MP Crazy

[steveo9632000]

I know it has been talked about and argued for 2 long about MP only being 4v4. I do not want this discussion to be about that but I was thinking it would be really call if they did 4v4v4v4. If they when ahead and did 16 player match with 4 teams. that would be nuts. It could just be team deathmatch or have one goal they are all trying to achieve the fasted. Like if it was single CTF. Flag in the center everyone has to go ahead an go for it or better yet one bomb in the center you have to take it and place it another teams base to eliminate them. All ya gotta do is complete the objective and survive. I don't know just some things I thought would be fun.

[The Evil Hat]

id be fun but really really tough to do. for starters who would the 2 other teams be?

[VaporXX91]

i hate big team battle, why do people insist that a game suck unless 16 players can be in the game?

COD2 only have 8 players the maps are too big for 4v4. PC COD2 has up to 30-40 players in a server and it's real all out WW2 action.

Gears however does not have big maps, therefore 4v4 works out just fine.

[LeBron]

Gears however does not have big maps, therefore 4v4 works out just fine.
Right. It would be impossible to take cover if there are 32 players, it would like Battlefield 2!:)

[Marauder]

I don't see what the number of players has to do with taking cover or not, if you can't take advantage of cover with 32 players it seems like it would be even more a waste of time with 8 players.

As far as maps go, they can always make bigger maps. I don't get it. Of course, I wouldn't thiink the maps would have to be that big, it's a close support cover game, you don't need big open spaces nor big maps.

I can't imagine playing CS or RB6 with 4 or 6 players, 8 is usually the bare bones amount you can have to have a decent game in my opinion. I usually like smaller games unless they use alot of teamwork and tactics, which I thought what GOW required. Options for the gamer is best, developers usually get it wrong. I could see the standard being 4vs4 for online play, but custom play seem like 12 or even 16 player option would be best. When the game comes out it will be played much differently than when it was in the test lab, keep the options open for the gamers just in case.


Right. It would be impossible to take cover if there are 32 players, it would like Battlefield 2!:)

[Xv Arcane vX]

Personally I've been really happy with the decision to limit multiplayer to 4v4 matches. I prefer the more intimate confrontation between players in these kinds of games and find that, very often, the best team-work occurs in 4v4 matches (although 2v2 work very well also).

Obviously, I may be bias as I think many elderly gamers such as myself sometimes have difficulty keeping track of what is going on when there are more than 7 other people on a board at any one given time.

This is part of my justification for the belief that BTB type games promote vehicular stupidity. If you have no idea what the hell is going on, simply drive somebody else who does. Anyway...

[Marauder]

I can actually understand that. Just seems most tactical games are rather boring with 2v2 or 4v4. I mean this game as far as MP is concerned, was compared to CS by the President of the company. I can't imagine playing CS with 2v2.

My point being, just because the option for 12 or 16 players is there, doesn't mean you have to play it. I don't normally like bigger shooters unless it's tactical but who knows how this game will play. I know the developer doesn't know, they are always surprised by how the online community changes the tactics of the game. My example in that other thread, a certain game had a pistol that made the game go from good to great imho. The developer had not a clue when the released the game, that the use of the weapon would change the way the game is played, and make the company millions.

I agree and disagree with you. I usually like small game, but additional options for custom games with friends just in case. Also, I think Epic is limiting the scope of their audience and game sales. Most of my friends that play MP are not interested in GOW, 1.) 3rd person 2.) 8 players max 3.) they waiting on the rest of the online function for MP to be seen, if it sucks, they don't want any part of it. These interfaces to these 360 games are a bad joke if you ask me, gamers expect more than that.

Nice talking to ya.



Personally I've been really happy with the decision to limit multiplayer to 4v4 matches. I prefer the more intimate confrontation between players in these kinds of games and find that, very often, the best team-work occurs in 4v4 matches (although 2v2 work very well also).

Obviously, I may be bias as I think many elderly gamers such as myself sometimes have difficulty keeping track of what is going on when there are more than 7 other people on a board at any one given time.

This is part of my justification for the belief that BTB type games promote vehicular stupidity. If you have no idea what the hell is going on, simply drive somebody else who does. Anyway...

[Raidea]

I'm happy with 4v4, that's all me and my mates at Uni will need. But a little sad that there aren't more game types included.

[Marauder]

I haven't seen anything on the game types, you have a link? Thanks in advance.


