Battles larger than 4vs4

[Prince es Peach]

Are there going to be battles larger than 4v4? I think that would be cool, maybe we could even get huge battlefields with 32vs32! I can only imagine doing T-bow volleys.

[UnrealWars]

As of right now. Epic has not confirmed anything else besieds 4 vs 4. If anything we would post it if we found out something new.

[Numba1GearHead]

32 vs 32? I hope that was sarcasm or a joke because that would just plain suck. I HIGHLY doubt there will be a multiplayer that big in any console game, or is there? I cant immagine anything but lag in a full game like that, there should be a max of 8 per team if there will be anything larger then 4 which would be fine with me. 32 vs 32... youd have to rob a few hardware stores to get that many chainsaws.

[Hades2000]

I would hate anything more than 4 .vs. 4. I generally dislike large scale battles, unless it's an MMO with dedicated servers..but yeah, 4 .vs. 4 is good.

[Kilo]

32 is too much for me maybe 8v8.

[Uday23]

32 is too much for me maybe 8v8.

yeah what UnrealWars said, and i think 8v8 would be the largest they would/should go

[360GearsFanatic]

same here, the lag would be unbelievable and it would just be too chaotic

[Zoso Fan]

The main focus of GOW is SP, MP wasnt even confirmed till E3 of 06. I think 4 or 4 is what the team size should be (given the way the gameplay is) Ill settle any need for big battles with Unreal Tournament 2007

[Uday23]

The main focus of GOW is SP, MP wasnt even confirmed till E3 of 06. I think 4 or 4 is what the team size should be (given the way the gameplay is) Ill settle any need for big battles with Unreal Tournament 2007

true, 4v4 is perfect but i think(depending on the map size and if they will have vehicles in the game) 8v8 would be the most they should go and it would be perfect if they were larger maps and u could drive the 3-4 man Ravens or the 4 man armadillo;)

[seph]

4 vs. 4 is just perfect, if you ask me. 8vs.8 would be possible, pherhaps. If it causes lag? I have no idea. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter doesn't seem to be very troubled with 16 players, even though your shots have a 1 second delay. 32vs32 is waaay too much though. I don't know any games that supports so many players(excluding the MMOs). What I do know, is that the lag would be insane.

I wan't to run Gears of War as smooth as possible.

[Uday23]

4 vs. 4 is just perfect, if you ask me. 8vs.8 would be possible, pherhaps. If it causes lag? I have no idea. Ghost Recon: Advanced Warfighter doesn't seem to be very troubled with 16 players, even though your shots have a 1 second delay. 32vs32 is waaay too much though. I don't know any games that supports so many players(excluding the MMOs). What I do know, is that the lag would be insane.

I wan't to run Gears of War as smooth as possible.

8v8 would be the most, well the most that would "work", maybe only if there are larger maps and multi-men vehicles

[RawrInATor]

The only reasonable options for MP group sizes would be
4vs4 and 8vs8
Its not some giant war game.
32vs32 would just be... blegh

[GearsManiac123]

8v8 would be the most, well the most that would "work", maybe only if there are larger maps and multi-men vehicles
thats what i was thinking. if the maps are big enough, and they come up with some creatively large vehicles, then 8v8 would be the perfect MP for this game. i still think if it only has large areas/maps, that 8v8 should be the rightful choice!:)

[Uday23]

thats what i was thinking. if the maps are big enough, and they come up with some creatively large vehicles, then 8v8 would be the perfect MP for this game. i still think if it only has large areas/maps, that 8v8 should be the rightful choice!:)

well the vehicles we know about can carry more than 2 ppl, the Raven helicopter probably carries 3-5 ppl and the Armadillo car thing, can carry atleast 4........i know this b/c i have seen 4 ppl get out of it in the rainy demo, and marcus, dom and a pilot are in the Raven at the end of the e3 demo, just any idea, im not sure but most likely each vehicle will carry a bunch of ppl, we totally forgot about the locust vehicles, i heard somewere that they could ride the brumak and corpsers, not sure though, but if they do have vehicles in the game, they would have somthing similar to the COGs so it woud be balanced

[ban381]

While i think 4 vs 4 is awsome. Having the option to play 5v5, 6v6, etc is always welcomed :)

[seph]

While i think 4 vs 4 is awsome. Having the option to play 5v5, 6v6, etc is always welcomed :)

Yeah I think so too. I would imagine that anything between 1-16 players would work.

