Jump to content
You need to play a total of 5 battles to post in this section.
BlailBlerg

7v7 and smaller battles are so much more manageable and relaxing than 11v11, 12v12 randoms

Battle size for Randoms  

57 members have voted

  1. 1. Would you prefer more smaller battles for Random?

    • A lot more
    • Some, sometimes
    • Rarely, but higher than now (usually only allowed at low player populations)
    • Fine as is
    • Less or none
  2. 2. What sizes?


25 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

407
[FAE]
Members
2,118 posts
2,507 battles

Focus fire is so much more magnified in Random. And random crazy things, and you can't calculate angles and rocks blocking angles as much. 

It would be nice to have more smaller battles more often. And I think they're a higher test of skill. 

Edited by BlailBlerg
  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,823
[ARRGG]
[ARRGG]
Members
5,770 posts

7 v 7 is ideal for good Exp and credit earning.

Wins help but even in a do nothing Battle the payday is still in the black.

Proof

QDO3kmO.png

ss4askl.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,020
[WUDPS]
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
4,722 posts
4,522 battles

I played ranked...enjoyed it more....less stress....less tatoes. 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
139
[-AH-]
Members
664 posts
3,331 battles

I'm surprised more people don't feel this way. Everyone stresses about Ranked and I'm just like "For real? I just enjoy the smaller teams." 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
448
[-AA-]
Members
1,728 posts
6,657 battles

I don't really like small battles, might be because I think the maps are too big for it.

I'd personally prefer big battles with 20 vs 20 or something like that.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
126
Members
505 posts
2,828 battles

Make an EU account if you want that. Prime time in US is dead zone for them. A lot of the games you play aren't filled.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
407
[FAE]
Members
2,118 posts
2,507 battles

I think snowball effect is less intense in 7v7... though, not sure if can prove that.MAybe its just, luck, having teammates that weren't braindead and 0-4 within 4 minutes. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
141
[ICBM]
Members
300 posts
4,849 battles

I just like the variety. I enjoy big battles and I also enjoy the smaller ones. I'd like to see between 7v7 and 15v15 in randoms. 

  • Cool 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
79
[UEFN]
Members
386 posts
11,570 battles

small team is not intense, borderline boring. 

personally i prefer at least 40 to 50 ships per side, an all out war.

  • Cool 3
  • Bad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
601
[HYDRO]
Members
1,316 posts
3,662 battles

Dunno. I can see the appeal of smaller battles and they can be refreshing from time to time, but I like the chaos of Randoms :cat_paw:.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4,015
[ABDA]
Beta Testers
16,019 posts
11,539 battles

I agree with the OP.  I have wanted 7v7 (or 8v8) in the rotation for a good long while now.  I dont think all battles should be that way, but I don't see why not make some that way.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,238 posts
8,932 battles

I voted yes yes and yes....ranked is way better because it is, as the OP says, way more relaxing and less chaotic....I think it's a bit bad that they make you have to have T10 for Rank 15 the last seasons, but it's a minor hindrance.

That said, there's something to be said for the large scale too....I would like so much variety that we had 20-20 or even 50-50 sometimes (not often, but sometimes)....this'd be especially nice on Ocean map (I know opinions are polarized on that one--that's an all love it or all hate it map.....but I like it because it's a pure meeting engagement like most real naval battles)

Incidentally, did you know that when you're on in the late night and there's too few people in the queue the random MM sometimes makes it with fewer ships?....true enough....I had two 4 on 4s last night and several below 12s matches.....(I play in the dead of night)

Edited by commodore_torakula
typo

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
246
Beta Testers, In AlfaTesters
1,044 posts
8,214 battles

Look forward to 15v15 battles after CV rework - Triple CV Div's are coming...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
160
[WOLFB]
Members
417 posts
3,624 battles

I think the new Arms Race mode is going to be smaller teams. Not sure.

But if that's the case, it might scratch that itch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
4,740 posts
5,464 battles
18 minutes ago, KSN said:

Look forward to 15v15 battles after CV rework - Triple CV Div's are coming...

If the devs can balance it out to allow CVs to div after the rework, I do sincerely hope they up the total player count per battle. Having 14-15 players per team would be much better for both CV games and non-CV games.

 

As for the poll, I put my second answer as 10v10, but only because there was no option for 9v9. Nine players per team is about as small as I think I'd want random games to be, maybe 8v8 would work but absolutely no smaller than that. Maps are just too large to support ranked style team sizes(7v7), hence why ranked map variants have the caps closer together. But all in all I'd love to see the match maker able to put together teams smaller than 12 players. It might even help alleviate some of the stress on T8 when they get picked to fill in the last 2-4 slots in a majority T10 match as they wouldn't be there anymore and instead would hopefully get a T9 or T8 match(or a match with much less T10s total).

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
1,779 posts
17,360 battles
1 hour ago, Jester_of_War said:

I think the new Arms Race mode is going to be smaller teams. Not sure.

But if that's the case, it might scratch that itch.

No...Arms Race (at least on the PT) was 12 vs 12...of course if somebody waits the 5 minutes late at night it could happen too I guess...forget if it was a "no wait time limit" or not battle mode.

As for the poll it would really depend on map size...on smaller maps smaller teams are ok but on bigger maps it's just too much floating around w/out any targets to shoot at for long periods of time.

Edited by IfYouSeeKhaos

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,411 posts
6,072 battles

I generally agree - it is interesting that my Karma goes up in ranked but down in Randoms...

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,762
Members
9,863 posts

What they should have done from the start. Given the players options.

Random 8x8

Ranked 6x6

Team battles 4x4 with a casual team pickup format, you select that game type, it opens up a chat window just for players wanting a team. with the small format, fast,bloody battles might be possible.

Scenarios should run a tier 6 and a tier 7 or 8 concurrently.

Upgraded bots should have been an option in co-op long ago.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
3,411 posts
6,072 battles
19 minutes ago, awiggin said:

What they should have done from the start. Given the players options.

Random 8x8

Ranked 6x6

Team battles 4x4 with a casual team pickup format, you select that game type, it opens up a chat window just for players wanting a team. with the small format, fast,bloody battles might be possible.

Scenarios should run a tier 6 and a tier 7 or 8 concurrently.

Upgraded bots should have been an option in co-op long ago.

 

Nice ideas but just one region needs to have a lot more players playing at any given time to make it viable.  And NA does not have that kind of population for 3 or 4 options.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
225
[WOLF2]
Members
863 posts
6,991 battles
3 hours ago, LemonadeWarrior said:

I don't really like small battles, might be because I think the maps are too big for it.

I'd personally prefer big battles with 20 vs 20 or something like that.

I'd like it both ways.   Always the opportunity for WG to create special events.    7v7, but cruisers only, DDs only, mixed, etc.    Large groupings would be good for semi-events.  20v20   US v IJN, etc.

Not full time, but some variation would add some interest.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
173
[SIDE]
Members
714 posts
3,135 battles

That's odd... I find the smaller battles actually way less enjoyable than the 12x12. I with more game modes were the giant fleet battles.

I guess I am also biased as I did come from navyfield 1 where the games sizes were preferably much much larger. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,624
[INTEL]
Members
8,421 posts
25,278 battles

7v7 sucks. In a 12v12 match you can overcome a detonation or TKer or an AFKer, but not in a 7v7. We just had a griefer like that in Ranked and of course lost. Since WG does not punish these players because it likes and wants team damage, it follows that you need a bigger team to absorb this WG policy of supporting team damage. Comebacks from being down are also relatively more possible with a bigger team. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×