I'm happy with 4v4, that's all me and my mates at Uni will need. But a little sad that there aren't more game types included.

[Raidea]

I haven't seen anything on the game types, you have a link? Thanks in advance.

Sorry, I'm just presuming that elimination deathmatch and team elimination deathmatch are the only two game types, based on what Epic have said about them not liking respawns in multiplayer.

I hope there will be more, but I doubt it.

[Xv Arcane vX]

My point being, just because the option for 12 or 16 players is there, doesn't mean you have to play it.


Good, valid point.

Just as long as the options to choose what you want to play (within reasonable limits) are readily available I think that's entirely fair.

Perhaps their testing has made it very apparent to Epic that more than 4v4 simply does not suit the game :confused:

[Marauder]

Hmmmm. I think if that is the only options, people will be very disappointed. We'll see, I would have thought at least something like plant the bomb or defend the base kind of thing. Capture the flag would be dumb with no respawn, I would think. Of course slayer games are most popular with many shooters but not in many tactical ones. I would think an option for custom games to respawn would be in there. This game is sounding less interesting by the day. Oh well, we'll see.


Sorry, I'm just presuming that elimination deathmatch and team elimination deathmatch are the only two game types, based on what Epic have said about them not liking respawns in multiplayer.

I hope there will be more, but I doubt it.

[Marauder]

You could be right, that could be the case. The problem I have with it is two fold really. They are limiting the audience to the game, which is not completely bad, but less people will be interested. (I would think) And the developer usually gets it wrong on what people want, or how they tested in the lab is not how people play it when it's released. Every online shooter that I have played is much different than what the developer had stated before it was released. Sometimes it's good and sometimes it's for the worse, but I can't think of one that was exactly played like the developer had imagined. Of course there must be limits on functionality but 8 players does seem like a low number for custom matches for what they claim is a slow paced tactical game.

Maybe there net code isn't great and they can't support more than 8. I know this is usually the case when games cut the number of players down. My point being, options are usually best, you never know how the game is going to play until it is played for some time online. No respawns, limited players, limited game types, very limited options, does not sound good to me, but who knows.



Good, valid point.

Just as long as the options to choose what you want to play (within reasonable limits) are readily available I think that's entirely fair.

Perhaps their testing has made it very apparent to Epic that more than 4v4 simply does not suit the game :confused:

[WreckHavoc]

First of all I have to say what has been said by many “This is not Halo 8v8, Gears is about a tight netted squad of four people working together.”

That aside I think that the idea suggested by several members on this forum of an 8v8 option in custom games is a reasonable one. Giving the people who want to play with a bunch of friends the option to. From my own experience there is nothing better than fragging a friend in an online deathmatch. However if there is a ranked match option in Gears it should be kept 4v4 much like Halo’s Team Slayer ranked games.

[Tenspeed]

Right. It would be impossible to take cover if there are 32 players, it would like Battlefield 2!:)
Yes but in BF 2 the maps are huge, even on a full 64 man server I felt it was hard to find people.

[ComboAttack]

No one knows if it will just be deathmatch and Team deathmatch... I'm sure epic wouldn't do that... they made UT! But I'm begging for atleast Escort and bomb plant, also atleast add to 12, player, but if they ahve ranked matches, make them 8 players ... and customisations is always good.

[elite94]

lets put it this way, if you were playing on that map with the cars and there were 32 people, you would take 2 steps and die the whole time

[Marauder]

Of course, get behind cover, if it's a cover game, you use the cover, same thing as RB6... you running out in the open... you are dead. I still don't get it. Of course, I don't think most people are talking about 32 players... most are talking 16 players total. Also, a few maps can be made slightly larger. I don't see the problem, nor is there one... no one forces someone to play a larger game... a 16 player is not considered large anymore.


lets put it this way, if you were playing on that map with the cars and there were 32 people, you would take 2 steps and die the whole time

[steveo9632000]

i hate big team battle, why do people insist that a game suck unless 16 players can be in the game?

COD2 only have 8 players the maps are too big for 4v4. PC COD2 has up to 30-40 players in a server and it's real all out WW2 action.

Gears however does not have big maps, therefore 4v4 works out just fine.

like i said it is not a discussion on the size of people in a match I just thought it would be cool. I really don't care if it has 16 players or not. I know the maps aren't big. I am just saying it would be a cool idea. so please no flaming on an idea.