[Kydd BlaZe]

Yeah, 8v8 sounds good. I really hope Epic goes for it. I suppose 4v4 is alright, but 8v8 would be even better, IMO.

[Flaming Hornets]

I would like to see 2vs2, it would add a greater element to co-op as you could train.

[Uday23]

I would like to see 2vs2, it would add a greater element to co-op as you could train.

yeah hopefully since we know they have 4v4 at the most, they might have 1v1, 2v2, and 3v3, that would make sense, maybe even all the way to 8v8;)

[Koric101]

4v4-6v6 is perfect. It's a strategy game and that keeps the idea of the game strategy. If you want big battles, go look at Huxley, like 100v100 or somen.

[UnregisteredGreyGear]

16v16...that would be minimized lag and one hell of a lot of people!
those T-bow volleys would be possible...and AWSOME!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!(runs out of breath)!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
but then it would kinda be like Starwars BF, and there isn't much lag in that

[meaty]

perfect dark zero has 32 players with no lag at all.

But still I wouldn't like to see more than 8 vs. 8 in a game like gears of war.

[MacheteMan7]

I think gears is way to tactical to be able to have more than 8 people on each team. It would take away from the idea that the team has to work together and it would be too chaotic trying to communicate with your team if there are 32 people on it

[Uday23]

^^^thats what i think too, 8v8 is the max it should be, thats if they even have it, but 8v8 would be perfect if they had vehicles in MP and larger maps

[MacheteMan7]

Yea if there were vehicles and larger maps they could easily pull off 8 players, but any more than that i feel would take away from the gameplay because of the style of game that it is

[Uday23]

Yea if there were vehicles and larger maps they could easily pull off 8 players, but any more than that i feel would take away from the gameplay because of the style of game that it is

i feel the same, any more than 8v8 and it would screw up the style:)

[seph]

More then 8-16 players just doesn't fit for the GoW gameplay.

[SkateXer99]

If you want 32 v 32 on GOW, make a battlefield mod. Cus this game is about squad tactics (in the case of MP), not fleet tactics.

And if it WAS 32 v 32... the matches would take forever, especially in the style of the game. (teammate kills me first second of match cus he's an asshole, 5 hours later, there's finally only 4 guys left... but their all camping on the 4 corners of the map, which is over 10 miles big)

[DarkHero 1]

I think that 32 versus 32 is a bit too much but I would like to see a 8 versus 8.

[RawrInATor]

In GoW's if there were matches that were higher than 4vs4 it would probably give you a chance to use the Vehicles but it would also be pretty hectic w/ chainsaws going off everywhere and a lot more CoG desings would be needed... Unless you use that 1 dude w/ the helmet thats in the trailer...
You know... its like "Do you believe in the dark?" and then those 3 guys are there.... have a bunch of those helmeted dudes running around

[Flaming Hornets]

^^^thats what i think too, 8v8 is the max it should be, thats if they even have it, but 8v8 would be perfect if they had vehicles in MP and larger maps
If they do 8vs8 they will need more player models. Which would mean maybe having to play as Anya or Jack!?!

[Hades2000]

Why can't you guys be content with 4 .vs. 4 and stop complaining?

[Uday23]

If they do 8vs8 they will need more player models. Which would mean maybe having to play as Anya or Jack!?!

lol they would work b/c there size differs to the COG soliders and it would be harder to hit them, and Jacks a freakin robot! lol, but u could always be a Red-shirt, it was just an idea, 4v4 is fine with me:)

[RawrInATor]

:D Yeah Im fine w/ 4vs4

[LordBjaxx9000]

I think people need to rember that the E3 Demo was only a show case of one Non- Online mode we don't really know anything about the actual online play. But we should rest easy, I think the designers set out for this game to be all about the Sp and MP co-opp, But some where in the middle they realised that Mp 4v4 8v8 what have you will be hella fun!!! with that in mind i think they are going to put out some great medium scale multi-player modes and maps.

