Jump to content
You need to play a total of 20 battles to post in this section.
MysticalShip

How about Larger Team matches ?

17 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
72 posts
14,110 battles

I am not sure if this was ever brought up by anybody before about team composition or not, but i think when the subs do come out that teams should be 15 vs 15 to accommodate the new ship class.

I think trying to fit subs into a 12 vs 12 would be a tight fit for the match maker it might have to sacrifice a couple of dd's for them.

  • Cool 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,207 posts
5,634 battles
3 minutes ago, MysticalShip said:

I am not sure if this was ever brought up by anybody before about team composition or not, but i think when the subs do come out that teams should be 15 vs 15 to accommodate the new ship class.

I think trying to fit subs into a 12 vs 12 would be a tight fit for the match maker it might have to sacrifice a couple of dd's for them.

Someone suggested that in another post, many answered it would require more CPU, etc

I think however that once subs are added, yes, it makes sense.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
22,430 battles

Larger teams have been asked about for a very long time. There may be a technical reason for not having them but the total ship count in scenarios is higher than 24, however the BOT opponents aren't all in play at the same time and the human ships are limited to 7.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
22,430 battles
3 minutes ago, franz_von_goltz said:

I think however that once subs are added, yes, it makes sense.

That will still require more CPU not only for ship count but the addition of the submerged dimension.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
828
[PIG]
[PIG]
Members
1,207 posts
5,634 battles
Just now, CAPTMUDDXX said:

That will still require more CPU not only for ship count but the addition of the submerged dimension.

But in that case, even a 12 players game will require far more CPU, am I correct? 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
22,430 battles
Just now, franz_von_goltz said:

But in that case, even a 12 players game will require far more CPU, am I correct? 

Yes, but likely not as much as the addition of what would be 6 additional players data movements.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,261
[PVE]
Members
4,253 posts
18,541 battles

I'm not sure anything above 12x12 will even work to anyone's satisfaction.  Subs and Carriers are "dissimilar weapons".....they can and will change the way the game is played and we have seen that....  But, we play on a small, time compressed map as it is and, I am not sure what subs will do to the game itself when combined with carriers and radar.   At some point, the game mechanics will fail because there are "too many" distractions to allow for any kind of "organized" game.  Dissimilar weapons cause entire "systems" to react to them.  That is why AA and ASW will be automated....  Imagine both on one map.  Could a DD even conduct ASW in "open water" at all with Carriers in the game??  So far, a lone DD against any carrier isn't an easy event....  Imagine Carriers and Sub drivers working together...........  Sure, come on out and take me on Mr. DD and look what we have for you !  OUCH.  At some levels, DD's have so little AA that it would be suicide to take on ASW.....  I can't see how balance can be achieved with dissimilar weapons systems on a time compressed, small map.   NOW, if they made the maps 3 times larger...........that is another story.

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
72 posts
14,110 battles

A good idea maybe to address the  game play might be to make the maps Larger in size to accommodate the ship movements overall and how long it would take for the carrier planes to move in on some one.

 

As for the Cpu Load issue i think the servers would have to take some of this off of the client somehow or maybe do it like World of Tanks does it.

 

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,480
[-K-]
Members
8,330 posts
14,090 battles
2 minutes ago, MysticalShip said:

A good idea maybe to address the  game play might be to make the maps Larger in size to accommodate the ship movements overall and how long it would take for the carrier planes to move in on some one.

For the love of God, do not make the higher tier maps even larger.  It already takes too long to start engaging in battle on those maps (looking at you Tears of the Desert).

As for the larger battle size, I recall WG stating at some point that they preferred the current size matches to keep the 20 minute time frame per match.  Larger teams would require longer match times, which then cascades down into a bunch of other side effects (ie: less camos/signals used = potentially less sales; longer match times may reduce player count due to not fitting into player's busy schedules, etc).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3,310
[MUDDX]
[MUDDX]
Beta Testers
8,144 posts
22,430 battles
1 hour ago, MysticalShip said:

As for the Cpu Load issue i think the servers would have to take some of this off of the client somehow or maybe do it like World of Tanks does it.

