User login
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
27. March 2007 - 19:29
Yes I am for 4 vs 4 minimum, that will be good for community.
46% (33 votes)
I am against it, it is better 3 vs 3 minimum as is now.
54% (39 votes)
Total votes: 72
27. March 2007 - 19:51
#1
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
I think 4v4 is good for competition minimum, but for standard clan wars 3v3 is just about bare minimum - as it's more convenient for clans, so i think we should stick with something that isn't broken 
27. March 2007 - 19:59
#3
![mow Q [EN]](/files/screenname/8646b528fbbe1090dc61e0f29405d1b3.webp "mow Q [EN]"){kind=small}
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
i remember many times when we met a clan on cw with just 4 players there. often 1 disconnectet, had to go, or had probs with pb or whatever, and we finished sometimes just 3v3.
I also recognized, that we have many clans, and i dont even know from where they come, i dont even know the most players of the most new clans lol.
I am a bit afraid, that if the 4v4 rule will come, that some clans try to get players from other clans and if not, maybe rent players and using 2nd name while double-claning.
currently i am the oppinion to let it on 3v3 in common, but still different for cups or whatever because its also fact that the most clans die as fast as they arose. With 3v3 the small clans can find competition. If a cant play mutch cws, memberfinding will become more hard. Many people look also on clansactivity before they join.
I will not vote right now, because i am interested what others have to say, maybe change my oppinion.
27. March 2007 - 20:01
#4
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
I vote for 4vs4...
Using:
- Mouse: Logitech mx510 + miceskatez
- Mousepad: Icemat
- Headphones: Icemat Siberia
27. March 2007 - 20:05
#5
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
Mow, just analyze current month March 2007 and you will find interesting numbers... Ehum, I am guy which watch all what happening and I now intervene to preserve hyper inflation of new clans and to much ranked CWs, also to much death clans... I am democratic guy and put on preliminary voting and discussion as well.
But take a look how much CWs was in last 10 days Also take look how many players was in those CWs, how much new clans start to play ranked CWs. Also, nobody make people to not make new clans... With 4 vs 4 as minimum newbe clans will play more FWs before ranked CW.
Regards
27. March 2007 - 20:07
#6
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
I vote for 4 vs 4 too ....
27. March 2007 - 20:55
#7
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
me too ^^
27. March 2007 - 21:32
#8
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
wrote:Three friends from school can make clan and play ranked CW!? After while that clan usually become fast dead.
So? Clans are created, sometimes they play for years and sometimes they only last a few weeks - inevitably they die. If they play one good CW and then die after a week, they had their fun 
That's their choice, right? It's just a game.
wrote:I am thinking that our community is on stage that we are more serious then that...
Not really. Of the clans/teams in the clandb how many actively post CW/FW screenshots, demos, results of any games they've played against other clans recently? I'm talking proportion-wise, not specifics - this is a rhetorical question btw, so don't go doing mathematical equations and posting graphs, scales and grids showing actual clan activity on the forums (I know it can be done and there is some smartass out there, somewhere, who's bored enough to do it).
As players some of us are more serious than others, sure... but if we're not doing this for the fun of it why are we doing it? Maybe some of us are too serious. 
27. March 2007 - 22:04
#9
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
I was going to say "3v3 is fine" because of this and that (those games can be fun, sometimes you just can't muster more people yadayada), but I'll hold...
Am I making a correct assumption in that this has a lot/everything to do with too many ranked wars played will eventually be an unbearable workload for the one person who is actually doing all the work? Because if that's how it is, then it's a perfectly fine reason to go 4v4 minimum. As much as I hate sayings, we can't both keep the cookie and eat it or whatever.
I may also be completely off. Rena?
27. March 2007 - 22:28
#10
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
I kinda think that if this rule is enforced, every small clan with three players will a) die or 
be forced to merge.
I think it's a very stereotypical view rena, where u think each clan with 3 players will die/is not very skilled...and to force merges upon teams that dont want to be merged is not good for the community really.
btw, three friends from school...they could join and they would probably be good at e+ too, if they learn the basics...as they would have good communication and dedication to the game
Shout 13:43:56
: You spoil everyone's enjoyment in the Carnage server, I should have banned you long ago, anyways, play on bot only servers where you can't piss them off
: No Darkn355 was me, you have no idea how many players msg me to say you are pissing them off, I was in the server the other day and I seen for myself you pissing 3 players off and all 3 leaving the server because of you, this is been going on for a year,
: no FUBAR no the administrators don't like me
: Noob, and there is the reason you are banned, I really don't know if your 12 or not right in the head, you have been warned many times
: the 2 Spectators weird on elite carnage my house my banned Darkn355 on elite carnage my banned fuck you
: i have twitch embedded now https://www.tig...
: all servers lag !
: HI MY CHILDREN 
)
: Hi malombo
: HI FUBAR)
Who's online
There are currently 0 users and 21 guests online.
Regards
BBSQUAD CLAN
- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die...