Oh yeah, i get that
I thought you were saying something else. My bad
1 Like
Translation:
Thereâs not enough casuals who will play role of more interesting bots as cannon fodders.
Thatâs why I think this justification is just dumb and my opinion is:
I truly believe more AI players per match would decrease frustration level of average casual player.
1 Like
It was in a discussion under one of news topic that was completely unrelated to MM.
Though I may as well misremember that.
1 Like
Itâs a compromise. It would split the players much less than ±1 MM, but would still improve the situation a lot.
1 Like
Well it was (partly) the players who complained about matches being filled with bots and being imbalanced because of it, and thatâs one reason the merge was done. So itâs no surprise that it was done in a way to make matches as populated by human players as possible.
Only after the merge did we realize that some players are worse than botsâŠ
1 Like
This, IF we get more ques.
If not, then 1-2 / 3-4-5.
Just because im more willing to throw BR3 under the bus in 3-4-5 scenario than letting BR3 farm in
BR 1-2.
Also quite alot of high end stuff could be lowered to BR 3-4 in this case, regardless someones going to get the short stick in this 2 que system.
Well, they complained that one side was full of capable players and the other was full of bots and casual players. And literally nothing has changed in this matter. Some factions are still full of more capable players, while others are full of casuals who just play the role of cannonfodder (the only difference is that number of AI players was lowered).
Plus, Iâd like to say that some players canât even tell the difference between casuals and bots. And they still think AI players are showing up in high numbers in post merge matches. Even if theyâre just casuals, not AI players.
And I suggested that both teams should get the same number of AI players, not just one team getting 5 AI players meanwhile the other is going to be completely made of real players.
2 Likes
You can use level 3 submachine guns and machine guns to give yourself certain combat capabilities at level 5
Unless you are an extreme believer in lever rifles, semi-automatic rifles and tanks
Otherwise I donât think level 3 would be that hard to survive at level 5
If you want to win, form a team
Or complain about the incompetence of your teammates all day long
If you donât want to be tortured, use better weapons and different tactics.
Donât do nothing and then come to cry and complain about the immorality or unfairness after being tortured and killed.
I donât think the US Army level 3 tanks can fight against the Panther G
Maybe the official should add 5 additional positions for AI (15 people in total including players)
Then clearly label the AI
So we know those monkeys are even more incompetent than AI
1 Like
BR±0 is unrealistic dream. it would be better to just have dedicated servers with max BR setting to join. would solve a lot of problem with splitting playerbase.
Itâs definitely not unrealistic.
I strongly disagree. Something like this would only work if the matches were much longer.
Plus you already have that in form of customs :)) (ofc, you canât lock them to certain BR yet asaf)
customs need a lot of work to be viable options.
yes it is cause they would need 3-5 times server capacity for same number of players.
Well, theyâre literally the thing you are proposing. But in very unfinished state and without there being âofficial custom seversâ.
I donât see what server capacity has to do with it, you donât need to split queues by servers. You just cant combine several queues between different servers (unless you have the technology of star citizen, the server meshing or idk how they call it)
1 Like
What youâre proposing is even more unrealistic though tbh.
well somewhat, cause they need really lot of work to be able to function as dedicated servers.
every match needs server instance. splitting queue means that you will no longer have 10v10 match that requires one server instance, but e.g. 3 server instances with 3v3+3v3+4v4 (or more cause of BR mismatch per faction). this makes game more costly to run.
I would expect one server instance of 10v10 would take up a similar amount of server capacity as several server instances with the same number of people combined.
But from what you say, I take it that the content of the instances is completely irrelevant. And it only depends on the number of instances?
In that case, it would be best, as you say.
And It still could be done automatically. The only difference would be that the first game would put you in the middle of an ongoing match. And then youâd play on the same server you were assigned until youâd left the session for whatever reason.
But BR ±0 would be realistic, just creating lot of AI players isnât worthy.
nope. server needs to calculate every player and bot action and when you triple number of players, you triple number of calculations.
they are both important. just that you are switching from one 10v10 game that has 20 human players to 3 10v10 games that have 20 human players.
well they dont even have to put you in same server. you could have quick join where game automatically puts you in whatever is available, or server browser for you to manually select what you want to play. you could make endless confrontation mode or have map/mode change after it is over with same players staying. you could also have joining team with more human players impossible till other team is full etc.
1 Like
Iâm still not convinced that servers are the reason the queues are the way they areâŠ
2 Likes
it is one of the reasons. this game is f2p so they need to keep player cost down and one of the ways on how you can enable that is to have more people per server instance.
other reason is that people mostly want PvP and they cant provide full 10v10 PvP with multiple queues.
personally i would prefer dedicated servers with bigger battles (20v20 or 50v50)