[HorTyS]

the more players you have in an online game, the less tactics and teamwork are used. 4 on 4 is the perfect for this game. not only because teamwork is a vital aspect of the game's multiplayer, but also because the use of cover is so extensive if yoiu had tons of people running around, cover's effectiveness would be disolved and it would just become more run and gun, which is something this game is trying NOT to be...

[Marauder]

Could you please tell me what tactical game doesn't use teamwork and tactics in the larger games? I can tell you the great tactical games do require you to use teamwork and tactics, of course, in any game you can just walk out there and die.

I guess I am not getting this at all. It's not that someone's opinion is right or wrong, but you have people on the same side of the discussion saying things that are totally different.

For example, one guy says with 32 players in GOW as soon as you moved 2 steps you would be dead, now you are saying cover would be useless and you wouldn't need to use cover. It can't be both.

Either the cover is effective or it isn't. Unless someone can explain, I think that one guy is right. Any tactical game, the more players you have, the less run and gunning you can do. I can name just about any classical tactical game out there and it's the same thing, if you are Rambo, you usually die.

In the end, either the cover system is useful or it's not. Of course, if the developer gave you a choice what does it matter? It's not that think anyone opinion is wrong, it's that other people believe there is only one right answer.

So in the end.
- An option to play 12-16 players and maybe a few larger maps for custom games, you wouldn't have to play it, just like any other game.
- If the cover system doesn't work in 12-16 player games, it probably will be less effective in smaller 4v4 games

For the record, I usually like smaller 4-12 player games for shooter, tactical shooter I prefer 12-16 players generally. What I really dislike is huge maps with no way to engage the enemy with in a short period of time. So, smaller to mid-size maps, usually 16 players is good to me. Any game starting on a large map with a SMG only, I don't get.

For the record, I haven't played a demo of GOW. I have no idea how it will play other than the videos and interviews. However, I would actually think the cover system would be more effective with more players, but who knows.

No disrespect in any way to your post. I just don't get it, one guy is saying you can't move 2 steps without dying and you are saying it will be run and gun with more players. I would say the other guy is probably right if you have no respawn. No respawn is the key or a delayed respawn. Again, no disrepect intented.


the more players you have in an online game, the less tactics and teamwork are used. 4 on 4 is the perfect for this game. not only because teamwork is a vital aspect of the game's multiplayer, but also because the use of cover is so extensive if yoiu had tons of people running around, cover's effectiveness would be disolved and it would just become more run and gun, which is something this game is trying NOT to be...

[psyco blade]

if you had 8vs8 games do you realy think people will listen to you. if you are trying to get them to work as a team? NO!!! thell start doing their own thing. 4 vs 4 slims it down you can (most likely) get people to start working together im not saying all the time though. realy its not the number of players but more of how players will act when they get into the game. you could even do a 2 vs 2 and your teamate will act like your not even the game. im on neither side realy all im trying to say is that its quality over quantity. (that was a stupid analogy lol!)

[steveo9632000]

We are not looking at 8v8 though. the point of my post was 4 teams of 4. It takes more strategy more thinking and a much higher level of communication. I just thought it would be something cool to try and to say with more people it looses is tactics is stupid because you have to better use cover to stay a live. it becomes more of a chess match because you can't just worry about one team and try and draw them out you can get attacked from many different sides. like i said i didn't want this thread to be an arguement on about how many people per match. it wa sjust an idea or possibility i threw out there. I for one think that 4 teams and having bombs would be great. plant a bomb in the teams base if it goes off before being defused then that team is eliminated. i just thought it would be fun.

[Tacky]

I know it has been talked about and argued for 2 long about MP only being 4v4. I do not want this discussion to be about that but I was thinking it would be really call if they did 4v4v4v4. If they when ahead and did 16 player match with 4 teams. that would be nuts. It could just be team deathmatch or have one goal they are all trying to achieve the fasted. Like if it was single CTF. Flag in the center everyone has to go ahead an go for it or better yet one bomb in the center you have to take it and place it another teams base to eliminate them. All ya gotta do is complete the objective and survive. I don't know just some things I thought would be fun.

Um, no. This isn't Battlefield or PDZ. Get a grip on yourself man. This game calls for teamwork against another team of four. Not against three other teams.

[VaporXX91]

I think he wants a Multi-team function. That gametype sucks in Halo 2. No need to bring something like that to Gears. It's pretty pointless.

[LetHal]

I think 4v4 is perfect..it requires teamwork to suceed. you cant just go off on your own and expect to win.

