Not specific to the number 6, but in other FPSes, you get the most out of a smaller team than a larger one. In Counterstrike a 4v4 is more optimal than a 12 v 12. Larger than that (There must have been fifty PCs in that rental shop), and we split according to the row we’re in. We actually ask the guy at the desk to swap us around to keep the squads together.
And in larger scale games like Battlefield, you get better coordination by splitting into smaller squads. Having only a handful of people to manage is workable enough that you can treat them as a single entity.
In a random game, you really don’t want more than four, and if you’re in a clan, you should be able to hold together an 8 man squad. Six is probably the middle ground.
Of course, this is on the assumption that you’re able to pick people into your squad that are on the same page. Being forced to work with someone with a playstyle that isn’t compatible with everyone else’s is… not so great. You’re better off kicking him off the squad, keep the three man team and just let him go off as a rogue.
That’s also why it can be frustrating in Overwatch when you’re forced to work with the rogue and he can cost you the game more often than not.
Anyway, six is probably the compromise between uncoordinated(4) and coordinated teams(8). And then decided to build the game around that. I wouldn’t count the number to go larger anytime soon as just having Bob in the game apparently nearly broke the resource budget.
2 Likes
I’ll also add that Paladins does do 5v5. However, it splits DPS into damage and flanker. So there’s a whole designated flanker role.
Also, it’s been pretty common that the best team comps are the ones people want to use the least, aka having 2 frontlines (tanks) or healers (supports).
2 Likes
Many months back and the general conclusion as I remember was that it was not enjoyable at all. Not high action enough and too much individual pressure I think, essentially same general conclusions that the devs have talked about on the subject.
I’m way too lazy to look for any specifics though lol.
1 Like
It doesn’t have to be 6 v 6. It could be 5 v 5 or 4 v 4. There’s already a 3 v 3 arcade mode. But they’ve already said it couldn’t be 7 v 7 because it would cause a performance issue to increase player count.
Personally, I like the 6 v 6.
2 Likes
It’s the current technical limit so the game is stable. We asked for 7v7 in order to add a third dps and fix queue times, but Jeff said it’s problematic with the current engine and it would be expensive.
1 Like
The engine cannot handle more than 12 players at a time. So 12 is the maximum, not sure if we want to go lower.
Thy have stated that they wanted six players per team so everyone can feel like they are a part of it and have an impact.
1 Like
Doubt that will have much of an effect, as it most likely was the server performance that they were talking about.
Besides, they’ve mentioned graphical upgrades so the system requirements will most likely be higher.
2 Likes
The games server hardware is optimized for no more than 12 players in a match, Jeff has said this
Your question is confusing imo, they had to pick a number and 12 is it. Sure they could have picked something else but they went with 12 and set up the hardware for that
1 Like
These were the same geniuses that assumed no one would ever one trick, and that people were perfectly logical Vulcan spherical cows in a vacuum that would emotionlessly swap and counterpick
In a game with non transferable ult charge
It’s pretty damn clear that they managed a Hail Mary with Overwatch. It’s becoming equally clear they have no idea why Overwatch was initially succesful, and keep making it worse and worse.
Paladins works just fine, I would say arguable better with 5v5
Halo does great with various team sizes ranging from 2v2 up to 16v16
2 Likes
so they picked a number out of a hat? they had to pick a number so they randomly picked 12 makes zero sense
Bigger maps for rebalanced ult/charges in 12v12 is my dream for this game.
1 Like
Lets just make it 1v1 that way the only person you can blame is yourself.
1 Like
Yeah, and it’s also pretty important to remember that builds let characters in one role flex into another. Many Flankers, for example, can flex into Support because their kit options let them, so it’s not even as simple as 1/1/2/1 or whatever
If Overwatch moves to 5v5, they need to look at doing some things like Paladins. Otherwise, I don’t think it’d work very well.
1 Like
Technical reasons build into the Overwatch game build is the reason you can’t have more than 12 players.
Otherwise we could have gotten 2-3-2 teams to help queue on DPS
1 Like
I did not say that. They picked 12 because they thought it would be best genius
If you think another number would have been better then say so and why. They can’t just raise numbers on a whim, the servers have been optimised for 12
1 Like
It’s the most balanced way in term of options. You want a team to be able to resist the enemies but not to have an answer to everything.
All roles split into 2.
Tanks- engagement tanks & fight tanks
Dps- high damage & high kill potential
Support- high heal & high utility
6v6 makes it so you can have 1 of each while also experiencing the weaknesses of each split.
6v6 is low enough so killing 1 player can make a big difference but at the same time it’s possible to do a comeback even with 5 if you do really well.
6 players also give a place to a counterplay from the enemies while also denying a lot of things.
You can also do it in another fun way.
First it has to be divided by 3 so each role got the same amount of players, I think it’s fair in order to make sure any hero that focuses on a specific role like Winston or Bastion would have the same success chance as others.
Then it has to be divided by 2 because 2 kinds of heroes in each role.
And then it has to be smaller than 8 in order to actually give a player a fair chance to get value from a pick. Not to mention team fights need to be quick and too many players can result in either too fast team fights or too slow.
so x<8, x/2,x/3.
We’re left with 6 players.
In theory they could have tried 9 as well but I think we don’t have enough heroes for that not to mention it will be very hard to give an individual player an impact against such comp… And ofcourse harder overall to find weaknesses in such a comp.
1 Like
IIRC they showed some 5v5 matches on an OWL stream. Was that done by Sideshow? The name means nothing to me, but I did find a video of Sideshow and friends playing 122.
Despite what people say about the matches feeling emptier, I’d still like to try out that 122 mode in an Experimental.
1 Like
But which role would you cut down?
Tank or Support would mean, that you have to rework an entire Hero roster.
DPS would double DPS queue times.
Also if they cut down one role to 1 player, friends who both play that role couldn’t play together anymore.
It would be a lot of work to do it and the results would most certainly upset a huge part of the community.
No matter how you handle it, it would do more harm than good.
1 Like