P.s. I think that they are also going to customisable online characters too

[Xenomorph]

In GoW's if there were matches that were higher than 4vs4 it would probably give you a chance to use the Vehicles but it would also be pretty hectic w/ chainsaws going off everywhere and a lot more CoG desings would be needed... Unless you use that 1 dude w/ the helmet thats in the trailer...
You know... its like "Do you believe in the dark?" and then those 3 guys are there.... have a bunch of those helmeted dudes running around
I believe in the dark, because it's there. It's "are you AFRAID of the dark?":p

[RawrInATor]

I believe in the dark, because it's there. It's "are you AFRAID of the dark?":p

Whoops... Yeah that.
ANd theres a pic of him on the banner on the top!
The dude on the right...

[MooseKnuckles]

I don't understand why so many people think bigger is better. The developers have said numerous times that they are allowing the number of players the offers the best experience. I know I'd prefer a fantastic match of 4v4 rather than a tedious and irritating match of 16v16

[Uday23]

I don't understand why so many people think bigger is better. The developers have said numerous times that they are allowing the number of players the offers the best experience. I know I'd prefer a fantastic match of 4v4 rather than a tedious and irritating match of 16v16

4v4 is fine, we are just discussing how it would be with more, and if EPIC will have more players, most ppl think that the highest EPIC should/might go is 8v8, b/c that would work well with larger maps and vehicles:)

[MooseKnuckles]

4v4 is fine, we are just discussing how it would be with more, and if EPIC will have more players, most ppl think that the highest EPIC should/might go is 8v8, b/c that would work well with larger maps and vehicles:)

Yeah I actually agree with you, sorry if my post sounded a little angry. It was directed mainly at those saying 16v16 and 32v32 is a good idea. 8v8 would probably work very well on larger maps.

[Uday23]

Yeah I actually agree with you, sorry if my post sounded a little angry. It was directed mainly at those saying 16v16 and 32v32 is a good idea. 8v8 would probably work very well on larger maps.

yeah i get why u were angry, 16 or 32 is wayyyyyyyyyy too much, 8v8 would be perfect if they have vehicles in MP, b/c the vehicles we have seen(armadillo and king raven) carry 3-4 ppl atleast, and that would make a good game of 8v8 with some ppl on foot and some in vehicles, think of the teamwork and strategic possiblites!:eek:

[SkateXer99]

8 vs 8 is also too much. The game style (thus far) is Team Elimination. 8 vs 8 is too many, especially when you have to wait for the last 2 to fight in a large map. It's just too many people.

If it's like Counter-strike's maps, however, 8 vs 8 could somewhat work. But in that game, people die in a few shots, in GoW, people die in 2-99 clips. So we all know it's not fun to wait. Two people continously taking cover, rarely ever firing, regeneratin health from every little tiny health loss, will be a *****. Especially when your the first one to die.

[Uday23]

8 vs 8 is also too much. The game style (thus far) is Team Elimination. 8 vs 8 is too many, especially when you have to wait for the last 2 to fight in a large map. It's just too many people.

If it's like Counter-strike's maps, however, 8 vs 8 could somewhat work. But in that game, people die in a few shots, in GoW, people die in 2-99 clips. So we all know it's not fun to wait. Two people continously taking cover, rarely ever firing, regeneratin health from every little tiny health loss, will be a *****. Especially when your the first one to die.

well maybe EPIC has other game types(most likely) and maybe 8v8 will be good for them, im just saying 8v8 is the most they should go if they have a better suited game type for it, bigger maps and maybe vehicles in Mp........

[SkateXer99]

yeah, ofcourse. CTF in this type of game would be great, especially in 8 v 8. But for Team Elimination, definately stick to 4 v 4.

[simsim]

4v4 would make it more team oriented instead of run and gun. I could see a 6v6 still being viable for the same sized maps they are making for 4v4, but once you bump it up to 8v8 it begins to cause more lag problems, and likely requiring new, larger maps.