WOT has 15 v 15 with most firing only 1 round at a time, no machine gunning secondary gun/AA gun fire and no multiple aircraft firing/dropping multiple rockets, torpedoes or bombs as well as fighters machine guns. I enjoyed WOT early on but now one has to have bionic man reflexes and hand eye coordination to even line up a shot. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,571
[1984]
Members
4,122 posts
19,894 battles
4 hours ago, MysticalShip said:

I am not sure if this was ever brought up by anybody before about team composition or not, but i think when the subs do come out that teams should be 15 vs 15 to accommodate the new ship class.

I think trying to fit subs into a 12 vs 12 would be a tight fit for the match maker it might have to sacrifice a couple of dd's for them.

It seems they have enough trouble fillin matches with the team sizes as they are. This weekend, which coincided with free premium time i was taking me 2-3 min to get into a random match! Once it even put me in a 5 on 5 (dont mind that, free high caliber). Now imagine that wait time with 20 ship teams.

Edited by monpetitloup

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5,427
[WOLFG]
Members
28,940 posts
8,200 battles
4 hours ago, franz_von_goltz said:

Someone suggested that in another post, many answered it would require more CPU, etc

I don't think extra players would make much difference.

After all, the client doesn't do any calcs, all it really does is render. Of course, rendering an extra 6 objects and their associated effects would probably exclude some PCs that are getting less than 30 FPS now.

The real load would be on the server(s). Adding 3 ships per team would be pretty much a 25% increase in calculations.

My money is on team sizes being what they are because WG feels it optimal for desired average match length.

Edited by Skpstr

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,857
[WPORT]
Members
5,415 posts
10,457 battles
5 hours ago, MysticalShip said:

I am not sure if this was ever brought up by anybody before about team composition or not, but i think when the subs do come out that teams should be 15 vs 15 to accommodate the new ship class.

I think trying to fit subs into a 12 vs 12 would be a tight fit for the match maker it might have to sacrifice a couple of dd's for them.

The internet speeds & bandwidths are already at their limits with current random matches.
People's computers are already experiencing glitches & errors due to the communication loads from WOWs.
Adding more slots for additional players seems like an idea whose time has not yet come.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,208
[PEED2]
Beta Testers
4,968 posts
14,887 battles

12  vs 12 is ok atm

if they add submarines i think need be 15 vs 15 [1cv 4 bbs 4 cls 4 dds 2 subs] (also 15 is a better number them 14)

  • Cool 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
72 posts
14,110 battles

 

[-TXT-]

KHyena

  • Captain
  • KHyena
  • Beta Testers
  •  1,764
  • 4,370 posts
  • 13,174 battles
  • PCNA006_c79341df723fb752446fb95535bcf8e1PCNB189_5d6373fc4f638ad088171b5e1e789a8d

12  vs 12 is ok atm

if they add submarines i think need be 15 vs 15 [1cv 4 bbs 4 cls 4 dds 2 subs] (also 15 is a better number them 14)


 

1003925151.png

#NoToResearchBureau

I think that's  a great team composition.

 

 

Edited by MysticalShip
added in a player response :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
385
[NSEW]
Members
1,858 posts
10,709 battles

I would actually prefer to see smaller team vs team, with shorter battle time duration.  Why you ask?

For me, in theory.  This would encourage players to learn the map awareness, step up their game (less players carrying them), less "ROFL-stomp" duration, "faster" rounds which equals more games per session.

Could be a good training room for clans too for their CB practices.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
92
[OO7]
Beta Testers
470 posts
11,023 battles

I asked this during a live stream not to long ago. On anything that would be similar to WOT big battles. The reply was at 7:48

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×