Recommended Team Sizes for Tournament-Level Games

[isoaker]

What is your idea of a good size for a water warfare team to participate in a tournament-type game.

I know some may wish to see epic battles with scores or even hundreds of water warriors laying utter soakage on the field of battle. However, smaller teams make it simpler both to find enough members to fill as well as to practice with. If a local group finds it has scores of interested water warriors available, these individuals can be divided into squads to battle and hone their water warfare skills with each other, switching team mates between games if desired to see how different groups function together.

Of course, need at least two people to have a team. For a tournament, I'd imagine having different levels of games based on team-size. While it'd be nice to also have variable-size teams taking each other on, I'm still of the belief that it is best for games to consist of equally-sized teams such that there is no question of an unfair advantage and/or disadvantage had by one team simply by number of members. Please don't bring up the theoretical situation of a few elite warriors able to take on hundreds of n00bs; while it may be true in a given situation, for comparison-sake, it is better simply to hold some variables like team size constant. 20 veteran water warriors against 3 novices would make for a rout. At least if team sizes were even could teams then be judged more by skill.

Also, for sake of argument, we'll leave out teams-of-two. I like the idea of pairs as a team for battles, but that option, to me, is already a given.

What I'm more curious about is whether the membership can come to a consensus on how large an "official" team should be. Baseball has 9, Basketball has 5, Ice Hockey has 6, Volleyball has 6, football uses 11... I suppose overall team size for a water warfare team can be larger, per se, but the number of active members during a game should be fixed, IMO.

[Drenchenator]

I voted six. This number can split a team into two units of three. Depending on the gametype, this might be useful because you can defend a base; the other can go out and fight. If it's more of a points or kills style game, this number should be enough to give both sides the flexibility to fight how they want to, either together or apart or anything in between. Plus, six isn't too big or too small--chances are that we could get several teams this size.

[mr. dude]

I voted 8, same reasons as Drenchenator, I just think 8 would make it harder, thus more interesing.
8 members shouldn't be hard to recruit, but I think 8 is as big as it should get for organized games.

[DX]

I voted 4 as the absolute lowest - 4 is a powerful number. Since many local wars saw poor turnout, I got to see all kinds of small-middle numerical matchups. 4-man formations have the same strength as 5-formations, sometimes strong enough to hold 6. 4 is also a fast number, more wieldy than 5 or 6.

The other power number here is 8, IMO. 8 can split into 2 squads of 4 and reform quickly, enjoying the same advantages as above.

[isoaker]

Not too many votes so far, thus it's a little hard to tell if there are any preferences based on experience or even just on speculation. Part of me feels like it may end up being a toss up between 4, 6, and 8. Two teams of four can always make a team of 8, in a sense. As a personal preference, I lean towards whichever ends up being the smaller of the group's preferred team sizes. Smaller teams are easier to coordinate for small tournament-style play. Also, the less members needed for a team, the easier it may be for some to find enough willing members. I could more easily get three other people to make a team of four than 5 more to make a team of six. While I think I could get more than eight to participate in a water fight, splitting the group into teams of 4 or 6 means that only 8 to 12 people are needed to have a team battle. If 8 people are needed per team, would need 16 people to practice well and that may be hard to do.

More thoughts and votes desired!

[Drenchenator]

I agree in some respects. For one, I definitely think that smaller teams will be easier to make. But larger teams can be much more fun! Four people is alright; I just think that six will make the game more enjoyable while still maintaining a low number. Eight just seems too big.

If I had to choose between four and eight I would choose four--it's just that much more doable. I don't think I could get eight people that would care that much, but four's another story. Four would work out well provided that the everyone on a team of four would watch each others' backs and what not.

[mr. dude]

Shortly after casting my vote for 8, I thought about how hard it would be for me to gather 8 interested people, so I changed my vote to 4.

[Croc]

I would think that 6 would be a maximum for team sizes, since it then gets too chaotic, and you must remember people that are on your team, and those that are not.

[HBWW]

I put it in for 6 as well, a number that gives versatility of splitting up, and provides at least a reasonable scale war. At 8, it's harder to find serious, mature players, and even if that happens, theres lots of coordination and agreement to be done between teams and it becomes harder to generalize things. (particuarly getting the whole team together and having them listen up) 4 is definately too small and 5 and 7 would provide for uneven split-ups. (while 6 is easy to split up evenly and work with together at a time)

With standard team sizes comes the possbility of considering battlefield regulations, but 6 seems to be fairly flexilble for field size. If indoor wars inside most houses were possible, then having a team start in the basement and the other start upstairs could work. At the same time, teams of 6 can still play in large, sprawling areas, just as long as the fields aren't done to make finding the other team an impossible task.

I should also mention, 6 provides the balance in elimination games. With 8 and up, waiting times after being eliminated start to grow. 6 also provides some control from chaos in respawn-based games.

[isoaker]

Thinking about things while reading the comments above has me leaning more towards six than four. However, I'd want to have some actual team games and encourage others, too, to try out games using either 6 per side as well as 4 per side to see which seems more reasonable. The nice thing about these numbers is that one can have a game with two teams with 6 per team or a game with three teams with 4 people per team.

I should just note for clarification that these small team sizes are really meant primarily for use in tournament-style play. I enjoy massive battles immensely with 20+ people per side (or more) and would not wish to lose out on such events, either. This smaller team size is meant for round-robin-type-tournaments with the hope that multiple matches can be held during a day with a full tournament completed over a few days assuming 10-12 teams competing.