Also the last man standing type of gameplay really fits smaller team based games.

[HuggableFetus]

Yea keeping the game size limited is ok but look at CoD. They're re-doing it because people got fed up with the 4v4 (while it was a a less tactical game and missing a lot of features there was a lot of complaining about the room size). Saying that by limiting the room size you are making the game more tactical is an OK arguement but allowing for more people to play is not a bad thing. About 16 people would be an okay number, i don't think 32v32 would be fun unless it's like Huxley (which is gonna kick as* too). A few people metioned the possibilty of 16v16. There's a chance that that would work out nicely. Only problem is that it might take away from the originality of the game and it might turn into BF or some other run-of-the-mill war game. About having 1v1, 2v2, and stuff, it's easy if you have half a brain, set the player slots lower, no need for a whole new gametype. Back to the 16v16, it would be easy for things like vehicle use and stuff like the hammer of dawn to get out of hand. The gameplay would change from "throw a flash, you go around the building and i'll flank em from the other side" to "you 5 guys get in the chopper, me and these 3 guys'll go in the car and you guys air strike em". So yeah 4v4 is good, i think 6v6 would be the best scenario as having a few more guys in the room can increase the fun level A LOT, plus it makes it easier when looking for people to kill. 32v32 is just overkill unless you got battlefields the size of towns and a lot more focus on the MP aspect of the game, something that should be left to MMO's.

[MooseKnuckles]

Yea keeping the game size limited is ok but look at CoD. They're re-doing it because people got fed up with the 4v4 (while it was a a less tactical game and missing a lot of features there was a lot of complaining about the room size). Saying that by limiting the room size you are making the game more tactical is an OK arguement but allowing for more people to play is not a bad thing. About 16 people would be an okay number, i don't think 32v32 would be fun unless it's like Huxley (which is gonna kick as* too). A few people metioned the possibilty of 16v16. There's a chance that that would work out nicely. Only problem is that it might take away from the originality of the game and it might turn into BF or some other run-of-the-mill war game. About having 1v1, 2v2, and stuff, it's easy if you have half a brain, set the player slots lower, no need for a whole new gametype. Back to the 16v16, it would be easy for things like vehicle use and stuff like the hammer of dawn to get out of hand. The gameplay would change from "throw a flash, you go around the building and i'll flank em from the other side" to "you 5 guys get in the chopper, me and these 3 guys'll go in the car and you guys air strike em". So yeah 4v4 is good, i think 6v6 would be the best scenario as having a few more guys in the room can increase the fun level A LOT, plus it makes it easier when looking for people to kill. 32v32 is just overkill unless you got battlefields the size of towns and a lot more focus on the MP aspect of the game, something that should be left to MMO's.

There's no question that 16v16 works in other games, but gears is very different to almost every other online shooter. It requires teamwork, strategy and tactical prowess. And in a team of 16, that is almost impossible to achieve. With that many people it is almost impossible to work together, because there's always some douche-bag who'll just wanna run across the map attempting to chainsaw people. Just because of the games style (tactical stop and pop) anything as large as 16v16 wouldn't be any good.

[Koric101]

4v4 to 6v6 is all right and maybe even 8v8, because then it brings in vehicles and squad type maneuvers, but any larger and I don't think I'd like it.

[chron1caust]

I like the idea of havin 5v5

[Koric101]

Looks like its only gonna be 4v4 because in the MP pics in this thread one says the guy was killed by "Dom" and there are only four COG with names right now so there are probably only gonna be 4 on each team.

Heres the link.

http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=576

[MooseKnuckles]

Looks like its only gonna be 4v4 because in the MP pics in this thread one says the guy was killed by "Dom" and there are only four COG with names right now so there are probably only gonna be 4 on each team.

Heres the link.

http://gearsforums.epicgames.com/showthread.php?t=576

But the MP is all from E3, which was probably a LAN, and they wouldn't want each person playing having their own name. Plus on Live the names will change to your GT

[Legend]

lol large games would be pretty hard to run because gears is so... amazing... but next year huxley is out and thats going to support up to about 200 players in a single battle.

