38 Replies Latest reply: May 21, 2014 9:42 AM by ghamorra RSS

Standardizing 9v9

ghamorra

From those I've talked too who've played Ground War, Ghosts was meant to be played 9v9. The games are intense, fun, and the constant flow of action fills the maps nicely. The thing about 9v9 is that it's not huge like Battlefield and this means Ghosts kept it's traditional CoD feel. But 6v6 can only get you so far. There's not too many players out there and if 2-3 players are left holding down an area it can make the map feel empty as you're losing 33-50% of the enemy. However, 9 players lessen that chance. If 2-3 players are camping in a larger lobby you're looking at a small percentage and chances are that the other teams increased team size will fish them out.

 

Objective play is strong, you can have 3 teammates on a flag or go 2 per flag and 3 more to hunt and flank. Losing a teammate to camping ways that aren't productive doesn't hurt.

 

Small maps also pose a problem. smaller maps means spawntrapping regardless of how many players are on the team. Larger maps with more players is actually more fun in my opinion. I'm not talking Battlefield size, but Siege was a blast playing 9v9 DOM. The whole map was used and the action was non-stop. There were few spawn issues and it was all around good fun.

 

I think 9 man teams should be the new standard and 13v13 should be a the new Ground War. It's not really all that much more when you look at 32 man teams playing Battlefield. CoD could use new lobby sizes too. It would fill maps better and break the strain of poorly functioning small maps.

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    PUR4IDO

    Not everybody likes groundwar. I find it laggy and bothersome at times. You have people sometimes getting in the way and I highly doubt that AW will have many big maps like Ghosts.

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    nicedrewishfela

    I have always been cool with 6v6, and those lobbies are tough enough to fill as it is.

     

    I just don't like over-crowded maps, heck, sometimes 6v6 feels too cramped.

    • Re: Standardizing 9v9
      ghamorra

      If we're talking Black Ops II then I completely 100% agree with you. Even some of Ghosts maps are too crowded. But if you've ever played GW in Ghosts you're limited to the larger maps and it works. Though I don't think it's available for HC players and I know that's your go to playlist.

       

      Larger maps, no smaller than Warhawk, and it would work perfectly. More players on a larger map fills nicer than less players on a smaller map.

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    _Guest_

    I like this idea very much. Instead of the standard 14 maps they could give us 18 maps. Make 6 small for 6vs6, 6 medium for 9vs9 and 6 large for 12vs12.

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    thebiindsniper

    I suggested this in one of my threads, but I believe that ALL maps should be designed for ground war.  However, the less players that are involved, the smaller the map gets.  Remember how in Black Ops 1 when areas of a map were cut off to make it smaller?  Why not apply the same priniciple for AW?

     

    ~RUGGED SAVIOR

    • Re: Standardizing 9v9
      rankismet

      thebiindsniper wrote:

       

      I suggested this in one of my threads, but I believe that ALL maps should be designed for ground war.  However, the less players that are involved, the smaller the map gets.  Remember how in Black Ops 1 when areas of a map were cut off to make it smaller?  Why not apply the same priniciple for AW?

       

      ~RUGGED SAVIOR

       

      COD 4 had maps that did this... different in S&D versus TDM.

      • Re: Standardizing 9v9
        thebiindsniper

        I don't believe that the maps in COD4 became smaller based on the game mode.  I have to find out for myself, but I believe Black Ops 1 was the first to make a map smaller by blocking access to other areas in wager matches only.

         

        Kowloon (normal map): This is the default map size.

        :

         

        Kowloon (wager match):  See how the map is smaller due to the 6 player lobby?

         

        This is the concept I'm referring to.  Only instead of one alternate map size, what if there were different map sizes depending on the lobby

        9v9 - 100% map size

        6v6 - 75% map size

        4v4 - 50% map size

         

        Or better yet--what if players could customize the map size and block off whatever areas they want via private match?

