Lower WBDuel/JavDuel... player requirement to 2v2?

[Fork]

Who cares about reputation bar. Jeez, get with the flow dude. If you're a fgt, doesn't mean everyone is too. Stop being an asshole and actually do something productive. Done with ur crying posts on forums.

Look that massive red bar implies that the whole community thinks your an idiot. Conversation over.

[mtine]

Whole community is corrupt. Get with the flow. And srsly, stop crying and do something productive u peace of shit.

[Funky Hobo]

mtine I'm not sure why you are so hostile and abusive to other members on the forum. Your use of language is uncalled for, get some manners and class dude.

[2pac]

mtine I'm not sure why you are so hostile and abusive to other members on the forum. Your use of language is uncalled for, get some manners and class dude.

yo u done being butthurt wiidindu get ur act right or gtfo off the forums fuck boy

[Jones]

Shadowmere, could you also include your opinion/thoughts about 2v2 beyond the fact that there will be more games, also do you believe 3v3 is good overall for twd? What's your opinion on removing it?
Beyond the fact, fork was glad to point out that it increases the games, do you think it hurts or benefits the leagues in long term? Do note, I asked for your opinion, not a reply that foreshadow changes or anything.

[Shadowmere]

Shadowmere, could you also include your opinion/thoughts about 2v2 beyond the fact that there will be more games, also do you believe 3v3 is good overall for twd? What's your opinion on removing it?
Beyond the fact, fork was glad to point out that it increases the games, do you think it hurts or benefits the leagues in long term? Do note, I asked for your opinion, not a reply that foreshadow changes or anything.

The short answer: I don't think 3v3 is "good" for TWD.
It is the bare minimum where players in a squad can get some practice together where it would still count as a "squad match" and have some positives to it.
There is however a massive difference between a 3v3 game and whatever else competitive games we play with 5s. A lot of players get confused about what they're supposed to do in a busy arena where it's 4v4 or even 5v5, all because they've gotten used to free roaming 3v3.
Not to mention there's a lot of squads who don't even bother asking or adding for 4s because they're "just fine" with playing 3s. Won't take the risk of adding a worse player or whatever the reason at any given time. << Bad

The 2v2 option is a big no-no to me.
For one, even if it allows players to start games with less players, it splits the small active player base we have between arenas even more than already.
I always considered BWJS (Base, WBDuel, JavDuel, SpidDuel) to be reflective of TWD. Just a free-for-all ground for players to find new partnerships and chemistry. This is why I asked for WBDuel's spawn radius to be changed to match the one we did for TWDD arenas.
Allowing 2v2 would make it no different from Duel2 or Tourny's 2v2 games, except with the chance to add more players in once they arrive. But there is no guarantee for that. If the 2v2 players manage to get to 5-6-7 deaths before more come around - which is even more plausible if the arena was made smaller, even temporarily - they'll just turn around and leave. It's simply better to promote the more active arenas we have.
The same applies if there's 21 players that want to play WBDuel or JavDuel. We can currently run max 2 bots of any BWJS type simultaneously. That means 10+10 players. If there's more, we should be hosting events or promoting TWD for them to play. << My opinion >>


All in all, the more we lower the restrictions of playing certain areas of the zone, the less effort players will put into making it happen.

[2pac]

The short answer: I don't think 3v3 is "good" for TWD.
It is the bare minimum where players in a squad can get some practice together where it would still count as a "squad match" and have some positives to it.
There is however a massive difference between a 3v3 game and whatever else competitive games we play with 5s. A lot of players get confused about what they're supposed to do in a busy arena where it's 4v4 or even 5v5, all because they've gotten used to free roaming 3v3.
Not to mention there's a lot of squads who don't even bother asking or adding for 4s because they're "just fine" with playing 3s. Won't take the risk of adding a worse player or whatever the reason at any given time. << Bad

The 2v2 option is a big no-no to me.
For one, even if it allows players to start games with less players, it splits the small active player base we have between arenas even more than already.
I always considered BWJS (Base, WBDuel, JavDuel, SpidDuel) to be reflective of TWD. Just a free-for-all ground for players to find new partnerships and chemistry. This is why I asked for WBDuel's spawn radius to be changed to match the one we did for TWDD arenas.
Allowing 2v2 would make it no different from Duel2 or Tourny's 2v2 games, except with the chance to add more players in once they arrive. But there is no guarantee for that. If the 2v2 players manage to get to 5-6-7 deaths before more come around - which is even more plausible if the arena was made smaller, even temporarily - they'll just turn around and leave. It's simply better to promote the more active arenas we have.
The same applies if there's 21 players that want to play WBDuel or JavDuel. We can currently run max 2 bots of any BWJS type simultaneously. That means 10+10 players. If there's more, we should be hosting events or promoting TWD for them to play. << My opinion >>


All in all, the more we lower the restrictions of playing certain areas of the zone, the less effort players will put into making it happen.

dont even know why you made the thread, 3v3 for twd is fine, sometimes squad member shows up for 4th and we addplayer or usually an issue with a lagger thats keeps us from using 4th sometimes. 2v2 can stick in duel2 arena it was built for a reason.

