5v5 pubs and ranked problems

(Dagasawr) #1

I made a video about CMM and ranked topics and i would love to here everyone’s opinions on the matter :smiley:

(n-x) #2

I agree with you that CMM and public games in general should be 5vs5. I just makes no sense to not have public being mainly the same as ranked. So many people already asked for the reason why they dont push 5vs5 in pub, but sadly, we never got an answer.

About CMM being only Obj. I am just guessing here, but I think they did obj. only because this way more games are getting played and they get more data and CMM has to sort players more often and so on.

(Dagasawr) #3

[quote=“Kelben;c-218518”]I agree with you that CMM and public games in general should be 5vs5. I just makes no sense to not have public being mainly the same as ranked. So many people already asked for the reason why they dont push 5vs5 in pub, but sadly, we never got an answer.

About CMM being only Obj. I am just guessing here, but I think they did obj. only because this way more games are getting played and they get more data and CMM has to sort players more often and so on.[/quote]

well we can only hope they add SW at some point.

(ImSploosh) #4

I didn’t bother playing more than a few games of casual matchmaking because it was just a mess. It took way too long to get into games and they weren’t even balanced. There were other problems as well like people not being able to join a game already going on as well as lobbies closing because someone “failed to join.”

Also, I understand some people desire public matches more focused on the competitive aspects, but personally, I like 7v7 and 8v8 matches. 6v6 is still really fun, but anything less in pubs is just pointless when you have players who don’t know what they’re doing. Don’t get me wrong, I wouldn’t mind having the OPTION of 5v5s in pubs, like a few servers catered to the competitive aspect. I just wouldn’t want the majority of public matches to be that way.

Furthermore, I dislike Stopwatch because it’s just too long of a game (especially when your team is slow and clueless with the objectives). I also don’t like not being able to maintain the same lobby after a game ends. A lot of the time, I enjoy the people I’m currently playing with and if we just had a nice, competitive, yet fun experience, I’d like to continue that with the same people, but maybe varied teams.

Overall, I didn’t really like the casual matchmaking and prefer the current system. I know they said they will still keep some servers up in the server browser, but I just really hope that it’s more than I’m expecting.

That’s just my opinion anyways. Hopefully as time goes on, things will be tweaked quite a bit and problems will smooth out. Nice video!

(MisterBadmin) #5

I made some similar points in Discord towards the end of the last test, which I couldn’t play in.

Casual Matchmaking HAS to include Stopwatch. Period. Full Stop. Whatever you call what you end a sentence with. If it doesn’t, SD will have made the worst decision in the history of DB’s development (or at least give Execution a run for its money). I understand that they aren’t including it for the tests to have shorter games and thus get more data about the matchmaker, which is the point of the tests. Stopwatch is the core gamemode of DB, in my opinion. It corrects any attacker/defender bias in map design by having everyone play both. Not having Stopwatch gives no context for how to play ranked, so you get some real special snowflakes. If you are getting a large enough influx of players into ranked, (ideally) they wouldn’t get their teeth kicked in too badly, but also probably wouldn’t learn to coordinate and push. This probably wouldn’t happen.

My solution to people not knowing what to do in Ranked would be to gradually introduce the elements of ranked to new players. It’s not without its problems, and I’ve tried to identify some of them below. (I’d like to note that all numbers are filler and meant to be changed, just provided to give my thoughts a general context that it should take some time.) At level 5, a player can queue into 6vs6 Stopwatch with friendly fire OFF. This lets them get comfortable with the gamemode and mechanics without having to worry about friendly fire. After playing 25 games of SW or hitting level 7, a player unlocks an option to queue into 5vs5 Stopwatch (Objective and Execution are still 6vs6) still with friendly fire off, to get them used to playing smaller games. After 25 games of 5vs5 SW, a player unlocks 5vs5 SW with friendly fire. After 25 games of FF 5vs5 SW, a player unlocks ranked. (This also lets the matchmaker determine an approximate ranked skill for players before they even touch ranked.)

The largest 2 problems that I see are segmenting matchmaking even further and not getting players to queue for new modes. Segmenting matchmaking increases queuetimes because there are less players for each mode. This really affects regions with small playerbases at off-peak hours. You could enable queuing for multiple modes, but that starts to impact how long it takes for players to progress. There also isn’t any reason for players to move up the tiers. That’s easily solvable by having a 25/50/75% credit bonus for SW/5vs5/FF, but I’m not sure if that would be enough.

(n-x) #6

How was it with the other CMM tests. I can’t remember. Was it also Objective only?

(MisterBadmin) #7

Objective and Execution.

(Szakalot) #8

that was purely because they were testing the system.

there is no foreseeable issue with the CMM working for stopwatch, once its implemented for objective&execution

(Dagasawr) #9

[quote=“Sploosh;c-218534”]
Also, I understand some people desire public matches more focused on the competitive aspects, but personally, I like 7v7 and 8v8 matches. 6v6 is still really fun, but anything less in pubs is just pointless when you have players who don’t know what they’re doing. [/quote]

I would hope theres room for both competitive play and casual 7v7s and 8v8s in the future because i know there are people that enjoy 7v7s and 8v8s and DB as a casual game but at the same time it would be nice to have people be shown the comp side of the game when the start playing then they can choose what they like more.

(n-x) #10

Like they said, there will be still 7vs7 and 8vs8 servers for players who just want to play a bit and have no real urge into improving and being competitive and this is absolutely fine. What I dont get, why CMM is for 6vs6 and not 5vs5. It would help ranked and the skill level of the whole game immensly.

