2v2v2? or 2v2?

[iplungebutts]

I read over the PGL tournament rules on the homepage and I realize that there is a 2v2v2. I find this rather interesting since your Saskatoon tournament looked like it was only a 2v2. My problem is the fact your changing the type of game being played from location to location. I believe the teams who made it on the top of the 2v2 scoreboards are expecting the same style of game play. If I am correct this new play list will create a new scoreboard for 2v2v2 winners. Correct?

Just a side not as well, I realize that you want to make something innovative and interesting but you need to understand that if there are more than 27 teams that would like to play, but less than 54 you will be losing money on the number of teams registered. From my knowledge this is a profitable organization, and it looks like you will be making a very unwise decision economically.

One last comment on the subject. If you have scoreboards regarding peoples standings in each play list, would you not want to keep the play list's the same instead of adding changes in the midst of a gaming season? To me it just seems silly and stubborn to add a 2v2v2 play list.

So here it is, I felt that I needed to make a poll for what should be played in PGL Calgary.

[Perfect]

i know what you mean but PGL must have some plan so that this tourney is up for everyone that dosnt get in the 2v2v2. in my opinion 2v2v2 is almost like a ffa but you have a little protection. but its not your decision and I am shure that questions have been brought up about this already and seeing as the wheels are already in motion its to late to change if theres any need to change. remember varity is the spice of life

[PGL]

thanks for the post plunge.... might need to make a name change there lol......... anyway i'll address the 2v2v2 issue on hand......

2v2 has been changed to 2v2v2........ now there are lots of reasons for this change........

Map size..... it seems like all the maps are made for 8 players or more, now when you watch a 2v2 game they are a lot slower games even with the speed up to 110%......

Game Speed..... the games are slower and not as interesting to watch when they are 2v2..... adding another team adds another unknown to the game and makes it a lot more interesting, not only do you have to be aware of one team but you have to have knowledge of where the other team comes...... having more unknowns makes the game more exciting for sure and this is what we are after is excitement........

27 teams or 54 teams...... ok our number one concern isnt about making a lot of money, more about giving it away but it is a business yes so having teams come in and register and not be able to play would hinder business........ for that reason we will give people who have previously played PGL priority in the tournaments as well as have other teams have a quick playoff for a spot in the tournament (round robin sort of deal)....... that way nobody gets turned down and our PGL followers get some benefits

2v2v2 is innovative and exciting gameplay that we chose to add to the tournament on this basis alone....... it will bring with it more tactical and on edge gameplay as well as giving people that are watching more excitement as well...... 2v2 stats will just be continuing on to 2v2v2...... if you have any other concerns please let me know

[iplungebutts]

Thank you for the response to my post. It does concern me because I believe that the 2v2 ladder and the new 2v2v2 ladder are completely different styles of play. I propose that you implement a 2v2v2v2 instead of a 2v2v2 because that will allow you to run more teams simultaneously at once, without the need to shut down your registration when it exceeds a specific number of teams.

I guess I have a different perspective on this issue, I do hope that you will take a few ideas from what I have posted into your hands. I would like to see something different, but I strongly feel that 2v2v2v2 would be more feasible with the general map size in halo 3. If most are created for an 8 player environment then try to put 8 players in. It would make the game much more intense and fun to watch.

With 8 players divided into four teams the games will move even faster than 3 teams. Allowing you to have more teams participate without needing a specific number of teams registering. Make it a multiple of 4, giving you much better financial gain than hoping for the 54 team mark to hit if there are 32 teams registered.

This way less people will be left out if they want to participate within this ladder, making the grounds of play more versatile for everyone wanting to be part of this play list in the tournament.

[SReid]

I dont know i think 2v2v2 is a realy bad idea itsa hard to make strats no playlist can really help you (multi team is good you always get hammers) i think you should stick with 2v2 even if the games are slow. i guess planning the elmination in it and that would be to hard. but still iduno.

[PGL]

i think the 2v2v2v2 would feel wayyyy to much like a FFA and have that kindof loose feeling to it

[Epikon]

Will it be just the top team moves on, or two teams moving on? Kind of interested to hear more about this idea.

[KRAZY]

2v2v2 will be ALOT funner to play and watch.

