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

Pre-Battle Team Lobby

22 comments in this topic

Recommended Posts

Members
150 posts
1,818 battles

Introduction:

Do you hate it when you get spawned on one side of the map with nowhere near enough ships to do anything but die? How about trying to set up a plan before the match in the chat with only a few seconds WHILE your ship is moving? This idea would address both these problems at once with a pre-battle team lobby.

Main Idea:

  • Before being matched:
    • Players can opt-into a pre-battle lobby experience with random battles where they will be matched with other players who have chosen to do so as well. This would not be a mandatory feature.
  • After being matched:
    • Players have some time (maybe 1 - 2 minutes) to do the following:
      • Choose a spawn point along their team's edge of the map. Or within a spawn zone determined by the developers.
      • Discuss strategies, form divisions, and more in global chat.
      • Vote to veto the current map. (Must be a majority vote alongside the other team as well.)

If World of Warships is marketed as "the thinking man's vehicle battle game" or something of that ilk, then it would be nice if they actually gave us time to think, communicate, and plan.

Edited by Altrunchen
  • Boring 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
1 minute ago, MarcusGod7207 said:

Wouldn't that defeat the purpose of RANDOM battles?

Are you saying that you enjoy the disorganized chaos of random battles that results in one team evaporating due to lack of communication or collaboration? What if you're the one on the team that did terribly even though you yourself were doing well?

Other games have things like pre-match lobbies. It fills a need and helps a multiplayer game be more collaborative. Which seems to be the point of multiplayer in the first place.

Right now it's less about skill and more about if you get lucky with a good team. Too much randomness and the game might as well be a slot machine.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
64 posts
1,792 battles

Actually, yes, I do. I complain about matchmaking all the time, but then right after I play just about the worst game ever, I end up pulling off the coolest win 3 battles later. I like not knowing where I am going to be put in a battle. I don't know the skillsets of any of the players that I am playing with, but I just learn to trust others,(to a certain degree anyways) I like the good and the bad, because in that moment I am given a chance to learn something from just about every match I play. I am by no means a good player, and I don't have the best ships, or money to spend. But it's that feeling of "what's next" keeps me going in random battles.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
4 minutes ago, MarcusGod7207 said:

Actually, yes, I do. I complain about matchmaking all the time, but then right after I play just about the worst game ever, I end up pulling off the coolest win 3 battles later. I like not knowing where I am going to be put in a battle. I don't know the skillsets of any of the players that I am playing with, but I just learn to trust others,(to a certain degree anyways) I like the good and the bad, because in that moment I am given a chance to learn something from just about every match I play. I am by no means a good player, and I don't have the best ships, or money to spend. But it's that feeling of "what's next" keeps me going in random battles.

I don't think "3 battles later" is what people think of when they say "right after" to be honest. What's the point of having a multiplayer game if people don't actually try to work together? Sure we have clan battles, but those only happen once in a while, you have to be committed to a clan, AND they're smaller scale than random battles. Why do we have to make random battles so much more random than the other forms? Also, with my idea you wouldn't be forced into the pre-game lobby experience to begin with since, as I said, it wouldn't be mandatory. So even if my idea were implemented you would still get to have the experience you enjoy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[CO-OP]
Members
3,927 posts
31,850 battles

In theory I agree with the idea of a 30-60 second pre-battle strategy session, however in practice there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

In your first bullet, you want to create two groups:  No-lobby, and Lobby.  This will create a lot of queue/matchmaking problems.

Along the same lines, the lobby games will be longer than no-lobby games.  WGs wants to get the most matches in as quickly as possible, so there is little incentive for them to slow this process down.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,480
[SR-_-]
Members
5,018 posts
46,903 battles

Maybe we can have a pink waiting room and only have pink players drop in one match.

"What are you in for?"

"I torped a bot."

"Ha, I torped an actual player. I will see you in the showers sunshine, bring the soap."

"Uh, I am here for a match, I don't think we take showers together."

"Wait! What!?"

"This is a waiting room for the MM Pink team."

"That is silly. I only hit that Yammy two times, okay maybe 3. But I thought nobody saw."

"Wargaming sees everything."

"You seem sure about that? Can they see me do this?"

"Oh please,this is a waiting room, it's not a battle."

"Precisely, it doesn't count, I know a loophole when I see it."

"You're a monster."

"Only in the movies, in game, a minor annoyance."

"I hope this match starts soon, I only have two battles to work the pink off."

"Ha, I got 50. I am a habitual offender. WG knows me. I am all bad. They love me though. I make matches short. 14 minute mark I sink everyone. Match over NEXT!"

"Oh, that is messed up."

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
1 minute ago, HamptonRoads said:

In theory I agree with the idea of a 30-60 second pre-battle strategy session, however in practice there are a couple of issues that need to be addressed:

In your first bullet, you want to create two groups:  No-lobby, and Lobby.  This will create a lot of queue/matchmaking problems.

Along the same lines, the lobby games will be longer than no-lobby games.  WGs wants to get the most matches in as quickly as possible, so there is little incentive for them to slow this process down.

So why do Call of Duty, Among Us, and so many other online games get away with having pre-game lobbies? Even Runescape has minigames with pre-game lobbies and that's a free-to-play like World of Warships. I think this proposal is easier to implement than you might think.

