pugs and pug night

[Mukhtar]

Last time I tried to do a weekly event like pug night, it actually turned out to be pretty successful and everyone had fun, but I couldn't keep it up for very long because I was asked to play for a tribes team and me being 15, jobless, and having no life decided to commit fully to tribes.

Next week is the last week of school for me, and once summer comes I'll have even more of a no life so I'll be able to commit to both tribes and legions. I also fixed a problem with my tribesinput.ini to where the x and y axes are even so now tribes feels like every other game aim-wise.

We can do pugs everynight now tbh since most you guys, just as I, have no life. If you did, you wouldn't be sticking around playing a dead game. Get on the irc, join the steam group, play the game around populated hours so either you can advertise pugs, or be there for when someone else advertises them. The more people we have playing pugs, the funner the game will be.

Also, for the love w.e god you belive in, can we please do 7v7's only? The game is just not balanced enough for 8v8 or 10v10. The fix for a big isn't to pour in more players, the fix is having those 7 players play differently (which also adds depth to this game, someing that is completely missing).

The players that didn't get picked will get picked first for next pug or something like that. Lets play the game and get better instead of dstacking in pubs because we are too self conciouslolwatisspelling about our skill level.

 

[Fixious]

I'm up for it. If there are 16 people ready to PUG, I still think we should go ahead with an 8v8 though. 8's have worked okay in the past, even on Frostbyte (though it's usually changed to Elegiac or Zenith).

 

[AFireInAsa]

Yes. 8v8s tho r fine.

 

[Mukhtar]

fine 8v8s, forgot game is casual.

 

[Krakyn]

Get on the irc, join the steam group, play the game around populated hours so either you can advertise pugs...
So teamspeak too?
<22:50:43> "muk" connected to channel "Game lobby"
<22:50:51> "muk" disconnected (leaving)
You should make this post when you actually start playing rather than before hand.

 

[Mukhtar]

There was no one in-game and not enough people in ts to poke for a pug so I just decided to go and find a scrim on tribes.

 

[Ucantry2run]

7v7s are only to be played imo if there are 14 people. If there are more people of course we are going to include them. And regarding the rules just refer back to Jordan's 'pug rules' post.

 

[shaskalol]

I completely agree with muk about the 7v7 format being better then the 8v8.

Lets add some major points to that fact.

• It clutters up the maps, making the in-game game play revolve around "which team has more numbers where" on the field, rather than relying on the actual skill of the players in the situation.

• Encourages stupid / non-appealing positions. If you look at a 7v7, there are no room for "midfield" or "heavy offense" type positions. It encourages the 5 building block positions to be played, with no bullshit on the side.

• The concept of having an odd amount of players on each team adds to the depth of the game greatly. Where will you put the 7th man? On offense? Defense? It's a complete game changer. Rather then having the boring old 4 offense 4 defense strategies I see in every pug. Boring.

• Look at some of the best, most played games in the world. LoL, TF2, I'm assuming the counterstrike series, all have game play revolving around the most few players possible on the field. LoL - 5, TF2 - 6, Counterstrike, I'm assuming nothing more then 6. If you get the point I'm trying to make, the fewer the better.

• Makes players practice less, or not care about raising their skill. Since we have a very small community, we rarely get more then 16 players, so if you're a pug player, you always know you will play a pug if you're on at the active times. I remember when I first started playing, and you had to actually WORK to get picked in a pug. Rather then discouraging newer players from playing, I think it does just the opposite. Makes them better, makes them earn their pug spot rather then getting handed it. I don't know about anyone else, but getting picked first in pugs is really an honor after all the hard work I've put in.

You may think I have over analyzed this way too much considering it's just 1 player more on each team, but it's way more then you think.

Oh, and I also want you guys to know that the number of players in a game can add just as much depth as all of those fancy cores you've added, too.

 

[Krakyn]

I agree with Muk and shaska on the 7v7 thing, but muk if you would have stayed on more that night there was enough people for a pug.