[PAN!C]

I think 4v4 is perfect..it requires teamwork to suceed. you cant just go off on your own and expect to win.

Pretty much nailed it.

[Razor]

Agreed 4 is a good number for teamwork. But there is a time every now and then where I like to go all out, like having 8 or more per team. I don't know if this will work with GOW's gameplay or not, but it would be fun. It sort of breaks up the seriousness of the game. Depending on what maps are played on, 16 players could work well. Sometimes I like the feeling of having a whole bunch of teammies on my side, rather than 2 or 3. Just my 2 cents. :)

[RawrInATor]

I love the small MP matches.
It really forces you to use strategy and to work w/ your team in order to achieve victory.
As for those huge 16vs16 matches every1 just ran around in a frenzy and thered be about 3 or 4 skilled played that were the 1s who achieved victory for the team.
I think that what EPIC did was really clever.
They dont want this to be some basic shooter game.
And in using smaller teams therefore using more strategy.
They have achieved this mission.
Hats off to you EPIC.

[Marauder]

Just a question. I keep hearing everyone say that small MP matches are better for strategy. Could somone please let me know what great strategy shooter is best playing 4v4? I keep hearing that this is the best number for tactical games, but I haven't played these games that is for sure. I usually don't like playing large run and gun games, usually 2-10 playes works best. However, I think it's probably hands down by a majority of players say in RB6 or CounterStrike series to play with larger groups of people.

Of course in RB6 or CounterStrike you don't need to use teamwork, if you don't want to win. You don't need to use teamwork in any game if you don't want to. Try not using teamwork against a good team that does in RB6 or CounterStrike, you probably won't do so well.

All I know is, I can't imagine playing RB6 or CounterStrike all the time with only 4v4, 4v4 is least you want to play with. Trust me, those are strategy and tactical games.

Halo is not a tactical game in general, that doesn't mean you can't use tactics. It only means, it's more run and gun. I think people are playing too much Halo, and really haven't played a tactical game or something. 8v8 for Halo, well, unless you know the people it kind of sucks. To say that the same as the great tactical games with 8v8, is just not the case. Again, I don't know many people that would want to play 2v2 on RB6 versus 8v8.

- I don't see where playing 4v4 forces you to play with more strategy, larger groups in great tactical games have this effect.
- I haven't played a great tactical game where it's more fun to play 6-8 players than say 12-16 players.
- I have never played a game where somone can force you to use strategy or teamwork.
- I have played large tactical games such as CS and RB6 series where teamwork of 12-16 players is required to win the game.
- I believe everyone is entitled to their opinion, however, what great tactical shooter is best played with less than 8 players. I just haven't played it apparently.


I love the small MP matches.
It really forces you to use strategy and to work w/ your team in order to achieve victory.
As for those huge 16vs16 matches every1 just ran around in a frenzy and thered be about 3 or 4 skilled played that were the 1s who achieved victory for the team.
I think that what EPIC did was really clever.
They dont want this to be some basic shooter game.
And in using smaller teams therefore using more strategy.
They have achieved this mission.
Hats off to you EPIC.

[twofaze]

why dont they just try a 6v6 type. that way you could have 2 squads of 3 going at it. plus it would allow more clan members to get in one game at a time.

[Urbani666]

yeah , but this game is going to support clans so they dont care if more clan members can get in or not, besides, its better to have 4 people per squad and then divide it up , I like having one other person on my little sqaud so we dont die as much.

[Marauder]

Well, I guess that pretty much sums it up, I would say that makes it official. 8-player total in MP. New interview, unless I hear otherwise that does look like the max. Well, that leaves this game off about 90% of my friends lists to buy games.

Oh well, maybe it will still be good, I'll try it before I buy it near xmas. I have Resistance and Zelda to play first and new RB6.

[DeepSixx]

The odds of getting more than 8 players online at the same time, in your same friends list, WITH THE SAME SKILL LEVEL (the real challenge that few like to admit) increases exponentially above 8-12 players. In order to ensure every player counts, and the competition is extreme and unrelenting, I'd have to say smaller teams is where the real action exists. Spend a few year in the QUake/UC PC underworld...and tell me how many of the pro clans play more than 4x4 sized matches. I personally think less than 8 is great news, as it stands a better chance of bringing in some seriously hardcore competition, and hey if I still desire a little 12x12, I can put in BF2 instead for a few hours. Nice to see Epic not fall prey to huge teams fad...this isn't the type of game for gigantic maps with 32 screaming gamers.