         

        ~RUGGED SAVIOR

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    Izjar11

    ghamorra wrote:

     

    From those I've talked too who've played Ground War, Ghosts was meant to be played 9v9. The games are intense, fun, and the constant flow of action fills the maps nicely. The thing about 9v9 is that it's not huge like Battlefield and this means Ghosts kept it's traditional CoD feel. But 6v6 can only get you so far. There's not too many players out there and if 2-3 players are left holding down an area it can make the map feel empty as you're losing 33-50% of the enemy. However, 9 players lessen that chance. If 2-3 players are camping in a larger lobby you're looking at a small percentage and chances are that the other teams increased team size will fish them out.

     

    Objective play is strong, you can have 3 teammates on a flag or go 2 per flag and 3 more to hunt and flank. Losing a teammate to camping ways that aren't productive doesn't hurt.

     

    Small maps also pose a problem. smaller maps means spawntrapping regardless of how many players are on the team. Larger maps with more players is actually more fun in my opinion. I'm not talking Battlefield size, but Siege was a blast playing 9v9 DOM. The whole map was used and the action was non-stop. There were few spawn issues and it was all around good fun.

     

    I think 9 man teams should be the new standard and 13v13 should be a the new Ground War. It's not really all that much more when you look at 32 man teams playing Battlefield. CoD could use new lobby sizes too. It would fill maps better and break the strain of poorly functioning small maps.

     

    I would really prefer them add more players to the lobby, as a minimum. Its better, more action, more things going on, it never gets boring with more players.

     

    I've been promoting BF4 lately and well the reason why is because its fun to deal with many, many opponents. Conquest can hold 64 vs 64 players! I mean, how big is that for a war based game. COD can do this as well if they wanted.

    • Re: Standardizing 9v9
      rankismet

      Increasing the players per match doesn't make the game less boring... more chaotic, sure... but not more fun. Being paired with three randoms can be trying enough (when not with a full crew)... but with six? Please.

       

      I prefer small unit tactics for it's communication and coordination... and fun.

       

      I'm all for having more options for people... if there are those hat prefer GW but I wouldn't want better GW support at the expense of something else.

       

       

      Sometimes people don't want to put any thought or effort in how to engage an opponent. They think guns a blazing is the only way COD should played. I'm not saying you per se... just a general observation.

      • Re: Standardizing 9v9
        Izjar11

        rankismet wrote:

         

        Increasing the players per match doesn't make the game less boring... more chaotic, sure... but not more fun. Being paired with three randoms can be trying enough (when not with a full crew)... but with six? Please.

         

        I prefer small unit tactics for it's communication and coordination... and fun.

         

        I'm all for having more options for people... if there are those hat prefer GW but I wouldn't want better GW support at the expense of something else.

         

         

        Sometimes people don't want to put any thought or effort in how to engage an opponent. They think guns a blazing is the only way COD should played. I'm not saying you per se... just a general observation.

        Right, adding three more players would create more opportunities to engage.

         

        I didn't say the game is boring at 6v6, simply adding more players means more fights,

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    PUR4IDO

    If people really wanted 9v9, it would be the most popular playlist on current gen and it's not. TDM is still the most popular list. Doesn't work well in cod. It's bad enough when you have 2-3 bad teammates in 6v6, imagine having 2-3 more. Makes it's unplayable.

    • Re: Standardizing 9v9
      _Guest_

      I still play black ops 1 and i have no problem finding a game in GW/DOM 9vs9 ..Its the only one i play because it has more players.If matchmaking was improved that would sort out your bad players issue

    • Re: Standardizing 9v9
      ghamorra

      GW is the second most popular on PS4. Sometimes 3rd depending on how trendful DOM is. I've seen GW have more players than the entire playlist of HC. It's certainly popluar and the only reason I see it not being the most popular is that people haven't tried it.

  • Re: Standardizing 9v9
    iAmEFFeX

    If the maps are going to be the size that they are on Ghosts, then 9 vs 9 is necessary. I can't tell you how many times I run around map looking for people and no one is to be found. However, if we are going back to standard COD size maps, let's just stick with 6 v 6. We'll have to wait and see what direction they are going in.