[Koric101]

lol large games would be pretty hard to run because gears is so... amazing... but next year huxley is out and thats going to support up to about 200 players in a single battle.

Ya, I look forward to gears being small, if I feel the need for some big battles I'll just pull out Huxley or something.

[Andrew carey]

ditto
\\\\\\\\\\\

[Entropy]

No saying what we'll end up with at ship, but through extensive testing 4v4 "feels right" and thats what we're focused on right now. Although I can't imagine we'll change from that given how solid the experience currently is.

-Jim

[HELLFIRE V1]

IS there going to be a single player deathmatch no 4v4 just you and you weapon.

[MonkeyKnuckle]

No saying what we'll end up with at ship, but through extensive testing 4v4 "feels right" and thats what we're focused on right now. Although I can't imagine we'll change from that given how solid the experience currently is.

-Jim

Well that sounds like conformation of 4v4 to me.

Can i just ask wether there is any chance of anything larger in non-ranked games?

Cheers.

[chron1caust]

Ya, I look forward to gears being small, if I feel the need for some big battles I'll just pull out Huxley or something.
On what console. And 200 ppl doesnt make any sense thats overdoing it. :confused:

[Flaming Hornets]

Huxley is coming out late 2007, for the Xbox 360. Its a MMOFPS so 200 people is about right. Test Drive Unlimited has 1000 players. Thats just insane. Imagine 500vs500 for GoW!

[Britainz-Finest]

So your tellin me...
If they had a map big enough, enough vehicles, and the technology to have the game run smoothly, also without lag, that something large like 32 vs 32 or a 15 vs 15 wouldn't be welcomed.

I personally think that have more people in a game, with less lag would make the game even more better.
It would still be tactical, in fact i think it would be even more tactical as there would be so many more people to shoot you....
This would mean you would have to think even more carefully about where and when you move, and also it would make you need to work as a team. I say this because, on a games like GRAW, an experienced player could quite easily take about 8 players if he knows the game well, but i think that if you have more players, which work together as a team, you wouldn't get players able to wipe out a whole team. I still think that there will be players who will be able to kill like 3 or 4 people a round, but i think it would be alot harder with the more amount of people on each team.
I think im going on a little now, so much i cant really remember what ive already posted, but i hope you can see my point, having larger teams, on larger maps, would only this tps even more of a tps.

[Koric101]

So your tellin me...
If they had a map big enough, enough vehicles, and the technology to have the game run smoothly, also without lag, that something large like 32 vs 32 or a 15 vs 15 wouldn't be welcomed.

I personally think that have more people in a game, with less lag would make the game even more better.
It would still be tactical, in fact i think it would be even more tactical as there would be so many more people to shoot you....
This would mean you would have to think even more carefully about where and when you move, and also it would make you need to work as a team. I say this because, on a games like GRAW, an experienced player could quite easily take about 8 players if he knows the game well, but i think that if you have more players, which work together as a team, you wouldn't get players able to wipe out a whole team. I still think that there will be players who will be able to kill like 3 or 4 people a round, but i think it would be alot harder with the more amount of people on each team.
I think im going on a little now, so much i cant really remember what ive already posted, but i hope you can see my point, having larger teams, on larger maps, would only this tps even more of a tps.

The more people you throw in a game the less tactical it becomes. If you have 32 people on each team, not everyone is a pro. Many people will just go wherever they want, it'll turn into something like GRAW where no one really talks or works together. In GRAW though, if its 4v4 or 2v2 you have to communicate and work together to win. I'm glad he pretty much confirmed 4v4

[Hades2000]

I hate large scale battles on the whole. Even in Halo 2 I prefer small, 4 .vs. 4 battles. I hated Big Team when they had that as a playlist..I guess I'm just more of a small scale guy.

[Uday23]

yeah 4v4 fits this game, and i can't wait to work as a team and curbstomp u guys! lol its gonna be so fun playing with all the members on this forum!

[SkateXer99]

16 vs 16/32 vs 32 wouldn't make the game fun, if it's possible or not. It's so far only an elimination game mode, and waiting for 62 other players to die is just crappy.

