04 Jun 15, 09:41AM
Instead of dividing the acwc into different modes and several events, i would suggst to offer a 3vs3, which includes several modes (ctf, htf, tosok , tdm). Apart that a 1vs1 event seems to be legit too.
Consider that most official maps are designed for 3vs3 and are not really appliable for 2vs2. I mean, sure you can play any map as 2vs2 as well and it might need even more skills to handle such games, but tbh it
doesn't deliver the expected action. It will always deal with advanced camping techniques. Furthermore on big maps players will use a more defensive style and on small maps it will end up in spawnfragging partly (Team A gets 3 flags - then Team B gets 5 flags and so on).
I just can say, that you should reconsider your decision about modes/events and may look into
an old acwc (http://acwc.woop.us/2010/), which was for me the most attractive one until now. Moreover
i would say that other players, that were participating, can confirm that. Sure, you need to define
a new set, namely {all acwc 2010 players} \ {Undead} to proof the assumption.
Consider that most official maps are designed for 3vs3 and are not really appliable for 2vs2. I mean, sure you can play any map as 2vs2 as well and it might need even more skills to handle such games, but tbh it
doesn't deliver the expected action. It will always deal with advanced camping techniques. Furthermore on big maps players will use a more defensive style and on small maps it will end up in spawnfragging partly (Team A gets 3 flags - then Team B gets 5 flags and so on).
I just can say, that you should reconsider your decision about modes/events and may look into
an old acwc (http://acwc.woop.us/2010/), which was for me the most attractive one until now. Moreover
i would say that other players, that were participating, can confirm that. Sure, you need to define
a new set, namely {all acwc 2010 players} \ {Undead} to proof the assumption.