Jump to content
Search In
  • More options...
Find results that contain...
Find results in...
40oz

Smaller Team = More Frags

Recommended Posts

A rather strange distribution of points that appears to be common in games with multiplayer bots and team deathmatch game modes, is that the team with fewer members usually gets the highest number of kills (as opposed to both teams being evenly numbered). I noticed this in games such as Soldat, Red Faction 2, Killzone, Cold Winter, Unreal Tournament, and Skulltag. (And I suppose the same can be said with Doomguy fighting a seemingly infinite number of foes without dying) Granted these games aren't exactly realistic war simulators, it appears to be the same results in every game.

Anybody have any theories behind this phenomenon?

Share this post


Link to post

A rather simple one from me: The smaller team has more targets to aim at, where the larger team has fewer. This can possibly be noticed in greater effect when friendly fire is enabled, so the larger team spends more time deciding whether or not a target is friendly, where the smaller team can fire away with much less of a chance for a team-kill.

Share this post


Link to post

Its easier for smaller teams to get kills because they have more people to shoot at and can use guerrilla warfare. I can imagine those smug pieces of shit sitting behind the screen thinking they are great players meanwhile it's a lot easier to get more kills when you have more people to shoot.

While the larger teams run around the map hunting down smaller teams they seem to play differently as they assume they are at a huge advantage, its pretty easy for smaller teams to spot them.

Share this post


Link to post

One of the other reasons is the more people there is on a team, the harder it is to get them all working together. Two people can respond much faster than 5 people. 5 people of course have a lot more firepower, but it will take longer to get all that firepower going in a firefight, and as mentioned, they are more likely to frag each other also.

Also...

Jodwin said:


230,000 dead Russians. 400,000 plus missing Russians? Holy crap. Man, Finland is not a big country. You mustn't be able to walk down the street without tripping over Russian bones. Heh, most of Finland must be Knee Deep in the Dead. lolollolollool

Share this post


Link to post
Recruit Rico said:

Sergeant Zim says (correctly) that any group is weaker than a man alone unless they are perfectly trained to work together.


from Starship Troopers by Robert A. Heinlein.

Share this post


Link to post

Well, we are talking about bots here, computer AI players. I think you guys are on the right page though. I think a team with more members might spend more time looking for enemies and less time shooting, so their kills aren't going to be going up at a steady rate, meanwhile the other team, virtually surrounded, can expect to run into an enemy at any given moment.

It's interesting though, I always thought I'd be giving the opposing team the advantage of outnumbering my CPU allies, but it's becoming apparent that I'm setting them up for failure. I wonder what would happen if the roles were reversed. Maybe put myself on a team with four other bots, playing against two.

Share this post


Link to post
Nomad said:

And considering that one man (Simo Häyhä) is responsible for at least 505 of those, I can only imagine how good the rest of the Finns were at killing Russians! (Oddly relevant to the thread too!)

Yeah, those wall hacking CS noobs have got nothing on us!

Share this post


Link to post
Jodwin said:

Yeah, those wall hacking CS noobs have got nothing on us!


No, Finns. You were the wall hackers.

Share this post


Link to post

Well yeah the small team has more to shoot at, that's the usual and popular answer, but I don't think it's as much an "advantage" as people think.

I think it really depends if the big team can work together and if they stay together or are spread apart, sort of along what Kyka said. With bots and random pubbys the big team is usually spread out and uncoordinated. If you get a team that plays well, plays well together, and stays relatively close together, a big team will destroy a small team anyday. Sure if you run up on 5 guys, you have 5 targets to shoot at, but if they're all shooting at you, you're not going to get too many shots off.

The only thing I can think of that throws that off is explosives, which makes sticking together a disadvantage. Though unless there's something unbalanced going on the big team should have even more explosives.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't usually see these same results happening in a game with real players though. Usually the team with more people has the edge, and people are quick to complain about balancing the teams (the ones on the higher populated team are never the one's complaining) I've only seen this strange phenomenon happen with computer AI.

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×