[Britainz-Finest]

Yea i get what you mean but your saying that every now and then you wouldnt want a larger game?
Just an option for when 4v4 seems alittle plain.

[MonkeyKnuckle]

Yea i get what you mean but your saying that every now and then you wouldnt want a larger game?
Just an option for when 4v4 seems alittle plain.


Yeah, it would be nice to have the option to go larger(unless of course it suffers from lag or something) and just keep ranked games at 4v4 or something.

That being said, its still going to be great :)

[Kydd BlaZe]

I'd accept 6v6. Not too large...not too small...

Might not be large enough for vehicles, though, but then again the whole point of GoW is the tactical use of cover.

[j-wrell]

i personally hope that they have some sort of deathmatch.

[Uday23]

i personally hope that they have some sort of deathmatch.

most likley they will have deatmatch, since they did have Teamdeath match(elimination style), and maybe CTF, territories, and a couple unquie game modes, well hopefully, maybe Thrashball!

[HuggableFetus]

A lot of the stuff you guys are talking about are variables. People communicating and having good team work depends completely on the people. When i play GRAW, FEAR, GW, CoD, any game where some sort of teamwork is required, i always communicate (or try depending on the team...) with my teammates and try to find the quickest (usually the tactical) way to victory or completing the mission. It appears that you guys were talking about DM. Hate to tell ya but there's not that much strategy that can go into DM. Last Man Standing or Survival type DM games maybe, but not in the standard, original DM where you respawn every time you die. The most strategy you're gonna find in a normal DM is people spawn camping. If we're talking bout Assault, CTF, KotH, Control or any other gametype in which killing people isn't the main objective then strategy plays a huge role in victory, it doesn't matter how many people are in the match. Strategy shouldn't be "forced" into the game by limiting the amount of players in the room, strategy should be a tool used by the smarter team as a shortcut to victory. Also strategy is being used as too broad a term. Communication and strategy are too very different things, you can define communication as talking with your team about when MS will finely release the Prey demo but strategy is when you form a plan to acheive your goal then act upon it. How many are people in the room doesn't limit your ability to strategize, it does increase your chance of getting an idiot on your team though. While i'm not arguing for more players (while 12 player rooms would be nice) i am trying to say that you can have a team of 4 guys or 40 and still be just as tactical, it all depends on the people on the team.

[Uday23]

^^^i get what ur saying, but the problem is when u have a large group of ppl playing lets say 32 or something, it gets harder to communicate and there is more of a chance that ur teammates wont play "with" you, or want to work as team, since its 4v4(maybe a lil bigger like 8v8, that would be the largest it should go, with vehicles and larger maps) its much more intimate and u can cooperate with ur team much better, and it would be easy to find 2-3 buddies to play with which would make the teamwork even better...........

[HuggableFetus]

Yea i see what you're saying, i know that when you got a full room on a lot of games it can get tougher to plan stuff. As far as playing with your buddies goes, a lot of the guys i play with on a regular basis are highly anticipating this game and not being able to have all them in the same room is my main problem with 4v4.

[Uday23]

Yea i see what you're saying, i know that when you got a full room on a lot of games it can get tougher to plan stuff. As far as playing with your buddies goes, a lot of the guys i play with on a regular basis are highly anticipating this game and not being able to have all them in the same room is my main problem with 4v4.

well they could always have larger games, we are not sure, but if u wanna play with all ur friends just split up the times, and go into different rooms n stuff, u still can play with 7 of ur friends, i hope GoW lets u make ur own games, (host a game), i think cliffy said u could.....

[HuggableFetus]

Being a console game and looking at epic's past experience with console games i got a good feeling that you'll be able to host a match, for i too don't know if they confirmed it or not

[Uday23]

Being a console game and looking at epic's past experience with console games i got a good feeling that you'll be able to host a match, for i too don't know if they confirmed it or not

im prettys sure i heard cliffy say ur going to be able to make a game and invite ur friends to it and then chainsaw them.......i can't freakin wait any longer:eek:

[HuggableFetus]

Yea me either i've had this game pre-ordered since before i've had my 360

[psyco blade]

im happy with just 4 vs 4 that would be a size of a normal squad and you could actualy work together instead of every one screaming KILL!!! you could use squad tactics just think about it 1 person is setting down suppresing fire while the other is flanking to attack them and another is inside a building with a sniper rifel to cover the teamate flanking and the other could sneak to the other side and take the flag just think about it.