Also I don't think having different player pools will be that hard for matchmaking. Just pair up people like you usually do, albeit with smaller lists now. I don't expect people to flock en masse to the lobby play exactly, a huge portion of the playerbase are casual players who only play on weekends after all.

If you need to counter-balance no-lobby games with lobby games then just make no-lobby games have more players per match so that the rate of players to game time is adjusted.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
64 posts
1,792 battles
Just now, SteelRain_Rifleman said:

"Wargaming sees everything."

Do I have to explain why I burst out laughing after reading this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
2 minutes ago, MarcusGod7207 said:

Also, this isn't Call of Duty, or among us. This is world of warships we are talking about.

Yes, but all three are online multiplayer games with team battles nonetheless.

Edited by Altrunchen

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[CO-OP]
Members
3,927 posts
31,850 battles
8 minutes ago, Altrunchen said:

So why do Call of Duty, Among Us, and so many other online games get away with having pre-game lobbies? Even Runescape has minigames with pre-game lobbies and that's a free-to-play like World of Warships. I think this proposal is easier to implement than you might think.

Also I don't think having different player pools will be that hard for matchmaking. Just pair up people like you usually do, albeit with smaller lists now. I don't expect people to flock en masse to the lobby play exactly, a huge portion of the playerbase are casual players who only play on weekends after all.

If you need to counter-balance no-lobby games with lobby games then just make no-lobby games have more players per match so that the rate of players to game time is adjusted.

This isn't any of the other games you mentioned.  They clearly have a different gaming philosophy.

Splitting the player pool creates issues with matchmaking queues.  It is easier to find 24 players in a pool of 100, than to find 2 groups of 24 with a pool of 50.  

Drastically changing the number of players per battle has other consequences (e.g. some campaign missions would have to be adjusted to accommodate this.)

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
1 minute ago, HamptonRoads said:

This isn't any of the other games you mentioned.  They clearly have a different gaming philosophy.

Splitting the player pool creates issues with matchmaking queues.  It is easier to find 24 players in a pool of 100, than to find 2 groups of 24 with a pool of 50.  

Drastically changing the number of players per battle has other consequences (e.g. some campaign missions would have to be adjusted to accommodate this.)

 

What's so hard about adjusting campaign missions? It's not like they'd have to edit the base engine, make new ships, or something.

Also why not then create some middle-ground settings where people can either opt into:

  • Only no lobby matches
  • Prefer no lobby matches
  • No preference on lobbies
  • Prefer lobby matches
  • Only lobby matches


That way the margins of available players can be leveraged.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1,416
[CO-OP]
Members
3,927 posts
31,850 battles
4 minutes ago, Altrunchen said:

What's so hard about adjusting campaign missions? It's not like they'd have to edit the base engine, make new ships, or something.

Also why not then create some middle-ground settings where people can either opt into:

  • Only no lobby matches
  • Prefer no lobby matches
  • No preference on lobbies
  • Prefer lobby matches
  • Only lobby matches


That way the margins of available players can be leveraged.

Campaign missions was just one obvious thing that would need to be addressed, there are probably numerous others that could be affected such as achievements.  Each of these would need to be re-evaluated and then tested.  In addition, there could be other not so obvious results that would need to be corrected down the road.

I've already noted why splitting the gaming population is a problem.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2,882
[PVE]
Members
9,034 posts
25,427 battles
4 hours ago, Altrunchen said:

Introduction:

Do you hate it when you get spawned on one side of the map with nowhere near enough ships to do anything but die? How about trying to set up a plan before the match in the chat with only a few seconds WHILE your ship is moving? This idea would address both these problems at once with a pre-battle team lobby.

Main Idea:

  • Before being matched:
    • Players can opt-into a pre-battle lobby experience with random battles where they will be matched with other players who have chosen to do so as well. This would not be a mandatory feature.
  • After being matched:
    • Players have some time (maybe 1 - 2 minutes) to do the following:
      • Choose a spawn point along their team's edge of the map. Or within a spawn zone determined by the developers.
      • Discuss strategies, form divisions, and more in global chat.
      • Vote to veto the current map. (Must be a majority vote alongside the other team as well.)

If World of Warships is marketed as "the thinking man's vehicle battle game" or something of that ilk, then it would be nice if they actually gave us time to think, communicate, and plan.

Just find somebody to div with...you don't need a lobby for that.

If you find somebody in a battle that plays well ask if they wanna div.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
150 posts
1,818 battles
14 hours ago, HamptonRoads said:

Campaign missions was just one obvious thing that would need to be addressed, there are probably numerous others that could be affected such as achievements.  Each of these would need to be re-evaluated and then tested.  In addition, there could be other not so obvious results that would need to be corrected down the road.

I've already noted why splitting the gaming population is a problem.

 

Well then maybe we shouldn't split them after all. Either way, I'd leave it up to WG to decide what they'd want to do. I just think this would help.

 

10 hours ago, IfYouSeeKhaos said:

Just find somebody to div with...you don't need a lobby for that.

If you find somebody in a battle that plays well ask if they wanna div.


Divisions are limited to just three players, the whole team has far more than that.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Members
64 posts
1,792 battles
4 minutes ago, Altrunchen said:

Divisions are limited to just three players, the whole team has far more than that.

I have seen divisions of 2 carry entire teams, then I end up seeing those same two players in a three player division and they just absolutely wreck the enemy team.  There are a lot of potatoes, myself being one at times. I would say that a trained, coordinated, and skilled division is better then a team of potatoes any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×