Jump to content


Is 30 Players In Random Battles Too Many? Not Enough


  • Please log in to reply
9 replies to this topic

TungstenHitman #1 Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:39 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 24364 battles
  • 4,426
  • [POOLS] POOLS
  • Member since:
    08-28-2016

Hey guys,

 

As Titled. What are your thoughts on this one?

 

I often think that 15 per team is way too many and it's the sheer amount of players per team that leads to all the frustration and getting such dramatic one side battles be they a win or loss. I was thinking that 10 per team would give rise to a much better game but what would be the problem with that? Why would less players per battle be a bad thing?

 

For me, when a player has a good game up front, killing 5-7 tanks, spotting, doing all the right things and playing positively yet for all of this effort and impressive killing etc, he still somehow ends up facing 6-10 enemy tanks.. which is unwinnable and not really fair. However, getting teamed with a bad team would not be such a disaster if you can still personally carry battles and I feel vs fewer tanks this would much more achievable and with much more regularity.

 

For example, in a 10vs10 format If you kill 6 tanks and all your team all die without killing anything, you will still have a decent chance against just 4 enemy tanks instead of 9, that would be a worst case scenario. What would be more typical is that the other 9 players will manage a kill or 2 before they all die and damage several others so if you managed 6 kills yourself before your teammates all die what you will be left with is a 1vs2 finale and that would be really fun and challenging. This might make maps feel less claustrophobic too and maybe limit tooning to just 2 players. 

 

What you guys think? and what do you think of the current 15vs15 system? Maybe you think more would be better?



Wacken0r #2 Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:46 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8030 battles
  • 859
  • [509GM] 509GM
  • Member since:
    06-25-2011
On the current maps with their smallish size 10 or even 7 players create a far better game experience. Just look into SH battles for instance. BUT if they do it there will be even more one-sided results as the individual skill is even more important. WG decided to limit the effect of personal skill by RNG and random teams to some extent. 

DracheimFlug #3 Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:50 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 9127 battles
  • 4,041
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014
I think matches should have just one player. The other side not even bots, just one on zero,. Then no one would whine about kill steals, or OP tanks, or premium ammo, or team killing, or aimbots... it would be so much better a game, don't you think? :trollface:

GalmTwo #4 Posted 08 September 2017 - 09:58 AM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 7446 battles
  • 237
  • [F-A-D] F-A-D
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
I don't mind the 15v15 layout, though the maps could be slightly larger, like less than 2km x 2km.

Slyspy #5 Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:03 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 14205 battles
  • 16,761
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011
IMO for the size of the many of the maps 15 vs 15 is a few too many, especially at higher tiers. Also the large team size minimises individual player agency in terms of results, which breeds frustration. However I suspect that this is intentional, so that the bad players don't get too beaten down and the good players don't lose interest in the challenge. 

MeetriX #6 Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:09 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 20973 battles
  • 2,876
  • [_ACE] _ACE
  • Member since:
    08-12-2012

View PostGalmTwo, on 08 September 2017 - 09:58 AM, said:

I don't mind the 15v15 layout, though the maps could be slightly larger, like less than 2km x 2km.

 

That would be over 11 times larger than a smallest map and 4 times the biggest.

Headless_Rooster #7 Posted 08 September 2017 - 11:22 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 10868 battles
  • 626
  • [WUN-2] WUN-2
  • Member since:
    01-04-2017

I think the numbers are about right, if there were fewer it would make balancing classes even more difficult, and with fewer players communication would be even more important, I expect the random game would suffer. Go play tier 8 random team battles for while, completely different gameplay, it's bad enough with just a few randoms out of comms to make up the numbers when most of the team are on TS.

 

Been watching a few 30v30's on streams, different for sure, wouldn't say it's better than 15v15 but the larger map looks like it could be fun.

 

15v15 with slightly bigger maps with more oppertunity to flank would be much better IMO

 

when you talk about killing 6-7 tanks, how many of those did you take all their HP? not many I'd wager! With fewer tanks they'd stick togehter much more, so it'd be more like team battles.


Edited by Headless_Rooster, 08 September 2017 - 11:24 AM.


Balc0ra #8 Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:22 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 67496 battles
  • 17,182
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

30 vs 30 on that map is just enough. Then again on most 15 vs 15 maps, some of them are to small for their tier. 15 vs 15 on Mines is perfect on tier 5. But on tier X with that speed and tank sizes, it gets crowed fast on some areas. And just more of a mess more so then fun. Just like 30 vs 30 with tier 2's on the new map would be equally as little fun, and pointless.

 

I mean you can have 30 vs 30 on tier 1/2 by using some of the old 1x1km maps even.


Edited by Balc0ra, 08 September 2017 - 01:26 PM.


Ze_HOFF_fverhoef #9 Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:29 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 15191 battles
  • 3,136
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    03-18-2012

A map like mines could use a lot more tanks in the higher tiers. More like 30 vs 30. It's just ridiculous how long you need to drive before you can spot something. 

It might have been better if that central hill would have been a central pit.

 

My 10 yen.



laulaur #10 Posted 08 September 2017 - 01:49 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 47082 battles
  • 1,418
  • [FUSED] FUSED
  • Member since:
    08-11-2011

View PostZe_HOFF_fverhoef, on 08 September 2017 - 12:29 PM, said:

A map like mines could use a lot more tanks in the higher tiers. More like 30 vs 30. It's just ridiculous how long you need to drive before you can spot something. 

It might have been better if that central hill would have been a central pit.

 

My 10 yen.

 

Yeah, why is called 'Mines' if you can't even go in the actual mine? 

Time to introduce the 'cave system', like in Rust.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users