[NyR Kil0WaTTs]

as many you would need would be 6v6.



and yes there is a console game that supports up to 50 players

[NyR Kil0WaTTs]

yea they defintly set it up 4v4 so it would be more tactical

[komradkyle]

Yes we need larger battles than 4v4 because people quit so often you never get full games to begin with

[Virus94]

I would hate anything more than 4 .vs. 4. I generally dislike large scale battles, unless it's an MMO with dedicated servers..but yeah, 4 .vs. 4 is good.

Exactly, no 5 v 5 or 6 v 6 garbage. Gears is laggy enough with 4 v 4.

[julianwelton]

Exactly, no 5 v 5 or 6 v 6 garbage. Gears is laggy enough with 4 v 4.

I would want 5v5, but not mandatory it could be an option so you could start a 5v5 ranked or you could start a 5v5 player match, but you don't have to you can keep the 4v4 is you want.

[Chainsaw Killeh]

I would think 6 vs 6 would be nice, except we would need more ammo then 39 shotty bullets, 400 lancers, 11 shotguns, 2 boomshots etc. It would be cool, except that I get lag almost anywhere I go, so mabye not about the lag part. (BTW, is lag spelled lagg or lag?)

[EpicHugs]

i think that the future may hold 32v32 type games with the calibre of gears, but for now it's not possible. How long does it take to get 8 players in a ranked room these days. Rooms will fill up quick when the game is new, but what about 18 months down the line. Plus you have the problems of lag and teamwork (i know most of this has probably been said before, sorry, just went to the end).

Anyway, how about this for a gametype....

32 v 32

wait for it... At least 26 from each side are bots. yes, you heard right, BOTS! Now I know some, probably most of you are thinking all kinds of unpleasant things about this idea right now, but hear me out...

You have a game type, call it something like 'Massive Attack' The match would be played on a map bigger than most of the current ones, and depending on the layout your side would spawn in 1 - 4 groups. Now, without talking about the possibility of bot squad control (something unlikely in this incarnation), the live players would run into the fray with their bot-buddies. Sometimes they may try to hook up with other live players, other times, hide in the bot-mass staging a large fire mission against a bot-held stronghold (a bot-hold). Of course this bot-hold would have live players in there too.

This is off the top of my head, and I havn't thought it through in detail, but in principal, it is possible and feasable to have a large number of players (live and bot) in the same arena.

Anyway... fire away you bot-haters ;)

[Goosell]

I think 4 v 4 is big enough but i wish there were bots to practice with. Like you could specifically design the bots to go to certain spots use certain weapons, be aggresive, things like that i think it would be good for practicing.

[EpicHugs]

do you remember the end of one of the gears levels, where you're picking off loads of locust below you (right before the boomers appear behind you). Now imagine if you're able to get into the buildings and areas they're in, rippin it up with your shotty. Now imagine that you have 3 buddies with you, and that there are another 4 live players around somewhere.

i think that'd be sick

[Clarent]

You guys know this thread is 2 years old right?

[Darth Bubblgum]

You guys know this thread is 2 years old right?

That's funny, I just noticed that too. But with Gears 2 just around the corner, the issue is once again relevant.

I'd like it to remain 4v4

The second that they up the teeam-count, they'll start adding larger maps to accomidate them, and gameplay will suffer on those larger maps if there aren't enough players on them. It might be okay for other games, but in Gears no one re-spawns. So eventually everybody is running around trying to find where the last guy is hiding on a map that is way too big.

Another reason not to add more players is because it is already too laggy as it is. I pray that Gears 2 will use a different hit-detection/server setup, But based on the fact that UT3 uses the same system as Gears1, I am not going to get my hopes up. And no one is going to want more lag.