Great news IMO...

[WhyTry Renegade]

Awesome cant wait, More teamwork with few players.. Plus less chance that a screaming 10 year old will be on your team.

[Marauder]

Quake/UC are now considered great tactical games, I guess everyone has an opinion, but for the life of me I don't see how those can not be considered anything but run and gun. Every game I play with less than 8 players is run and gun, not there is anything wrong with that, but it's run and gun. Even RB6 is run and gun at that point. I sure wish someone would explain this to me. If the cover system is effective with 6v6 or 8v8, I don't see how it would work with 2v2 or 4v4, but we'll see.


The odds of getting more than 8 players online at the same time, in your same friends list, WITH THE SAME SKILL LEVEL (the real challenge that few like to admit) increases exponentially above 8-12 players. In order to ensure every player counts, and the competition is extreme and unrelenting, I'd have to say smaller teams is where the real action exists. Spend a few year in the QUake/UC PC underworld...and tell me how many of the pro clans play more than 4x4 sized matches. I personally think less than 8 is great news, as it stands a better chance of bringing in some seriously hardcore competition, and hey if I still desire a little 12x12, I can put in BF2 instead for a few hours. Nice to see Epic not fall prey to huge teams fad...this isn't the type of game for gigantic maps with 32 screaming gamers.

Great news IMO...

[Britainz-Finest]

As cool as i think bigger teams will be, the more i think about it, the more i realise that 4vs4 on games are what its all about... Take Halo 2 for example, Team Slayer, orTeam Hardcore are the most played game types, and most peoples highest level. And if you like that kind of game, they are the gametypes you have most fun with. However, now look at BTB and the larger gametypes, how boring are they... They connnections is never brilliant... people leave way b4 half way through the game.. and its just flat out madness... no 1 works as a team, everyone runs, guns and gets popped in the head... Now on Gears, a tactical game, you would have much more fun on a 4vs4... The games will be more serious... theres no room for mistakes on a 4vs4... It just is the only way to play... For instance... the number one selling game on XBOX360 is Call of Duty 2... You can have a maximum amount of players as 8... a 4vs4 game... Now... If people do not like 8 players per game, then why is the best seller??? Developers must be doing something right for it to be so popular so long after launch... Some of you will say that having more players on COD2 would be better, which could be 50-50. It could mean more fun, more kills... more run an gun and certainkly more deaths...
However as we have never played it on a 360 with many players, maybe if there was 8vs8, it would be the worst XBOX360 game out and maybe no1 would play it... This leavas me to believe that GoW is right to have 4vs4 as the maximum... If im proved wrong by any means, then maybe epic could release somekinda of downloadable content with some more charecters or something or a patch to have maybe 5vs5 or 6vs6...

[WhyTry Renegade]

Sounds about right to me Britainz-Finest, Good points! :)

[Ghost4-6]

yea most people just want more people so there are moe targets to shoot at, less people means you have to work strategicly with the few people you have.

[shard765]

yea most people just want more people so there are moe targets to shoot at, less people means you have to work strategicly with the few people you have.

I agree. Anytime I play GRAW online if its just a few of us its very strategic and I usually do pretty well. But when theres alot of us it becomes more like Halo. Speaking of which, I can't wait to see someone really use to Halo's control scheme come in this game and try to circle strafe someone. Not gonna happen :)

[Marauder]

Well, you could be right, but could you please give me an example where this is true in a good tactical shooter. So, you are saying tactics and teamwork are not used int 10-16 player RB6 or CS games? If yes, are you sure about that.


yea most people just want more people so there are moe targets to shoot at, less people means you have to work strategicly with the few people you have.

[Ghost4-6]

im saying with that many people in a game, the vast majority of players are less likely to use tactics and run out in the open like a bunch of morons.

i mean like in RS4, halo 2, PDZ

[Crimson Engage]

meh... 8 maps? i was hoping for ate last 10-11 MP maps.
And I don't have any Microsoft Points to buy DLC... And I don't think I am ever going to buy Microsoft points.

[Marauder]

Ghost, I think you just proved my point. Halo2 and PDZ are not tactical shooters, I don't know what RS4 is but I can tell you those are run and gun games. I agree smaller groups of people in run and gun games USUALLY is best, I have yet to hear anyone say they love to play RB6 or CS with 2v2, nor have heard the outcry for small RB6 games... why, because it sucks.

