Lower player numbers would probably lower map usage, but sure.
Tbh anyone maining attacker probably dislikes EC style air RB maps because of the target selection, which is one of the things they should improve by adding more targets instead of the 2 ongoing battles we have now.
And yes im aware that EC maps in air RB are so infrequent you seemingly forgot its something we have currently in the map rotation. People for whatever reason want to play maps encouraging the furbal behavior we see today
Map usage, means THE AREA WHERE THE TARGET IS SCATTERED, not “THE AMOUNT OF MAP THAT IS USED BY THE PLAYER DURING A GAME”, because if i’m talking about the 2nd thing then the current map usage can be reduced wholly to 20%.
Of which is not even relevant in the first goddamned place because what matters is player density, which can be fixed with 8v8 / 10v10
Yeah should have probably specified that then. But how does lowering player numbers fix the fact only 60% of the map has targets? Are you in fact reffering to target availability?
Sort of helps, doesn’t really fix the fact people are attracted to the center where targets are at leading to the same furball behavior.
What you would optimally do is encourage people to fly out in a more spread out pattern, which is something EC style maps currently do. Objective placement, is inherently linked to player density. Larger player numbers having some natural tendency to create spacing, tho offcourse that is on its own not enough
The fact that people are inherently attracted to the center is something that you just can’t change, mitigate the negative effect, by reducing the number of player in a lobby, literally 120$ / 4 work hour solution assuming we go through QC, lead engineer, designer, and patch note writers. compared to reworking the whole ass air RB which has very little chance of succeeding and might’ve costed 20K.
Unless specified I don’t give a shit about AI objectives because it’s not interesting enough and it’s also not the best one in terms of implementation, knowing gaijin future implementation must also be shit, therefore I go hunting player.
Its a tool to look for players, but doesn’t tell yoy were to search, which objectives do. And for well designed maps that have terrain that breaks line of sight it will have limited usage.
But also you will end up going where the targets are because chances are that the enemy player was going there anyways
Yes its way cheaper to just keep Air RB as the knifefight it is, because people keep playing it
Thats something one can do. I don’t think it will change a ton, but iirc ive allready outlined that previously in the thread im not gonna dig it up again
Yeah this is needed really bad. The furball is inevitable but we always have one giant furball because everyone is taking off from one airfield and the objectives on all non-ec maps are crowded into one area.
Multiple airfields is a necessity. Especially if they’re going to keep 16 vs 16 on the bigger maps.
If we got a team size reduction on the small maps then maybe one airfield would work fine but id still prefer Multiple airfields no matter what.
It logically follow, player will want to utilize the space available to build up speed and actually manouver their planes. plus aircraft density will be reduced because the number of player is down, there’s no need to add another useless parameter like incentives structure and other shill buzzword.
Players have the exact same incentive in 16v16, with the bonus that they will want to spread out due to more players.
A bit maybe, it doesn’t necessarily follow as people will move closer to one another to fill room that would otherwise have been occupied by an allied plane.
Incentive structures are in the game allready. It is to make people want to do something. If you want people to spread out and avoid furballing, you need to incentivise that kind of behavior.
A very popular example of this was repair costs dependant on how long you have lived to encourage people to spawn even if the enemy has the spawn locked down.
Spoiler
The very reason i advocate for EC style maps is because it has shown effectiveness in making players spread out. It incentivises good gameplay.
It’s not maybe, its basic math, less volume of X, less room to fill.
By reducing player count, yes. Today the way people play is literally recreating 1700 - 1870 rank and file musketeer, be in collumn to raise survivability, makes the battle size smaller and the furball won’t be as often.
That doesn’t change the incentives for one wanting to spread out. Well it does in that people dont feel the need to spread out as much as there is nolonger Mig-23 tailing them
You said yourself only 60%/20% of the map is used today. With less players its very obvious the incentive is for that to reduce. Which as far as im concerned will lead to similar densities as players have more or less the same incentives without the pressure of people overstacking eachother.
The logic does not follow that there would be a major effect going from 16v16 to 12v12 for instance. Im all open for doing it, i just think the arguments for it dont hold up, and kinda disregard why people bunch up in the first place.