Jump to content


Why 15, and not 10?


  • Please log in to reply
16 replies to this topic

Stig_Stigma #1 Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 12167 battles
  • 489
  • [DOCTR] DOCTR
  • Member since:
    09-16-2015

Why 15 players for team? Ehy not reduce the nr of player to 10 or even 8 per team. Most maps are too small for current team nr. They are higly saturated. Corridors Obligate you to frontal engagements and if you lose 2 to 3 tanks on those engagements the battle is over because the map is small and you cant escape, relocate and fight back effectively because the map is oversaturated...if you try to change flanks you will get spotted and the enemy will find your remaining ally tanjs in a few seconds... Because again the map is oversaturated and renders cammo and view range superfluous most of the time.

 

 

So why not 10 players per team?

 

Can the MM be fixed by reducing the nr of players? Yes? With which template. No? Which MM template is the worst for a hypothetical 10 vs 10 random battle standard?



XxKuzkina_MatxX #2 Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:40 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 53179 battles
  • 2,708
  • [_B-R_] _B-R_
  • Member since:
    04-02-2016

Something to do with the capacity of WG servers to process the increased number of simultaneous battles but other than that 10 players is the perfect number for the current maps design and size.

 

Playing lights and mediums will be immensely more fun.

 

Getting hit by arty will truly be your fault.

 

The obnoxious concentration of tanks in an obvious choke point will be rendered useless because there is no need to be in that exact spot.


Edited by XxKuzkina_MatxX, 30 January 2019 - 03:49 PM.


tajj7 #3 Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:46 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 26422 battles
  • 14,137
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-30-2014

I'd fully agree though you probably wouldn't be able to have 3 man platoons.

 

But it's probably one of the reasons why Frontline works, in that although it is 30 v 30, it is really 3 small 10 v 10 battles going on. 

 

Of course in such a situation, bad players would get worse and good players would get better because of the influence they would have on the battle, so I'd reckon you would see a bigger disparity between win rates. Would probably see some near 80% WR solo random players. 



Balc0ra #4 Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:57 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 68506 battles
  • 18,038
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012
Considering the late games with 10 vs 10 or 7 vs 7 on most maps are really slow and boring. I'm gonna say no. Tho some maps would be better with it. It's to few for an all round fix.

malowany #5 Posted 30 January 2019 - 03:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5876 battles
  • 547
  • [H-O-A] H-O-A
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

View Posttajj7, on 30 January 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'd fully agree though you probably wouldn't be able to have 3 man platoons.

 

But it's probably one of the reasons why Frontline works, in that although it is 30 v 30, it is really 3 small 10 v 10 battles going on. 

 

Of course in such a situation, bad players would get worse and good players would get better because of the influence they would have on the battle, so I'd reckon you would see a bigger disparity between win rates. Would probably see some near 80% WR solo random players. 

 

Well I dont know why WG is so fixated on keeping everyone as close to 50% mark as possible.... other games dont have that sentiment and are just fine, sometimes I get to fight in fortnite with a complete madman with 15 kills already and I dont care too much to be obliterated in 2 seconds.

Jigabachi #6 Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:03 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 17948 battles
  • 20,261
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-12-2011
But less players won't make the maps less boring.
While I see your point, I'd rather see the maps getting fixed to hold 30 players.

Balc0ra #7 Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 68506 battles
  • 18,038
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View PostJigabachi, on 30 January 2019 - 04:03 PM, said:

But less players won't make the maps less boring.
While I see your point, I'd rather see the maps getting fixed to hold 30 players.

 

No need to adjust the numbers. But rather fix some of the maps to make the flow better. Ensk's 2 lane on tier X with large super heavies don't really work too well when 6+ of your team goes there. Vs 6 on tier 5 with smaller targets that can shoot over each other's rear hull. So some maps can be fixed to get a better flow by limiting tiers. I suspect making Ensk a 7 vs 7 on tier X will more or less do what WOT Blitz does. Make everyone go the same lane as going alone is more or less suicide.  Even as a light. Chaning the flow of batte in a different way. 

 

If that way is better or worse for the players is a different matter.


Edited by Balc0ra, 30 January 2019 - 04:12 PM.


kubawt112 #8 Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 3378 battles
  • 387
  • [-UM] -UM
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

Gameplay do tend towards being more 'dynamic' once a few tanks are dead, but I could easily see a lot of people resorting to camping because the map looks scary, or something like that. Reducing the amount of players might have unintended consequences - for instance we may assume that more players (and 'flatter' MM) should lead to more 'even' matchups (just like more coin tosses will approach a 50/50 distribution with an unbiased coin). As Jigabachi says, fixing the maps would be preferable. No help in 30-odd maps if each have two or three viable lanes to play.

 

View Postmalowany, on 30 January 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

 

Well I dont know why WG is so fixated on keeping everyone as close to 50% mark as possible.... other games dont have that sentiment and are just fine, sometimes I get to fight in fortnite with a complete madman with 15 kills already and I dont care too much to be obliterated in 2 seconds.

 

Are they, though?

More players in a match do lead to a more narrow winrate distribution, but I doubt you'd see much effect outside of that. WoT's not rigged against good players in particular. You can clearly be good in WoT, though your skill isn't guaranteed to be effective on a per-battle/-situation basis. That's arguably done to increase appeal for 'casual' players. I honestly doubt RNG would even get on most 'good' players' top five list to remove/reduce.

 

View PostXxKuzkina_MatxX, on 30 January 2019 - 03:40 PM, said:

Something to do with the capacity of WG servers to process the increased number of simultaneous battles but other than that 10 players is the perfect number for the current maps design and size.

