Jump to content


what would be the optimal number of players in randoms?


  • Please log in to reply
38 replies to this topic

The_Naa #1 Posted 28 July 2020 - 07:54 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

Heyo :)

 

been wondering on this for a while now.

''what would be the optimal number of players in randoms?''

15v15 is OK but there is still room for players that just drag your team down. you know bad players or players just yolo or give up beacuse reasons.

and then it sometimes escalates to people opening a forum post and saying games are rigged because he got a bad team.

 

looking at it from that perspective i would say the optimal number of players per team would be 1.

then it comes down to your personal skill and there is nothing anyone else can do that can ruin your game.

i know there are some random limited time only things you have to sing up from somewhere, i remember Pansemann asking me to join me those but i dont even know where he finds those events to be honest. but a Random 1v1 games is what i am after here, games where i can take any tank i want and press that battle button and get matched up against another player

and personally 1v1 scenarions would be great in my opinion. it requiers that level of skill and min maxing your tank and honestly i would love that.

having played Dark Souls PVP duels its all about min maxing and making your build optimal and then playing to your advantages. a true show down of personal skill and prowess.

and with the up coming equipment 0.2 it would be even better. then you can truly make the tank shine in your own special way. as there would be so much different kind of equipment that give you diffrent benefits to suit your playstyle. min maxing would be a real thing then.

so 1v1 in randoms would be the optimal number of players per game imo.

 

the other one would be 20 or more players per team, where a single player yoloing or drowning would not affect your team as much. so basically grand battles would be the new norm.

as in 2-15 players per team is number where one player has huge impact on the game if he decides to throw in the towel right from the start by yoloing or drowing/quitting the game.

in 1v1 you ruin the game for yourself so no one else will be affected, the enemy will just have a easy win.

in 20+ games there are so many tanks so if one player quits it does not have such a big impact on the flow of the game. but even if there are there should be the option that i have suggested which is that if the tank has not moved at all for 1 minute its flaged as AFK and another player can take control of that tank and play it for the rest of the game so its not wasted space.

 

but ye. 1v1 is the optimal imo. no team to blame for bad perfomance, no bad MM in that it all comes down to your skill and choice of tank and what the enemy has.

15v15 is good, but its still to low of a number as 1 tank has too much effect on the overall flow of the game.



saxsan4 #2 Posted 28 July 2020 - 07:56 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 27036 battles
  • 5,033
  • [-WR--] -WR--
  • Member since:
    11-08-2011
10 v 10

Draakard #3 Posted 28 July 2020 - 08:14 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 23879 battles
  • 296
  • Member since:
    07-29-2013

The issue is more the size of the maps.... MPM (Muppets pr meter)....

 

You can only fit a certain amount of muppets within the same grid pattern....

 

Illustration:

 

 

 



Pansenmann #4 Posted 28 July 2020 - 08:18 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 38525 battles
  • 14,887
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    08-17-2012

for 800x800 maps I would say 15v15 up to tier 4, 10v10 up to tier 8 and then 7v7 for tier 9 and 10
(could work with widepark)
generally I would love to see some more "stretched" maps like 1600x800 km or so,

not sure if WG tested this already

 

Port could be such a map <3


Edited by Pansenmann, 28 July 2020 - 08:18 PM.


Gruff_ #5 Posted 28 July 2020 - 08:51 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 26509 battles
  • 2,815
  • Member since:
    09-22-2011

View PostThe_Naa, on 28 July 2020 - 07:54 PM, said:

Heyo :)

 

i know there are some random limited time only things you have to sing up from somewhere, i remember Pansemann asking me to join me those but i dont even know where he finds those events to be honest.

 

Ayyyy YO

these tournaments https://worldoftanks.eu/en/tournaments/



Japualtah #6 Posted 28 July 2020 - 09:05 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 35629 battles
  • 1,462
  • Member since:
    04-20-2012

7x7 is lovely.

 

I wish it was an option like assault and encounter.

Of course, it's difficult to do because missions, marks and what not can't apply to anything different than 15x15 without heavy tweaks.

 

Just like in World of Warcraft, for example, I've always liked 5 men dungeons more than 25+ raids because in small teams what you do matters more.