 

[Freeman]

• Encourages stupid / non-appealing positions. If you look at a 7v7, there are no room for "midfield" or "heavy offense" type positions. It encourages the 5 building block positions to be played, with no bullshit on the side.

people like their variety though. if someone wants to play heavyO or midfield, its generally up to the captain. also, "encouraging" people to play a set way really hinders creativity. yea, its arguable the most effective strat (3 O, 4 D), but let them the captains do whatever they want. if someone wants to play midfield/heavyO, they're probably gonna be doing it anyways, regardless of the player cap. (no one even plays heavy O anymore, and midfield? lol)

• The concept of having an odd amount of players on each team adds to the depth of the game greatly. Where will you put the 7th man? On offense? Defense? It's a complete game changer. Rather then having the boring old 4 offense 4 defense strategies I see in every pug. Boring.

next level russian special tactics right here

• Makes players practice less, or not care about raising their skill. Since we have a very small community, we rarely get more then 16 players, so if you're a pug player, you always know you will play a pug if you're on at the active times. I remember when I first started playing, and you had to actually WORK to get picked in a pug. Rather then discouraging newer players from playing, I think it does just the opposite. Makes them better, makes them earn their pug spot rather then getting handed it. I don't know about anyone else, but getting picked first in pugs is really an honor after all the hard work I've put in.

lewl your own points essentially answer themselves.

youve already said its a small community, so the people who "work(insertboldandCAPS)" to get better are really only fighting for that top position. the less skilled players are going to be picked regardless. (small community rite?) if we had 24 players looking for a game, yea i could see how that would be important, but alas...
also, assuming theres gonna be more than 1 pickup, wont the players who werent picked for the first one get automatically placed into the next game? so the whole ^WORK^ to get better thing is just something for personal satisfaction.

i agree that getting picked last can potentially encourage mangs to get better, but some people just dont give a *chocolate cookies* about increasing their skill level. these people will always exist, and doesnt have much to do with 8v8 vs 7v7.

 

[Mukhtar]

but what about actual competetive matches? don't we want to stimulate an environment as close to a comp scene as we can? if a team has 16 players and so does another team, would they be down to do 7's or 8's? what if one team wants to do 7's but another wants to do 8's?
we need to decide on a size and stick to that so we can see how the meta evolves around that size.

in tribes we usually have enough for 2-3 pugs of 7v7's so we have a just played channel and also a term called a "high-level" where two caps can pick out of all, but there has to be enough players for two pugs (28). the just played channel is what lets everyone be able to perticpate if we aren't doing high levels. for example we have 24 people. 14 of those 24 people get to play a pug and that leaves us 10. those 10 people will stay in the pug channel. after the pug is over, those 14 people that just finished the pug and everyone else that joins after the pug is finished will go to the just played channel so the people that had to sit-out can get to play. the only problem with the system is encountered in the first pug where alpha/blood eagle will get the first pick and beta/diamond sword has no one to pick out of just played because there shouldn't be anyone waiting there because a pug hasn't even happened yet.

i'm not sure if we can link channels in ts, but that is what helped us alot when we were doing it on mumble. being able to switch to a captains channel but yet still be heard by the people in the roles channel.

do the devs want this game to be competitive once it is out on unity or will it just be another casual fps? if the answer is competitive then we need an to know what size we want, or do we want w.e size as long as enough people want to play ie 8s 9s 10s?

 

[Pure]

same old retarded debates, just do what you did last time around.

 

[moronval]

jesus christ is mukhtar ever new to trying to be involved in the legions community. stop going back over team size, if there's enough for 8v8 do it, if there's only enough for 7v7 then do that.

edit: just because you play tribes doesn't make you some prodigy, you're tribes still *chocolate cookies* tribes and your tribes history tribes will tribes keep tribes it tribes that tribes way

 

[Perfection]

Pretty much what val said, if you have the players play. I'm sure this argument will stick around for a bit, but I just feel the whole thing is a bit silly.

The next Legions is pretty far away, but should we really be worrying about what the team sizes are going to be? Do the devs make a game competitive, or do the players? If people want to play a game casually they will, if they want to take it a bit more seriously they will.

Also, Ascend is bad.

 

[Ucantry2run]

I'm still not sure why you two are trying to hit on 8v8 games so hard, especially on points that aren't true no matter what your opinion is.