[PGL]

Will it be just the top team moves on, or two teams moving on? Kind of interested to hear more about this idea.

top team stays in their bracket...... bottom 2 move down a bracket........ 3 brackets..... a loss in the third bracket results in elimination

[TRUxHAVENx]

2v2v2 will be ALOT funner to play and watch.
OMG you just said typed out "funner"...wow

Back to point...
IMO 2v2v2 was a bad move. Sure it's faster then 2v2 but 4v4v4 would be faster then 4v4 and it does not make it better. 2v2v2 is quite similar to FFA. FFA is a fun gametype however the respect associated with it is minimal at best. It factors in to much luck and not enough skill. Look at it this way. If 4 randoms are facing off against ogre 1 and ogre 2 in a 2v2v2 match. It is only suspected that the ogres would be targeted by the other 4 from the get go. Whether its intentional alliance or not. Im sure you will agree that if you go to a multi team game on XBL you will find yourself teamshooting the leaders along side your opponents just because they are leading.

2v2 can be highly interesting for an educated specator, watching intricate strats played out before your eyes is exciting on its own. However it is notably slower. There is no possible way to plan and execute a good strat in a 2v2v2. If one team decided to hold down a specific area of the map they would possibly dominate a 2v2 but get zero action in a 2v2v2 depending on the movement patterns of the other 2 teams.

I don't attempt to rock the boat but you have said yourself PGL that this league is about the players. Whether a game is super exciting for spectators is not focusing on the players, IMO.

TRU xHAVENx

[Urban Fighter]

I think it's an interesting step it will make team work fast and stop slow games, the top players with skillz and amazing communication will come out on top I'm sure this is what we are looking for, double kills and triples kills even overkills will pop up more often creating a better game for watching and a faster gaming experience. I think it should be tried and then if it's popular kept, lets not knock it until we have tried it.

I can't vote...

[TRUxHAVENx]

To elaborate on plunge's point.

2v2v2 removes some of the map strategies that players would use. If game speed is the main concern then adding another team would further increase this speed, however b/c the strats are already screwed up by adding the third team, one more would not make that much of a difference but speed up gameplay a whole bunch.

[TRUxHAVENx]

double kills and triples kills even overkills will pop up more often

Think of this. If your team is engaged in a battle with another two players the third team only needs to throw a few nades to possibly kill all four of the battling players. I see no skill in that... but then again I might be missing something.

[Urban Fighter]

It would be good team work and map control that would win. "No battle plan survives contact with the enemy" it will be talent and team work and quick thinking that will have the top team winning. I thought it would be stupid but I'm going to wait and see what happens and it could just be more fun. Don't be afraid of not going with the norm and if people think more speed is needed then it might be changed again. it's all about making the game competitive and fun remember PGL is new and and they are trying to make it a great league so experimenting is needed even 3v3v3 might turn out fun to play, let's just wait and let them be the guide and vice our opinion but not be afraid to try new things.

[Urban Fighter]

Think of this. If your team is engaged in a battle with another two players the third team only needs to throw a few nades to possibly kill all four of the battling players. I see no skill in that... but then again I might be missing something.

There will be skill but also people would need to learn that style of play. You could argue we should use radar because it's not skilled when people can assonate you or get the first shot because you're not facing them. It's all about how you play and a good team would not leave there back open. Be open minded look for the + and not everything that might go wrong or think this is going wrong but you know what BLANK would make that better or people could just do THIS and it would be solved.

[TRUxHAVENx]

Okay... I am not a pessimist that only sees the negative. Trust me I see positives in more ways then you even know in regards to PGL. IMO, not that it matters, this league should be built on the players. You mention that players would need to adapt to the style of gameplay. There is NO WAY to adapt to luck. There is a reason why FFA has SOOOO many competitors and yet such a small prize at MLG. B/c it is anybody's game on any given day. I have had triple kill of noscopes that is MLG quality, however it in no way makes me a professional player. Luck is not a good definition of overall skill. 2v2 allows for a true display of skill. 2v2v2 does not. I have no problem with having an event such as this but I would rather see it as 2v2v2v2 then 2v2v2 and keep the original doubles.

And the comment about radar is grasping at straws and I hope you agree with me.

[Urban Fighter]

I know i hate the idea of people just cleaning up kills and people just jumping people wile they fight but, I'm hoping we will see some amazing team work resulting in that being a rare occasion and that it's stats to show skill with keeping the entertainment value...I'm thinking we will need to wait and see i've not played any 2v2v2 and i' not sure how it will turn out but if it does turn out like FFA then i'd say scrap it. I think taking the fun and fast paced style of FFA and then playing with team work and skill is more the objective.

[TRUxHAVENx]

Yeh I am really hoping it does not turn out like FFA. I'm basing my opinions on my experience playing multi team and it often resulted in close fast paced games that were not necessarily won by the team with the most skill.

[TRUxHAVENx]

with all my bitching being said...Im still gonna play 2v2v2 or 2v2 in Edmonton whatever it may be.

[iplungebutts]

WTF? Who closed my poll?

[ridersaddiction]

I dunno maybe you set the poll options to a limited time. Cause it wasn't any of the mods.