No slacking, no leeching.

It's probably the reason why we are stuck with 15x15 though, it's easier to get carried and makes customers happier.



24doom24 #7 Posted 28 July 2020 - 09:28 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 9607 battles
  • 2,123
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

7v7 just encourages the rubbish turbo games. Trash nonsense. 

 

Maps need to be made bigger. 



Balc0ra #8 Posted 28 July 2020 - 09:32 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 78197 battles
  • 23,913
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

1 vs 1? That would get old fast once the "meta" on each tier hits. As in what tank you will face 9 out 10 games. 

 

Randoms are fine with 15 vs 15 IMO. And if they added 7 vs 7 as a permanent mode for tier 8, 9 and X with 0+ MM. It would be more ideal. As then you have more than one option on the high tiers. As I don't see 7 vs 7 on tier 5 etc work too well. 



NekoPuffer_PPP #9 Posted 28 July 2020 - 09:38 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 37367 battles
  • 5,616
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

20 v 20.

 

A little less conversation, a little more action~

 

GB should be 50 v 50.

 

A lot less conversation, a lot more action~

 

Definitely not less than 15. 3 arty per side would be just a little bit less crazy if there was 5 more players on each side. Maybe for the individual. Plus, they'd get more double/triple stuns. Also, more guns to shoot at EBRs? Win-win?



qpranger #10 Posted 28 July 2020 - 09:38 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 38889 battles
  • 7,091
  • [HAMMY] HAMMY
  • Member since:
    12-25-2013
Zero.

The_Naa #11 Posted 28 July 2020 - 10:13 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View Postqpranger, on 28 July 2020 - 09:38 PM, said:

Zero.


sums up your World of Tanks gameplay for this year, eh?



frange #12 Posted 28 July 2020 - 10:25 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 33743 battles
  • 350
  • [FRNR] FRNR
  • Member since:
    10-25-2013
I'd say 30 vs 30 on huuuge a**ed maps. Maybe even with respawn. That would be the best type of match style ever.

UserZer00 #13 Posted 28 July 2020 - 10:32 PM

    Second Lieutenant

  • Player
  • 15079 battles
  • 1,316
  • Member since:
    03-05-2013

Well, since they are random battles, ideally the number would be random.

 

Of course, they'd have to fix upper and lower limits to the randomness, but within those limits the player number in each match should bounce around like a ping pong ball.

 

To make it even more interesting they should even have a small % of the games with a lower number of players on one side.   Of course, if this happens, and the team wins, then they should earn twice the experience of a normal win.

 

This is mostly just rambling and would never work of course, but it's fun to brainstorm.



GalmTwo #14 Posted 28 July 2020 - 11:17 PM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 9722 battles
  • 354
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-28-2014
Twelve v twelve. Two light tanks, one artillery, three tank destroyers, and the rest, evenly/unevenly distributed heavies and mediums - per team, of course.

Edited by GalmTwo, 28 July 2020 - 11:18 PM.


DeBanus #15 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:01 AM

    Staff Sergeant

  • Player
  • 30518 battles
  • 420
  • [-NARF] -NARF
  • Member since:
    11-19-2011

Team size is not the problem in ranked. 

The litterary thousends and thousends of bots in randoms IS a real problem.

 

Edit: The same is happening in Ranked btw, how else can you explain a non stop flow of 15 -2 or 2-15 games.

The Matchmaker is matching people individually by rank, yet balanced and close games are INSANLEY rare in ranked.

 

GG Wargaming, well failed!


Edited by DeBanus, 29 July 2020 - 12:19 AM.


FizzleMcSnizzle #16 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:03 AM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 29302 battles
  • 955
  • Member since:
    05-21-2018
15vs15 would be fine, if the game could be played without EBrs and artillery. Both have the effect of making any given map half the size, and basically ruining everything.

Bulldog_Drummond #17 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:07 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36552 battles
  • 12,582
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014
15 on my side and 5 on the enemy side sounds good

Slyspy #18 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:08 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 15499 battles
  • 18,237
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-07-2011

View PostThe_Naa, on 28 July 2020 - 07:54 PM, said:

Heyo :)

 

been wondering on this for a while now.

