User login
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
27. March 2007 - 22:43
#11
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
3vs3 for new clans so they can play cw, they dont have much players.
but 4vs4 should be minimum for regular clans.
27. March 2007 - 22:45
#12
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
![mow Q [EN]](/files/screenname/8646b528fbbe1090dc61e0f29405d1b3.webp "mow Q [EN]"){kind=small}
wrote:
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.
3vs3 is good enough, espcially for new clans...more mature clans will pick 4vs4 or more anyway
<drt_nihil> we about wolf and wolf is here
(@enha) damn you, people are dancing, instead of work
(@drt_foksie) she mutated
27. March 2007 - 23:35
#13
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
Perhaps allow only a few 3v3 CWs per some period of time? For example one per 2 weeks, or one a month?
That way new clans can start having wars right away, but to continue having them, they will have to recruit at least another player in some period of time.
Or wait a while before another of their wars will be ranked.
It will definitly cut down on the ammount of wars posted, and it will still allow the occasional "their 4th player left" or "we are a new clan" war to show up.
I still havent made a definite vote, mostly cause there are positive sides to both 3v3 and 4v4.
If no medium area can be found, i am currently leaning to 4v4.
28. March 2007 - 1:12
#14
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
wrote:Perhaps allow only a few 3v3 CWs per some period of time? For example one per 2 weeks, or one a month?
That way new clans can start having wars right away, but to continue having them, they will have to recruit at least another player in some period of time.
Or wait a while before another of their wars will be ranked.
It will definitly cut down on the ammount of wars posted, and it will still allow the occasional "their 4th player left" or "we are a new clan" war to show up.
I still havent made a definite vote, mostly cause there are positive sides to both 3v3 and 4v4.
If no medium area can be found, i am currently leaning to 4v4.
Sorry Fokx, I can not fully agree with your interpretation. 
making rules like "after 2 weeks this" "after 3 months that" ...
it is a free community and if clans are strong enough to compete in Rankchallenges, it's only good for the average.
We can make our specific rules in the several Leagues & Tournaments, but total Rank should be accessable for all clans.
At least that's what I think 
kx
<drt_nihil> we about wolf and wolf is here
(@enha) damn you, people are dancing, instead of work
(@drt_foksie) she mutated
28. March 2007 - 3:05
#15
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
SUGGESTION .
3v3 is fine. BUT...
on regular basis all clans that have been on E+ for some time,should make a "rule" for playing CW's of 4v4 minimum. or declare to other clan a war with this choice.
:] and if the fight 4v4 minimum and end up with 3v3 on game ( for some reason) then it can be ranked 
u can always reject newbie clans for a 3v3 and make it friendly :] or as u wish, depends on u!
..
.
or just quote me and say nixy u suck go make cookies and bring some milk. 
28. March 2007 - 4:00
#16
![*A*C|_ASS*WON]<O](/files/screenname/9a0723bc4b1ab460d3d2236ff9b9abc1.webp "*A*C|_ASS*WON]<O"){kind=small}
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
this is a bit ridiculous innit? i mean how does a statement like - "we want to go to a 4v4 minimum rule cos we have a lot of clans right now and we want to reduce the number of clan wars played" actually make sense? especially considering that not too long ago i saw rena saying we have too many clans dieing and the e+ community becoming smaller.
as far as im concerned - the more the merrier.
o and the argument that we want more "serious" clans playing (or clans playing more "seriously"). thats quite ridiculous. i dont see y 3v3 is not "serious" enough while 4v4 is.
28. March 2007 - 4:28
#17
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
i say that too many clans is not a problim for the mod, on the contrary it means that e+ is not in the product decline stage yet...
However I can add that it might be considered anoying for Rena to rank "DFG 3 - qojfdohj 2" every day...
What I propose is to just install a rule upon which a clan must play a certain amount of clanwars (between 3-4 is a reasonable amount) with a different clan each time to be able to enter the clan rankings...
That way new clans develop connections...
The good newcomer clans can show a chance to prove their dedication and team spirit (look @ how tropic and WK turned out for example)
The crap clans that recruit from 2!s ffa anyone who has more than 8 frags will sure die out after first clanwar, when they realise they suck, and this will not affect the rankings...
With this kind of system, such great clans, such as G-Unitwould actually not have wasted people's (read: Rena's 
timewith ranking a cw for a clan which fall apart 2 days after first cw...
wrote:nonsense repellent declamatory
28. March 2007 - 14:25
#19
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
well i like the idea and for me is sometimes 3vs3 freeze for example very very boring... 
cause if u die once... u have to wait till someone thaw u
just my opinion but ofc i vote yes for 4vs4 min..
coolest clan of e+ : Hyper!
coolest guy of e+ : okinex!
28. March 2007 - 14:30
#20
Are you for minimum 4 vs 4 players for ranked CW ?
voted for 3v3
bcuz clans who have most players who still go to school and dont have so much time bcuz of hard exams in school cant always play a 4v4
for ctf gametype i am for a 4v4 bcuz 3v3 is realy shity there 
playing on
[mouse]: ie 3.0
[mousepad]: corepad eyepad xxl
[keyboard]: Steelseries 6gv2
[headphones]: SteelSeries Siberia v2
[monitor]: Samsung Syncmaster 1000s 21"
wrote:
its the people whos piss me of not the game, im never ever played an game on wich all is perfect to mine preferences there are always things to wich im must get used and acept them as they are no mater i like them or not i will try to understand thier mechanism and use for mine adventage
Shout 22:08:53
: 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 3 users and 11 guests online.
Standard maps are great 5 vs 5, 6 vs 6 is pretty excessive, but 4 vs 4 is away better then 3 vs 3.
I never wrote that we become smaller, just opposite. We have huge growth and I can argument that with appropriate numbers...
Anyway, point of this proposal is have smaller amount of CWs but more fun and quality....
It is similar as football where is normal to play 11 vs 11 and imagine that they play 7 vs because teams haven't enough members. Did that game will be same 7 vs 7 as 11 vs 11. Will not. Totally different strategy game play.... I am sure that is not problem to any clan in this days have at least 4 members. Other thing. Don't live in past, we growing and need to accommodate on appropriate way to current situation.
Regards
BBSQUAD CLAN
- All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. Time to die...