I decided to open this thread for talking about amount of players in normal slayer/objective playslist’s. Classically in Halo, these playlists have been 4v4, but I think 5v5 is better. At the moment, there is 5v5 slayer playlist in Halo 3, and it feels better than Reach’s 4v4. And now, in Reach, 343 has raised player count in objective playslist to 5v5 and it plays smoothier and map flow runs better.
In my opinion, Free for all playlist(s) 6-8 players is fine, for normal team slayer/objective games 8-10 players fits well and for Big team battle playlists classic 14-16 players is good (of course 16-20 would be better, but 16 is max as we know.)
Well, how can you say it so frankly that less players is more competetive? Battlefield, in my opinion, is good example of game that is competetive and it has of 24-64 players on same match. Of course, Halo and Battlefield are from differed universes, but making game competetive is’t that simple.
> No? The fewer players the better. 2-8.
>
> 6 - Free for all.
> 8 - Team Slayer.
> 4 - Doubles.
> 6 - Team Objective.
>
> <mark>Fewer players means more competetive.</mark>
Err…
EDIT: I think the reason 5v5 feels better is because the maps are designed for that many players.
The number of players doesn’t quite mean how competitive a game is, it just needs more space. This can in turn lead to empty spaces that are unused, or vehicles that are placed on maps, which are obviously OP in Reach. (Banshee)
> > No? The fewer players the better. 2-8.
> >
> > 6 - Free for all.
> > 8 - Team Slayer.
> > 4 - Doubles.
> > 6 - Team Objective.
> >
> > <mark>Fewer players means more competetive.</mark>
>
> I think the reason 5v5 feels better is because the maps are designed for that many players.
Of course, that’s true as well. Map sizes indeed affects what is good amount of players. But for Reach, map flow feels slow and places are deserted. 3v3 games are boring because of that.
> Well, how can you say it so frankly that less players is more competetive? Battlefield, in my opinion, is good example of game that is competetive and it has of 24-64 players on same match. Of course, Halo and Battlefield are from differed universes, but making game competetive is’t that simple.
Well, for three reasons, plain and simple. Less players equals smaller maps, right? The smaller map, the more action and faster thinking is required to win. If the map is small and has several levels there are also more strategies to choose from.
A big map is often just a long strech, which will remove lots of strategies, and fast thinking. It will also remove spawn killing which is a huge skill in Halo.
Secondly, it is almost impossible to have actual teamwork when there are lots of players ingame. Many players means more random battles - Players that go where they want. In other words no setup. With small teams, teamwork and setups are easier accessible.
Thirdly, on larger maps there are probably vehicles. Getting a vehicle is competetive, but using one is not.
MLG is using 4v4 players, small maps, mainly difficult to-use weapons and no vehicles for a reason.
> No? The fewer players the better. 2-8.
>
> 6 - Free for all.
> 8 - Team Slayer.
> 4 - Doubles.
> 6 - Team Objective.
>
> Fewer players means more competetive.
I wouldn’t call having less people more competitive.
Less people; more personal, is how I would describe it.
> > No? The fewer players the better. 2-8.
> >
> > 6 - Free for all.
> > 8 - Team Slayer.
> > 4 - Doubles.
> > 6 - Team Objective.
> >
> > Fewer players means more competetive.
>
> I wouldn’t call having less people more competitive.
> Less people; more personal, is how I would describe it.
That’s how I see it as well. Whatever it takes, I want map flow be something like Halo 3 has managed to do. I want to be in action all the time and find players all over the map, not just in one dedicated place (reflection, I’m pointing you)
By increasing team size by one would be one step forward. Indeed, team size isn’t all that matters.