kristian

Beatnik Obama!

__________________

Beatnik

Something tells me that's not a compliment coming from your libertarian ass.

Maybe Dr. Beatnik Paul?

Kristian

Deliver all my babies, Dr. Beatnik!

__________________