"MLG" outfits pushing for 24v24 matches

Source
http://www.reddit.com/r/Planetside/comments/1rkwlk/attack_on_auraxis_ep2_during_mlg_columbus_outfit/



It's quite a long watch, you can stop at the first 20 minutes but the main debate is about competitive size.

Basically, there aren't enough 48 player competitive outfits to sustain the Esport scene.
Moreover, spectating 48 players is not as easy as monitoring 24, and other reasons...


Anyway, discuss.

For MLG, yes, 24 v 24 would probably be better considering the current state of the game. It allows you go get smaller concentration of very high level players.

TL;DW but if it's about the battle islands being 48 vs. 48 each side can open just 2 squads herp derp.

it's MLG so what you will get is a smaller concentration of crappy players who think they are highly skilled

That's also going further and further away from the supposed core experience of Planetside which is large battles, and any development with 24v24 in mind will most likely be pointless for the 99% players not into tournaments.

Sounds fine, bigger is better sure but getting more than 24 people on a server at a certain time in a certain place sounds too challenging.

24 seems easier to organize so if this is the standard we should get more matches.

As I have said before CC is IMO doing things the right way , 24 v 24 is the place to start. For the MLG competitive scene to work first you actually need a competitive community driven scene for MLG to attach itself to.
ATM they seem to be trying to shoe horn everyone into the MLG aspect without any core foundation to build upon .. And without that foundation the thing will fall down ..

Well, it might be possible for me to get 24 players on the team, but with MLG's history of being unprofessional (at least with PS 2, otherwise I'd never even know about it), it's not worth the hassle - at least not now.

Another thing is that 24 vs 24 doesn't allow for strategy, and that pretty much removes one of the main elements of PS 2 from PS 2.

And finally - what gain does PS 2 have from this? I'd like to see some new continents rather than watching others play the game (in fact I enjoy playing more than watching...).

24v24? Wrong game...

I still don't understand why SOE, PS2 and certain players push for MLG in a game which pitches itself in ads and elsewhere as a game of EPIC COMBAT!

I realize there is a certain cache associated with competitive gaming, but promoting the small map, small unit combat style is counterintuitive and will lead the game down the path of every other FPS made to date.

I personally came here for the EPIC nature of the fights, but I feel that we'll eventually turn this game into a bad rehash of costumed gang warfare...

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0080120/

I can see the point for it. I do belive though that if they continue with the Esports stuff they still should have some Larger matches, considereing the selling point for PS2 is Scale. Even if its just more of a special/show match thing, the Larger, more caotic fights are what can and should sell the game, not small scale BF/CoD type fights, otherwise they just risk being a "clone" of those games which would not help their Promotion of the competitve scene.

I`d expected sth. like 128 vs 128 or higher.
24? Even Battlefield 2 had more....

If you can get 256 people online playing at the same time, and do it regularly. Then yes.

Almost all the competitive ready pilots have more or less quit the game at this point over the awful gravity changes, and over frustration over aa constantly ruining nearly every fight. Meanwhile you have basically no outfits left who can pull 48 reasonably skilled players. It should be no shock that everyone has fallen back on 24v24.

only 16min in atm but omg need more popcorn, love ender reaction while zoid talks tho xD

sidenote, zoid most NUC have less than 25% (21% mlg ready ) accu and 2 kdr outside their marauder <.<

edit: that <20% accu with TAR on certain nuc members

MLGods have spoken. MLGods must be obeyed.

They can go play ghosts.

Blasphemy.

That was the reason I was against anything less than 48vs48 initially.
Nowadays I think 24v42 is fine because, as you've pointed out, the vast majority won't care about MLG and will be ready to push back against adverse issues. If the MLG teams want to do half a platoon max, then I'll just keep not watching MLG and continue to tune in to community clash.

32v32 BF anyone?

Wouldn't a better solution be 24+24 vs 24+24? Blind selections (since clearly these games don't need to go out Live at the moment, and the organisation is almost immediate anyway, and most MLG pro outfits won't risk a lifetime ban if they're caught conspiring)... Then it becomes not just 'How effectively can my 24 guys fight', but also 'How effectively can we co-ordinate with a group we may not have shared a battlefield with since our last Scrim 2 months ago'... It would also create a chance for inter-faction alliances :O

With that said, 48v48 was a joke to begin with, the solution isn't to shrink the game further, it's to accept that the only way an Esports community will come from a game like this is if they create a real and motivating metagame and sustain a far larger playerbase. The idea that you can have an Esports community in a game with an active playerbase that is counted in tens of thousands is a nonsense.

As metagame suggestions (for once MLG collapses goes), how about adding some motivation via cold hard cash? So once we have a continental lattice, say the first faction to hold all continents (for example) gets to choose what happens to 10% of the profit (SOE's forum alarms must be ringing loud by now )? So it could be 10% to be redistributed as free gear to new players, or as experience boosts for the winning faction, or to get a developer working solely on the Higby's Hair Helmet etc. Or, if the game gets a significant population, this could become a charitable thing.

Though it's actually likely to be FAR more than this, we have to expect that a company expects to make at least as much per average paying customer from the F2P model than from subscriptions, else they'd just use a subscription based model. We also ought to expect that they expect to have more paying customers on this model than they would have subscribers on a subscription model, else again, they'd just go subscription and make the moneys. We already know SOE expect 10% of customers to be paying customers. So let's say we've got 500,000 players; less than 1/10th of WoW, same kind of level as EVE. 50,000 of whom are paying players, and the average subscription is about $15 per month. That's $750000 per month (and probably far more besides, but we'll not factor that in). If SOE took 10% of that (that's revenue, not profit, but at this size, economies of scale would make a much larger amount of revenue into profit) and put it in a pot for us to fight over, that would be $75,000 per month (it could even rollover month by month, getting to huge amounts of money) that could be put into the gift of the winning faction to give to a charity/charities of their choosing.

Suddenly we're talking about a real reason to fight, and 'free' marketing (under the guise of charitable donations). But moreso, and to tie this back into the original point, this suddenly creates a level of interest that would make it worth broadcasting large/significant battles, and that people could start to make real names for themselves within. Sure, at this point you can do small matchups if you want to, but the real e-sport will be in the 'war reporting', where you're offered the chance to tune in for an hour with Das Anfall's big push to take the final continent and win $75,000 for Make a Wish Foundation, or to cheer on the NC as they try to hold off this push and live to fight another day so the $75,000 can go to The Foundation to Decrease Worldsuck.

Just spitballin'.