First of all, the maps do not become cluttered (as you may have seen with any recent competitive match ever). In ANY game it is a matter of which area has more players in it and that will never change. If you have too much offense the opposite team will take advantage of your low defense. Using that fact as an argument really does not change anything much less strengthen your point that '8v8s are bad.'

'Stupid' and 'non-appealing' positions are solely based on your opinion and that is a very hard thing to change as we can see. I do agree that Heavy Offense has been looked down upon as a consensus but nobody really does that anymore (much less in competitive play). 8v8 moreso opens up the table for new positions to come about. Midfield was really the term for derps who would just sit around the middle of the map and duel for no real specific purpose. Nowadays there are some really solid competitive positions in the mid-map area as well as some solid players who take up those roles (Prototype knows this very well). I do not agree that playing in the midfield is stupid anymore because, like any game, play styles do change. Change happens. Honestly 7v7 has always limited the number of creativity because it is honestly too small. You only have room for a HoF, and Stayhome, Chase, 2 LO, and 2 cappers. Monotonous.

Odd numbers have nothing to do with the amount of creativity in a game. The fact is there there is no room for any new strat in 7v7 because you need everyone in one set position or either the offense or the defense is going to get screwed.

Legions is not like the generic game. Honestly, if you're going to talk about different games (I know you know about TF2), you should get to know them first. League is 5v5 because the maps are small as hell. You can't really draw conclusions between League to legions because the maps cannot be compared in terms of size. Usually other fps shooters (Call of duty/ Battlefield) have a certain amount of players depending on how easy it is to manage the map. I've played a lot of COD back in the day, as well as competitive BF3 and I have to say that it is much harder to play legions than it is to play those two games. Those games are focused on who can be stationed at what point so the teams have as much vision as possible, which is a similar theme in legions (defense anyway). I do believe that 8v8 is a good size because the addition of flight and those mechanics that are much different from other generic shooters makes it much harder to play with fewer people. If this was not the case then I would be all for 7v7s, but it just doesn't work.

The amount of players that play in a competitive match (at least that is the type of game that I think you're referring to) does not correlate with the amount of time something needs to practice to get better. More importantly, it doesn't correlate to the amount of motivation that people have to play this game. You still need to work hard to get good at this game, since it takes a very long time to do so. Moreover, it hinders a players ability to get better if they don't play pickup games. If you really want to get into the size of pickup games, I believe that we need to include as many people as possible without making the game too chaotic, which would be an 8v8 (9v9 on some maps).

If you don't play with the veterans, you will not improve as fast as you would if you did play with them. If you want to go by shaska's example, then 8v8 would mean that you have to work harder to overcome 2 more people (but this example is not very bright in the first place).

Cores were added not to be fancy but to make this game more able to be sold. The way legions was before nobody would play it. Ever. We needed a way for it to cater to other types of potential players. I know this is monotonous but legions is really still in its beta stages especially since more stuff is being tested. So you're going to get some imbalanced things once and a while. Do not treat it as a finished game because you will always be disappointed if you do. There will be problems.

Nevermind the competitive scenes for other games, do we even know the correct competitive scene for Legions? As I recall, the most recent competitive scene used 8v8 as well as the old (OLD) scene when all the teams were still around. It did not feel wrong in any way and I sure had a fun time. But that's when you two weren't part of the scene so I don't think you would know.

Anyway, I'm pretty sure the majority does enjoy 8v8s for its creativity/diversity/whatever you want to call it. Lets just ride with it for now because there honestly isn't anything majorly wrong with it.

 

[Sin]

If there's 14 I'm playing 7v7 because I want a damn pug. If there's 16, good, more fun. If there's 18, fine with me still a pug.

There is NO comp scene. Or meta really, you do what you will and if it works, good on ya.

Pugs ain't broke, don't try to micro-manage and fix them. Let them be played, no need to super-control.

Also pls, stop comparing legions to multi-million dollar sponsored games with huge communities and enough players to fill hundreds of legions servers. Pls.

 

[Mukhtar]

i already said "fine 8v8s, forgot game is casual." this whole debate stuff could have been avoided. i just want to play pug no matter how bad they are.

 

[Ucantry2run]

You made another post after you dropped the debate br0 not my fault

 

[Jordahan]

Okay. Play whatever you can with as many people as you can.