''what would be the optimal number of players in randoms?''

15v15 is OK but there is still room for players that just drag your team down. you know bad players or players just yolo or give up beacuse reasons.

and then it sometimes escalates to people opening a forum post and saying games are rigged because he got a bad team.

 

looking at it from that perspective i would say the optimal number of players per team would be 1.

then it comes down to your personal skill and there is nothing anyone else can do that can ruin your game.

i know there are some random limited time only things you have to sing up from somewhere, i remember Pansemann asking me to join me those but i dont even know where he finds those events to be honest. but a Random 1v1 games is what i am after here, games where i can take any tank i want and press that battle button and get matched up against another player

and personally 1v1 scenarions would be great in my opinion. it requiers that level of skill and min maxing your tank and honestly i would love that.

having played Dark Souls PVP duels its all about min maxing and making your build optimal and then playing to your advantages. a true show down of personal skill and prowess.

and with the up coming equipment 0.2 it would be even better. then you can truly make the tank shine in your own special way. as there would be so much different kind of equipment that give you diffrent benefits to suit your playstyle. min maxing would be a real thing then.

so 1v1 in randoms would be the optimal number of players per game imo.

 

the other one would be 20 or more players per team, where a single player yoloing or drowning would not affect your team as much. so basically grand battles would be the new norm.

as in 2-15 players per team is number where one player has huge impact on the game if he decides to throw in the towel right from the start by yoloing or drowing/quitting the game.

in 1v1 you ruin the game for yourself so no one else will be affected, the enemy will just have a easy win.

in 20+ games there are so many tanks so if one player quits it does not have such a big impact on the flow of the game. but even if there are there should be the option that i have suggested which is that if the tank has not moved at all for 1 minute its flaged as AFK and another player can take control of that tank and play it for the rest of the game so its not wasted space.

 

but ye. 1v1 is the optimal imo. no team to blame for bad perfomance, no bad MM in that it all comes down to your skill and choice of tank and what the enemy has.

15v15 is good, but its still to low of a number as 1 tank has too much effect on the overall flow of the game.

 

With fewer players in a team each player has more impact on their results. Hence the bad player loses more and the good player wins more. I'm ok with the team size in randoms as it is, but ranked should have smaller teams. 



Bulldog_Drummond #19 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:14 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 36552 battles
  • 12,582
  • [DRATT] DRATT
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014

View PostSlyspy, on 28 July 2020 - 11:08 PM, said:

 

With fewer players in a team each player has more impact on their results. Hence the bad player loses more and the good player wins more. I'm ok with the team size in randoms as it is, but ranked should have smaller teams. 

 

I often recommend Kipling's brilliant short story 'The Maltese Cat' as an example of how teams can work and how a team of mediocrities can beat the most excellent opponents

 

https://www.telelib.com/authors/K/KiplingRudyard/prose/TheDaysWork/maltesecat.html


Edited by Bulldog_Drummond, 29 July 2020 - 12:15 AM.


The_Naa #20 Posted 29 July 2020 - 12:17 AM

    Major

  • Player
  • 12968 battles
  • 2,634
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    11-10-2017

View PostDeBanus, on 29 July 2020 - 12:01 AM, said:

Team size is not the problem in ranked. 

The litterary thousends and thousends of bots in randoms IS a real problem.

View PostSlyspy, on 29 July 2020 - 12:08 AM, said:

 

With fewer players in a team each player has more impact on their results. Hence the bad player loses more and the good player wins more. I'm ok with the team size in randoms as it is, but ranked should have smaller teams. 

 

Was talking about randoms, ranked is a different thing.

Thats why i think if you should not make the teams smaller, as each member of the Team comes More important that way, only 1v1 is pure as you can only look at yourself if you end up losing. Can hardly blame the enemy for winning now can you?

Add More players so the Weight on one players is less. There for if one "bot" fails it isnt that big of a deal as in a say 50v50 game you only Lost 2% of your Team actual combat ability. But if its 4v4 And one guy in your Team goes afk you Lost 25% of your teams combat ability. A huge impact on the Flow of the game. 






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users