(...)

 

Indeed, WG indicated at one point years ago that running a two-player training room strained the server quite a bit.



OMG_Abaddon #9 Posted 30 January 2019 - 04:58 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 9483 battles
  • 507
  • [BDCP] BDCP
  • Member since:
    04-19-2011

A mode with 10 players and no arty would be rather fun, small maps can be played all along because you know you won't be picked off as soon as you move away from cover in Mines, we could get a lot of new brawling games where it's actually fun to play strategically rather than the points designated by WG where arty can't hit other tanks.



LordMuffin #10 Posted 30 January 2019 - 05:10 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 49165 battles
  • 11,714
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    06-21-2011
I would like 10 man battles instead, most maps would be improved by such a change.

We just need to reduce max arty to 2 at most.

Robbie_T #11 Posted 30 January 2019 - 05:15 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 17765 battles
  • 556
  • [BBMM] BBMM
  • Member since:
    07-08-2016

View Postmalowany, on 30 January 2019 - 03:58 PM, said:

 

Well I dont know why WG is so fixated on keeping everyone as close to 50% mark as possible.... other games dont have that sentiment and are just fine, sometimes I get to fight in fortnite with a complete madman with 15 kills already and I dont care too much to be obliterated in 2 seconds.

 

Really? i got my [edited]kicked for the last week.... normally i win around 50% ......last week 40% 40% and to top it off 20% on saturday....

Whole evening was just 1 whipe fest.....with the absolute thrash game 8-1 ahead killed 4 than i die and they still manage to lose the game :izmena::child:

End of he evening you made couple of K silver avg winrate  is totally destroyed,xp wise made almost nothing (all losses).

So that was it for me i will be logging in 11 Feb when Frontlines return.

The whole January has bin trash...dont know why ...but the games are horrible.....even if you win its a steam roll only the meds get dmg and if you drive something slow you dont get anything....

 



cro001 #12 Posted 30 January 2019 - 05:45 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 2,534
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View Posttajj7, on 30 January 2019 - 03:46 PM, said:

I'd fully agree though you probably wouldn't be able to have 3 man platoons.

But it's probably one of the reasons why Frontline works, in that although it is 30 v 30, it is really 3 small 10 v 10 battles going on. 

Of course in such a situation, bad players would get worse and good players would get better because of the influence they would have on the battle, so I'd reckon you would see a bigger disparity between win rates. Would probably see some near 80% WR solo random players. 

 

You also gotta consider, Frontline is 3km by 3km so map is a lot roomier for 30 players which is twice the player size.


Edited by cro001, 30 January 2019 - 07:04 PM.


Derethim #13 Posted 30 January 2019 - 06:02 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 18476 battles
  • 2,057
  • Member since:
    04-03-2012

It's simple - 3 man platoons would be kept for larger maps, while smaller maps would be excluded from the mm. This would put more restrictions on mm and there would be a little bit less of simultaneous battles going on.

 

Additionally, 10-player games would be held on smaller maps only. I wouldn't want to play a 10-player Malinovka or Prokhorovka - those are simply too big. But Tundra, Paris, Ensk, etc. are suitable for 10-12 player matches.



malowany #14 Posted 30 January 2019 - 06:07 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 5876 battles
  • 547
  • [H-O-A] H-O-A
  • Member since:
    06-24-2011

View PostRobbie_T, on 30 January 2019 - 05:15 PM, said:

 

Really? i got my [edited]kicked for the last week.... normally i win around 50% ......last week 40% 40% and to top it off 20% on saturday....

Whole evening was just 1 whipe fest.....with the absolute thrash game 8-1 ahead killed 4 than i die and they still manage to lose the game :izmena::child:

End of he evening you made couple of K silver avg winrate  is totally destroyed,xp wise made almost nothing (all losses).

So that was it for me i will be logging in 11 Feb when Frontlines return.

The whole January has bin trash...dont know why ...but the games are horrible.....even if you win its a steam roll only the meds get dmg and if you drive something slow you dont get anything....

 

 

Well I have to agree that last month was a huge lose streak for me, dont know why but I also stopped being fixated on my stats so I am not diging for answers.

StinkyStonky #15 Posted 30 January 2019 - 06:45 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 30825 battles
  • 2,370
  • [-SJA-] -SJA-
  • Member since:
    11-02-2015

Took me a while to realise that you guys were talking about randoms.

 

I mostly play skirmishes which are 10v10.

 

It's a fun mode.  Most battles are close and you rarely get players going to stupid locations (and only ever for 1 battle).



ederfe #16 Posted 30 January 2019 - 06:55 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15890 battles
  • 327
  • Member since:
    01-13-2015

View Postcro001, on 30 January 2019 - 07:45 PM, said:

 

You also gotta consider, Frontline is 3km by 3km so trice the size of the map for 30 players which is twice the player size.

 

3km x 3km is of course 9 times larger than 1km x 1km. 10 vs 10 sounds nice. Maybe I should get into those skirmish things.

Edited by ederfe, 30 January 2019 - 07:00 PM.


cro001 #17 Posted 30 January 2019 - 07:03 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 31067 battles
  • 2,534
  • [GX] GX
  • Member since:
    10-21-2012

View Postederfe, on 30 January 2019 - 06:55 PM, said:

 

3km x 3km is of course 9 times larger than 1km x 1km. 10 vs 10 sounds nice. Maybe I should get into those skirmish things.

 

Oh yeah, haha. I'm bad at maths. :D




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users