Maybe lets try it another time. @RazielWarmonic @stayfreshshoe Why is CMM not 5vs5? Why is there no 5vs5 in casual? This is the game mode your maps, mercs, weapons, abilities are balanced for. Why dont you offer it for casual?

(kopyright) #11

Would you rather have four noobs on your 5vs5 team, or four noobs and two competent players on a 7vs7? If you are unlucky higher numbers offer a better chance of having at least some skilled players on your team.

(Dagasawr) #12

Would you rather have four noobs on your 5vs5 team, or four noobs and two competent players on a 7vs7? If you are unlucky higher numbers offer a better chance of having at least some skilled players on your team.
[/quote]

but if you wanted a competent team you could play ranked. and even though in some circumstances that is true i still think there should be a option for the people want 5v5s.

(n-x) #13

Would you rather have four noobs on your 5vs5 team, or four noobs and two competent players on a 7vs7? If you are unlucky higher numbers offer a better chance of having at least some skilled players on your team.
[/quote]

Actually, I would prefer the 4 noobs over 7vs7. Because in my view. the advantages to get used to 5vs5 in a casual environment outweighs the few 1 good player + 4 noob scenarios.

And just to be clear. I dont say: Get rid of 7vs7. I just say: If you are already introducing match making for casual and you clearly want to go into the direction of less players on maps + group skill levels together (therefore the min10/20 servers and CMM are 6vs6) why not go all the way and make it 5vs5 and bridge the gap between casual and ranked and make the transition way easier?

(Sithas) #14

Would you rather have four noobs on your 5vs5 team, or four noobs and two competent players on a 7vs7? If you are unlucky higher numbers offer a better chance of having at least some skilled players on your team.
[/quote]

This is the main reason why i play 8vs8 servers. besides eneven teams are better too on servers with more players. 7vs8 is way more doable then 4vs5

(bgyoshi) #15

I’ve been asking this question for ages and have come up with this short list of reason.

  • 5v5 is incredibly boring, lacks any strategic diversity, requires 5 people be in a voice channel together and coordinating
  • 5 out of 6 maps are not built for 5v5 (Only Terminal is small enough for it)
  • 6v6 is infinitely more enjoyable
  • More players means more casual, means more fun

Beyond that, due to the extremely limited field that comes with 5v5, it’s something that needs to be practiced, a lot. If you just made everything 5v5, nobody would play this game because… well, it’s not fun. It’s competitive. Competitive play is not fun for the majority of gamers. For a casual feeling, there has to be something going on. It’s much harder to wipe a team of 6+ than it is to wipe a team of 5. There are more targets with teams of 6+ than there are with teams of 5. You get more chances to shoot at something with teams of 6+. In general, you get to play the game more.

Unfortunately, SD kind of shot themselves in the foot by pushing a competitive 5v5 format and then designing the game around 6v6/7v7/8v8. The maps are all way too big for 5v5, with the exception of Terminal, and half the mercs are absolutely unplayable and useless in 5v5.

Plus, when one or two players drop from a 7v7 match, it’s way less detrimental than the same thing in a 5v5 match.

In general, more players per team means more fun.

However, SD’s biggest problem is not making casual 5v5 available to those that want to play it.

(pumpkinmeerkat) #16

Game is designed for 5v5…

(bgyoshi) #17

You say that, and then you play… literally any map and realize “Dear god… this map is way too big for only 10 players…and why is it that most of the mercs are bad? And why are all of these abilities extremely underwhelming? And why does this game seem to work better with more players?”

(zavabia) #18

So you enjoy casual? Why are you commenting on how large teams should be in ranked, if you prefer to play casual? If you dont want to play ranked, which is 5v5 and what it always has been and what Daga refers to in the video, then why does it matter if its not 6v6? You play your pubs, we’ll play our ranked.

Also, terminal is god damn tiny. It barely holds 5 players. Chapel, for example, is a map that actually allows breathing room and time for thought. Most of the maps are perfectly fine for 5 players, if anything Dome is the worst map because of its sheer size (this is your 6v6 map if thats what you’re interested in). The maps are not at all intended for larger games, in fact 8v8 is appalling in most scenarios because there is so much random shit happening.

And by saying no one would play the game in 5v5, well excuse me for saying this but what the fuck is wrong with you? Have you not seen the competitive side of dirty bomb e/g DBN? There are people who ONLY play the 5v5 pugs because pubs are boring, stupid and full of idiots. CSGO is also a game primarily built for 5v5, and it is one of the most popular games in the world. League of Legends and DotA (very different games, but still relevant for this example) are both 5v5 and extremely popular. As far as I’m aware, ET was also 5v5, and was incredibly fun and strategic.

I understand that you prefer casual to competitive, but for those people who want to get into ranked and accomplish something in a game, which quite a lot of people do, they should be given the chance to play a ranked scenario to practice or get the feel of it. Most MOBAs do this, and it works fine.

TL;DR
5v5 will work perfectly fine in dirty bomb.
The map sizes are fit for the 5v5 purpose.
Casual play is fine, but should not be forced upon players. they should be given the opportunity to play a tougher format without playing through a third party.

(pumpkinmeerkat) #19

The game is designed for 5v5. We have been told this by the devs. From personal experience playing 7v7 and 8v8 I 100% agree with them.

SD/Nexon markets the game as a “fast-paced free-to-play competitive shooter” and I imagine the focus will always be competitive rather than casual. That being said, nothing wrong with players enjoying 8v8 and plenty of players certainly do. There should always be a casual option for players that want that as well.

(Szakalot) #20

i played 3v3s on trainyard that were super intense and back and forth.

imo some people think maps are too big for 5v5
cause nobody navigates the map fast
enough, lol.

or they just prefer a free fire zone where spam gets the majority of kills.