The same people that saying 4v4 in one thread are now in another thread hoping that H3 has 64 players. I don't get it.

Go play RB6 or CS, which to me are by far the greatest tactical games created and let me know how you fair running out in the open in RB6. Trust me, you'll be spending the whole game watching your teammates because you are already dead. The more players there are, these likely someone will run and gun. If you play 8v8 in RB6, they only player you will see run and gunning is a corpse.

No disrepect intented. Go play a good tactical game and you come back and tell me the 8v8 isn't as good if not much better than a 4v4 game. I agree with you, a run and gun game is usually best with few people, max for me is like 8-12 players but I have yet to play a small number of players in a tactical shooter and really like it.


im saying with that many people in a game, the vast majority of players are less likely to use tactics and run out in the open like a bunch of morons.

i mean like in RS4, halo 2, PDZ

[SuspectMisconduct]

4v4 sounds great. you can actually get a decent TEAM that works together. most games that have 8v8 or more usually end up with some idiot running around teamkilling or some squeeky punk screaming or mouth breathing into the mic. i've been playing team based games since teamfortress classic came out with half life. i've found a tight squad of 4 can defeat a larger squad of "rambos". hopefully you can 'party up' with other players you meet and then stay together through multiple matches.
i really don't like "no respawn", so hopefully there will be an option there.

[Marauder]

Actually, we get teamkillers or derankers at least 40% of our MM H2 games, and that's when we play 4v4. So, I guess I don't agree there. The hundreds of hours I played RB6 or CS on dedicated servers it almost never happened, they just kick them. No disrepect intented, you seem to be first saying you are comparing a tactical shooter than you sound like you are actually talking about H2, with the idiot running around teamkilling or screaming. H2 is pure run and gun, even if you set the options with no shield you have the respawn, you have to get rid of the respawn to make it more of tactical.

I am curious as to what tactical games you are playing, the most popular ones don't have respawn. This is due to the fear of dying in the game, really that is the most important aspect of a tactical shooter, one death. So, I think you are actually playing run and gun games and thinking they are tactical. Just because you can use tactics in any shooter, I would assume most people would not consider Halo or any of the other run and gunners to be to be "tactical games".

I can tell you for a fact in RB6, if there are 8 or less players I can run and gun all day long, usually I can't get to the other side the map before they knew what happened. You can go running right down the middle of the map. Now in 8v8, you can even think about that. What you are saying is if your competition is bad, you will usually win? I agree with that, but that is true of any game.

Again, not a slam or anything. I just don't get it, all these people are telling me about how small teams require more teamwork, when ever game I have played it's the opposite in tactical games. You get rid of the "no respawn" and the larger number of players, you have a recipe for a run and gun game. Also, if you have 8v8, if you lose 2-4 guys very quicklly, which is very common you can actually work better and come back more easily. It is not uncommon to have a smaller team overcome the problem of 2-3 quick deaths on their team.

Now if I am mistaken about what you are saying, I would still say you are by far a very small minority. What happens in H2 is not the same as large teams in an actual tactical shooter, at least for the years I have been playing. Either way, nice talking to ya, people tend to get mad out of nothing out here, glad to see you don't.


4v4 sounds great. you can actually get a decent TEAM that works together. most games that have 8v8 or more usually end up with some idiot running around teamkilling or some squeeky punk screaming or mouth breathing into the mic. i've been playing team based games since teamfortress classic came out with half life. i've found a tight squad of 4 can defeat a larger squad of "rambos". hopefully you can 'party up' with other players you meet and then stay together through multiple matches.
i really don't like "no respawn", so hopefully there will be an option there.

[SuspectMisconduct]

i'll play no respawn games all day. i was just commenting that an option will make the game more 'user-friendly'... how boring is it to spectate when you have two people left in the game and all they do is camp one spot, hoping the other will get bored and show their face?

are these rounds timed, btw?

[Marauder]

Now there is something I can agree with you on, more options for the gamers is better. I can see for MM locking down many of the options but the more options for gamers to come up with games that are fun is best.

I would suspect for MM, timed rounds would have to happen.


i'll play no respawn games all day. i was just commenting that an option will make the game more 'user-friendly'... how boring is it to spectate when you have two people left in the game and all they do is camp one spot, hoping the other will get bored and show their face?

are these rounds timed, btw?

[SuspectMisconduct]

so you've done that huh? spectating, and the last guy just sits there, seemingly for hours, when you know it's only be a few minutes.