[Hero Lrim]

The short answer: I don't think 3v3 is "good" for TWD.
It is the bare minimum where players in a squad can get some practice together where it would still count as a "squad match" and have some positives to it.
There is however a massive difference between a 3v3 game and whatever else competitive games we play with 5s. A lot of players get confused about what they're supposed to do in a busy arena where it's 4v4 or even 5v5, all because they've gotten used to free roaming 3v3.
Not to mention there's a lot of squads who don't even bother asking or adding for 4s because they're "just fine" with playing 3s. Won't take the risk of adding a worse player or whatever the reason at any given time. << Bad

The 2v2 option is a big no-no to me.
For one, even if it allows players to start games with less players, it splits the small active player base we have between arenas even more than already.
I always considered BWJS (Base, WBDuel, JavDuel, SpidDuel) to be reflective of TWD. Just a free-for-all ground for players to find new partnerships and chemistry. This is why I asked for WBDuel's spawn radius to be changed to match the one we did for TWDD arenas.
Allowing 2v2 would make it no different from Duel2 or Tourny's 2v2 games, except with the chance to add more players in once they arrive. But there is no guarantee for that. If the 2v2 players manage to get to 5-6-7 deaths before more come around - which is even more plausible if the arena was made smaller, even temporarily - they'll just turn around and leave. It's simply better to promote the more active arenas we have.
The same applies if there's 21 players that want to play WBDuel or JavDuel. We can currently run max 2 bots of any BWJS type simultaneously. That means 10+10 players. If there's more, we should be hosting events or promoting TWD for them to play. << My opinion >>


All in all, the more we lower the restrictions of playing certain areas of the zone, the less effort players will put into making it happen.

As I have explained numerous times, the purpose of lowering the restriction in WBDUEL to permit 2 v 2 to START a game is to give players the OPPORTUNITY to add more players while a game is in progress.

The game DOES NOT retain enough players to adequately support a 3v3/4v4/5v5/etc during various times of the day, therefore permitting 2v2 will give players throughout ALL times zone the ability to participate in a match, AND also the opportunity to add more players while a game is in progress (as stated above).

Scenario trying to avoid: 5 people waiting to start a game, can't find a 6th. People start rage quitting, 30 seconds later another player joins to fulfill the requirement to start a game, unfortunately most ppl already rage quit. Thus implementing 2v2 will eliminate this situation (which is very common nowadays).

#2birds1stone

[kthx]

Someone should just fucking add wbduel and javduel into the public arena already instead of having this conversation, You kids are retarded and I base that off my reputation bar.

[Collossus]

Having played a lot of wbduel, definitely makes sense to allow this to occur as it could get the room going.

A fun option would be to start the game 2v2 and allow captains to add if people come in. This would allow 3v2 if another player hops on and could get him to stay. Then if a 3v3 is added, game is automatically restarted no matter what the score is and you have a full game of wbduel.

[Slum]

2v2 ladder in elim would be sick.

[qan]

A compromise:

• Allow starting of 2s or 2v3 via staff command.
• If the game is not 3v3 by the end (or maybe by a certain time limit), invalidate it.

This prevents the legitimization of these kinds of games, while explicitly declaring that the intention of starting them is to get a game going.

If they wanted to play 2v2 they literally would just go to duel2.

EDIT: Or this.

Then if a 3v3 is added, game is automatically restarted no matter what the score is and you have a full game of wbduel.

Meanwhile still invalidating 2s/2v3 if game ends with that amount.

[Hero Lrim]

A compromise:

• Allow starting of 2s or 2v3 via staff command.
• If the game is not 3v3 by the end (or maybe by a certain time limit), invalidate it.

This prevents the legitimization of these kinds of games, while explicitly declaring that the intention of starting them is to get a game going.

If they wanted to play 2v2 they literally would just go to duel2.

EDIT: Or this.


Meanwhile still invalidating 2s/2v3 if game ends with that amount.

Or simply let us start the game

[Collossus]

A compromise:

• Allow starting of 2s or 2v3 via staff command.
• If the game is not 3v3 by the end (or maybe by a certain time limit), invalidate it.

This prevents the legitimization of these kinds of games, while explicitly declaring that the intention of starting them is to get a game going.

If they wanted to play 2v2 they literally would just go to duel2.

EDIT: Or this.


Meanwhile still invalidating 2s/2v3 if game ends with that amount.

Why does staff need to start it? Just adds a layer of complexity that is not needed.

Invalidation without a 3v3 is fine.

I'm not sure what the problem is with legitimization. It might be safe to say that most people don't play wbduel for the rank nor the stats.

People just want a game going when squad games aren't going on.

[Collossus]

Half decent idea, but not well thought out. According to that logic, might as well put a spot for elim, javduel, and any other arena that has activity in pub then. How do you pick and choose then?