Tank matches with fewer players are more fun, as the maps are too small for 32, I don’t know why but I got into one with 9vs9 and it was very good, I suggest an option that enables 10vs10 as well as for aerial games, and not as an option, but as a player configuration
Look at this map, there are practically 18 playable squares, and there are 32 players, where is that fun?
4 Likes
The thought of 32 modern tanks engaging at a range of 2,000 meters makes you want to laugh
At high tiers? Maybe. But definitely not on lower ones.
Matches at BRs up to like 7.7 are definitely way more fun with more players.
3 Likes
Dunno about that. I finally had a chance to take out my mid-late-war british lineup in GSB (Firefly, Comet, Avenger) and the matches were significantly more fun than GRB provides with the 10v10 or so team sizes we had.
At lower tiers matches are by definition way less dynamic. Tanks get longer to reach battle from spawn, reload longer on average, have longer reaction times and smaller engagement distances.
Cutting down the number of players in such environment considering that teams will spread out across the map will just make matches empty outside of those few maps where everyone goes the same place anyway.
It could be a good thing for air, but not for ground. 1v1s or 2v2s in ground usually just end up as stalemates or very quick immediate victory for one side after which there is nothing to do really
4 Likes
I don’t think so.
Some times it is better to have more more players. Such as in this game, I am trying hard to bomb, but it doesn’t work, all of my teammates went back to the hanger while I’m fighting with only an Ostwind. See this photo for proof.
Please correct me if I’m wrong.
Too many players go back to hanger after death, which is annoying.
Engagement distances are just fine on some maps, frustratingly short/small on others.
10 vs 10 in WW2 tanks on this map is one of my best ground experiences ever, even if it ended up favouring tigers and panthers significantly (we held as long as we could but they forced us to respawn and try to take B instead).
3 Likes
Considering entirety of A is basically a dead space where 1 guy occasionaly spawns in a light or AA just to cap 10v10 could work fine on that map. On the other hand though there is nothing that 16v16 would really ruin about it either.
But if you were to get 10v10 on something like Sweden it would end up as one of the most boring experiences possible.
There is nothing wrong with short engagements in general, they are actually better for lower tiers most of the time, but it limits the amount of enemies in your engagement distance, thus increase the need for more players to fill the map
A is not dead space.
It’s full of dunes, hill and little divots to sneak around and employ hull down sniping. It’s awesome. It also feels quite immersive in british tanks, given the whole africa campaign and desert camos looking perfect.
As for sweden,
sweden by itself is a boring experience regardless. Corner peeking galore.
If you mean it by landscape then yes, but the thing is that basically no one ever goes there, so it’s dead in a sense of being outside of the match for the most part. It doesn’t allow you to quickly reolcate to any other part of the map either and is easy to snipe at from B so even if you go there it places you at a disadvantage.
And as for sweden, it is a very decent map with a lot of opprtunities for active gameplay, but once both teams spread out if there aren’t enough players on the team it can result in you driving around the map for a few minutes searching for anyone to kill.
We may be looking for very different experiences.
When I played that match, A had quite a few vehicles on both teams for the initial spawn attempt and it was a lot of fun. I counted about 2 panthers and a tiger alone. With me was a T-34, and something else going the wide flank that I can’t remember. For a 10vs10, having 1/3 of the battle take place there seems quite different to “no one ever goes there.”
There are too many downsides and too little benefits to such an idea. Firstly, a new sub-queue and related system would need to be implemented, similar to night battles. This would have a negative effect on queue times; this effect may be the reason Gaijin has not extended night battles below 10.0 ever since the introduction of a night battle sub-queue.
Secondly, the popularity of the matches would be questionable. I have not seen significant support for smaller matches, and I doubt that there would be enough people for such matches to happen regularly.
Thirdly, the lower amount of players would lower the potential earnings of players in matches. Perhaps this could be adjusted with a modifier.