Who wouldn't be ok for forced leverl-distributed 5v5 public matches?

(chickenNwaffles) #1

8v8 pubs, in this game, are on a whole other spectrum of play than 5v5s. It’s really astonishing the difference less players can make: there is less spam, more teamwork, and more individual skill. To simplify balance of both maps and gameplay, I propose that SD make it so all servers are locked the competitive status-quo of 5v5. It may seem a bit radical, as most of the empty servers will be full, there will be less spam and chaos, and less whining about 8v8 problems on the forums, but it’s the price we have to pay.

Even if you want to casually play an unranked match in LoL, you still have to play a 5v5 on summoners rift, just like the professionals do. Thus, the game is balanced around 5v5 on summoners rift! Same with cs:go. Nobody likes casual in cs:go, because of the random cluster **** it is, puts it on a whole other spectrum when compared to 5v5 competitive matchmaking. (Ex. http://www.reddit.com/r/GlobalOffensive/comments/2n42as/csgo_needs_an_unranked_5v5_competitive_match/ Lots of people want unranked 5v5…) The game is ONLY balanced around 5v5, unlike dirtybomb, where the maps and the gameplay sometimes feel like they cater too much to the casual, 8v8 players, and the more serious and dedicated 5v5 players get the short end of the stick.

If you simply force everyone to play on the same type of game style, you simplify map and game balance a ton. I’m not saying every pub should be like a match making 5v5, pubs are pubs, they are there to **** around and just click at people, but making them 5v5 only with maybe a level restriction would simplify things a lot, and make the 8v8 servers more fun for all.

(LiNkzr) #2

Games shouldn’t be balanced for both 8v8 and 5v5 in my opinion, you just can’t make it happen.

(titan) #3

There needs to be a large push into getting players to play mm instead of pubs. It’s totally understandable why they don’t because A) you can’t find a game and B) back when you could you’d just match vs full teams and get demolishedddd.
Not sure what the solution is but im sure some smart mind does!

(Protekt1) #4

I’ve always been in favor of the 5v5 or 6v6 format.

In fact this was brought up quite a long time ago as well.

I forget the precise reasoning but it had to do something with the drop in/out aspect of casual games.

I personally would much prefer smaller servers. The maps aren’t really big enough to support larger numbers anyway.

(Violator) #5

The maps are currently too small (with the exception of Dome perhaps) for more than 6v6, preferably 5v5. We had a nice 7v7 SW game on Chapel last night with good balanced teams but it was impossible for either team to break through the defensive wall on the last objective due to the amount of spam + the proximity of the defenders to the transmit point. As we seem to be stuck with this now I think the maps need a player limit and / or a limit of ‘spammy’ classes (Sky, Nader etc.).

(montheponies) #6

8v8 is more forgiving of player drops, but yes it is a complete spamfest. That said, some folk like a complete spam fest - whenever I used to finish playing clan matches I’d ‘relax’ playing on a 32man tram server, just because of the banter and fun. The crucial thing there was that the Tram as a map could handle the number of players - whereas a great comp map like frostbite would be a complete disaster with 16 a side - very rare to find a map that can scale accordingly.

(Zenity) #7

5on5 is awful for casual pubs in FPS, because just one player dropping completely shifts the balance. This happens even in ranked CSGO matches, even though you get punished for leaving and you get a bot replacement which you can possess as soon as you die. If two players drop, you can basically surrender. So to make 5on5 play really well, you need a lot of commitment from the players. You also need fairly balanced teams, because a single skilled player has a much higher impact on the average skill level of the team than in an eight man team. That’s another reason why it just works better with rankings.

I just think we need to get matchmaking going ASAP, and I can see it happening even in closed beta with three fairly simple improvements:

  1. Finish implementing visible rankings to encourage players to queue up. Being stomped by better players is always awful, but with visible ranking it feels a bit less awful since you know where you stand and what can be expected of you.

  2. Add the number of queuing players not just to the queue screen, but also to the play overview screen. So if nobody is queueing, you know that if you start queueing at least other people will see it and maybe add themselves to the queue.

  3. Provide noticeably higher credits and/or XP payouts for ranked games, as an additional incentive.

As far as balancing is concerned, there are different ways to deal with it. One way would be to focus balance on ranked games, and then add special restrictions to casuals if necessary (though most of the time it won’t be necessary, because a bit of imbalance or spam isn’t the end of the world in casual games).

Another method would be to go for the lowest common denominator. If a merc would be too powerful in casual games, nerf it. If a merc would be too powerful in ranked games, nerf it. Even if that means that the merc would become useless in either casual or competitive matches. Since there will be a large number of mercs eventually, we can’t expect them all to be perfectly viable for competitive matches anyway. What matters is that the competitive game is fun and interesting enough with the mercs that are viable. A single merc being underpowered is much less of an issue than a single merc being overpowered.

(chickenNwaffles) #8

This is the exact logic that I hope SD avoids. In making level specific 5v5 pubs, SD would just be simplifying balance a ton. Also, why shouldn’t every merc be viable in the competitive scene? I feel like that is a bad way of looking at balance. Look at overwatch for example, the devs want to make it so every hero is viable. Neglecting certain mercs’ competitive validity is simply lazy; every merc should have it’s place in the competitive scene, or else we will be play 2xfragger, 2x bonez, and 1 proxy/sky for the rest of our lives. The game will get stale really quickly, and there will be little to no counter play involved in the game.

(Amerika) #9

I agree with this and have proposed it myself. 5v5 unranked and 5v5 ranked with a few extra incentives going towards the 5v5 ranked to ensure people want to do it. The only issue with a setup like this is when people drop out early. You’d have to impose some pretty harsh rules but anybody who has ever played LoL, Dota or CSGO knows this going in (which is most of us). Also, instead of putting in a bot for the replaced player or leaving the slot empty there could be checkbox when you queue that says you’re willing to go into an already in progress game and you’ll get extra credits or guaranteed case for doing it. So people who don’t ever want to go into those games don’t have to and people who are cool with the extra can help everyone out. Win/Win.

So, in list form, I’d love to see this.

  1. 5v5 unranked and ranked only. Remove 6v6-8v8 pubs.
  2. Allow people to join matches in progress and give them incentive to do so (guaranteed case, extra credits etc).
  3. Do not force people to join matches in progress (just put a check mark box)
  4. Use unranked matches to assign the initial ranked MM value.
  5. Give ranked matches more incentive (more credits, higher case drop rate)

I think this would make the game more competitive, easier to balance, allow SD to focus on metrics easier without so much noise from the different public games and give a consistent experience for everyone. It would also help promote teamwork I think. And then you can add private servers for teams/tournaments to rent/use.