Should standard matches be composed of smaller lobbies?

Suggestions Other
1

While i do like the current state of the game, i did had a feeling that maybe reducing the lobbiy size could be benneficial for the game for the folowing aspects

1- Individual player decisions cause impact, given that fewer players means each decision is more important

2- Due to point 1 , it increases the importance of squad management and squad selection, since you may have to work more in tandem with your team

3- Flanking becomes more relevant because they are fewer eyes into the flanks

4- Stopming/Stomped scenarios are inherently less annoying because there is less stalling, so those matches are way shorter

5- On technical matters it may be better since a match can consume less resources because they are fewer ragdolls and proyectiles both on average and at most

6- Decreased queue times because you require less players for a match to be made , i am aware of how irrelevant this point is, however i do consider it important to be mentioned

Because of this, i’ve tried to run some matches testing smaller lobbies, albeit on a 1vs 1 with bots filling up what would be a 4 vs 4, it seemed to point out that the above statements were to be true.

However, i am unsure if either the playerbase wants it, or even then what would be the sweetspot, so please discuss and respond

from what i have tested what would make more sense is a 6vs6 format because it would have enough infantry to justify vehicles, but give a better risk/reward factor. And should allow for a high enough cycling of regiments so to always be possibel to have a dedicated unti up for certain tasks and have two vehicles always, eg: AT squads when a tank appers, an AA when there is an enemy airplane…etc.

As for now let’s ignore the reduced experience and silver coins reductiosn because of smaller matches, given that it is a simple number tweak which could be easilly done, so it is safe to treat it as a non-íssue

otherwise, i would run more matches to have a better rundown of what would really work or not

2

Should standard matches be composed of smaller lobbies?

  • yes
  • no
0 voters
3

It seems less like smaller lobbies the pool of available players and more like smaller teams which range from 10 to 15
No, why at any given time a percentage of the players are, spawning making there way to the point. Using a plane or tank, sorry but I don’t want everyone to be in a vehicle or half of the to be one in a plane trying deperaplay to Hunt the only tank and two infantry squads. Why tank vs tank plane vs plane plane vs tank would nose dive as you would need at least two infantry squads to play most objectives
Now four player squads and six to eleven not squads, as long as they don’t ding the resources gains but a lot of people cone to fight players not bits

4

The game should not be made more tactical and relying on teamwork and coordination while it still has no meaningful means of communicating and coordinating with your team.

3 Likes
5

I just had a match where 7 of my teammates left while we were winning ( most console player) mid match and it turned into a 1 sided match where it felt like the USSR had endless players and troops taking the objective. Me and the other 2 players somehow managed to capture the 2nd to last point with no tickets left and since both teams were drained of respawn we got lucky enough to capture the last point and win it.

If matches were 5v5 and 2 or 3 players left the team would lose instantly so smaller matches is a big no from me. Also not everyone has the same quad load outs or maxed out gear so that would cause even more 1 sided matches.

Im trying to enjoy the game by not needing to do almost everything in order for our team to win the match. I just want to sit back and cover a flank on a point or drive my tank into enemy fire and blowing up for the fireworks and maybe some HE spam.

3 Likes
6

Exactly. Most players are bad, many desert, many have poor gear for the BR they’re in. The law of large numbers (alright, 10 instead of 5, not exactly large…) means you have a better chance to have a shot at a “normal” team, on average.

7

I want matches with more players, not less

6 Likes
8

agreed over this, though, asuming it is the case?

9

the suggseted ideal would be for a 14 player lobby , so a 7 vs 7, since that would allow always 5 infantry squads + two vehicles, this value being apparently a point of balance bewteen cycling squads, meaning there is always a squad to answer whateaver is going on, and they are high enough infnatry squads to justify vehicles

10

well, that was pretty much the case i was trying to weed out

on a lot of matches i had the jump from the top and bottom half was ridiculous, so why not reduce the lobby to solve that?

worst case, such as on a completelly one sided match, because there is less player count, matches should be astronomically short on those cases

11

5 vs 5 what what i’ve tested, though i do suggest 7vs7 to be a better point from what am i saying

Im trying to enjoy the game by not needing to do almost everything in order for our team to win the match. I just want to sit back and cover a flank on a point or drive my tank into enemy fire and blowing up for the fireworks and maybe some HE spam.

That is for example a scenario where a lower player count does help you out, given that flanking becomes a way stronger strategy because of how more devastating it becomes

12

I would prefer 12v12 or 14v14 so you can have all 4 vehicles and still have 8-10 infantry squads.

What they need to do is lower desertions by

  1. Enabling the doesn’t-do-anything-at-all map/mode preference section.

  2. Increasing desertion penalties and/or increase rewards for players who stay in proportion to how many of their teammates deserted. But ONLY if #1 is implemented.

And also give a warning when you have 99% BR1 equipment and equip a BR5 tank or something to help prevent people unknowingly getting their heads ripped off (some idiots will ignore it, but the devs can’t fix stupid).

1 Like
13

I love your idea for larger matches

14

They feel need to have a separate queue for vehicle players so the numbers are balanced and games don’t become 6v10 on the infantry side. Also let players join mid game and I don’t know if not have more players maybe just have both sides constantly spawn bots so there is always something on the objectives and turn this game into a moba like deadlock or some sort dynasty warrior ish game.

15

While true…don’t this issues happen either case?

you have a point that smaller lobbies are more affected, however. given the scenario it seems to not change much given that the issue is rather about high desertion rates, so you are losing on a match for 30min on a 10vs10, rather than 15min on a 7vs7 man match, idk which one seems more convinient, since personally i would always choose the 15 minutes because it is way quicker to go into the next match, if i am going to loose either way

16

That’s fixing the symptom, not the cause. If the game is gonna suck, let it suck for less time is not a solution, the solution is make the game suck less by fixing the underlying problem (namely, desertions) by fixing the cause of the desertions, which at least 50% is map or mode that the player doesn’t like. Aka, actually implement the map preference system which currently does nothing at all.

17

Then you have to ban planes
1 tank harvestings infantry
1 stuck on a bench or at the back of the map, lost, hiding behind cover,