Smaller Teams for Random Games ?

[anonym_h2A7Pq9RjcIx]

It was late last night, when the server population was low and found myself in an 8v8 battle.  What an refreshing experience it was, I found I was far better able to contribute to my team and focus on the game objectives.  I was able to cap, defend and then pursue the game to a team victory that felt earnt.  Now, albeit, I was in a tier 5 battle, but why should that matter?  It was genuine and felt so much more satisfying than just some sort of random win.

 

I'm of the opinion that smaller team sizes in random battles would make for a better game experience, especially at lower tiers or perhaps even higher.  Whilst I don't possess the skill to compensate for the random deficiencies in twelve player teams, I certainly can in an 8 vs 8 game.

 

It's just a reflection of how I feel when playing this game.

[JeanLouisII]

Vor 14 Minuten, Fellatio_Nelson sagte:

It was late last night, when the server population was low and found myself in an 8v8 battle.  What an refreshing experience it was, I found I was far better able to contribute to my team and focus on the game objectives.  I was able to cap, defend and then pursue the game to a team victory that felt earnt.  Now, albeit, I was in a tier 5 battle, but why should that matter?  It was genuine and felt so much more satisfying than just some sort of random win.

 

I'm of the opinion that smaller team sizes in random battles would make for a better game experience, especially at lower tiers or perhaps even higher.  Whilst I don't possess the skill to compensate for the random deficiencies in twelve player teams, I certainly can in an 8 vs 8 game.

 

It's just a reflection of how I feel when playing this game.

CVs are not baĺanced in a 12vs12. So imagine how OP they would be if the randoms would be played in a 8vs 8.

There is a reason why cvs are even more hated in ranked than in randoms...

[DFens_666]

Smaller teams make CVs even more OP... otherwise having more variety could be nice.

[Kiagy]

Make it random, 8 and 12 player games with CV unable to join 8 player games, keep CV in 12 player games

[AkerJack]

BEside the CV...I agree with you that smaller teams give more fun games...but if there are bots or, even worse, AFK people there will be no battle. They should find a way to balance it!

[Stormhawk_V]

2 minutes ago, Mahaaret said:

Make it random, 8 and 12 player games with CV unable to join 8 player games, keep CV in 12 player games

You realize there would be only CVs in the 12vs12 queue, right?

 

Smaller teams will also be great when submarines get added so we have even less surface targets not to mention spotted ones.

[tocqueville8]

If anything, I'd like to see bigger battles:

 

- more targets among which to choose, and lower chance of having no target because you had to kite away on a flank

- when potatoes (especially DDs) suicide into caps, your chances wouldn't go down as much

- slightly lower chance of blowout games, as the teams should average out a bit better

- granted, it would lead to more sniping, but how much worse can it really get?

[RenamedUser_92906789]

Isn't that ranked?

[lovelacebeer]

The smaller teams are exactly the reason why I’m starting to enjoy ranked. Sadly though smaller teams wouldn’t work in randoms as others have said due to the presence of CVs.

[Molly_Delaney]

43 minutes ago, Mahaaret said:

Make it random, 8 and 12 player games with CV unable to join 8 player games, keep CV in 12 player games

Simple answer 8 surface ships & 4 CVs per team; then it's 12v12....

 

Apply Vodka and 'is logical comrade'....

 

[guy_incognito79]

2 minutes ago, Molly_Delaney said:

Simple answer 8 surface ships & 4 CVs per team; then it's 12v12....

 

Apply Vodka and 'is logical comrade'....

 

Please don't give them any ideas!

[SV_Kompresor]

I guess a 10 vs 10 when there are no CVs and 12 vs 12 when there are CVs could work.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

But I like big teams... and big maps, and big ships...

[lameoll]

myup we have almost perma ranked right now 

and a lot of ppl play ranked for exactly this reason Not to play some competetive mode But for rewards or smaller team sizes.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

4 minutes ago, lameoll said:

myup we have almost perma ranked right now 

and a lot of ppl play ranked for exactly this reason Not to play some competetive mode But for rewards or smaller team sizes.

 

Do we really have such a large player base to sustain all these game modes? Random, coop, clan, (upcoming) brawl, ranked and operations too?

[anonym_h2A7Pq9RjcIx]

Yes, I have to agree.  The game I played had no carriers present and that in itself added to the enjoyment.  I suppose that's another arguement against the overpowering effect carriers have on the game.  Not only do they detract from the fun, they also dictate the size of the teams and that added to an endless list of other things they interfere with.  Truly, a frustrating state of affairs that Wargaming seem incapable of addressing for the better.

[Jethro_Grey]

Ugh, no.

 

Don't fiddle with randoms.

As a separate game mode, sure.

[Karasu_Browarszky]

1 hour ago, Fellatio_Nelson said:

Yes, I have to agree.  The game I played had no carriers present and that in itself added to the enjoyment.  I suppose that's another arguement against the overpowering effect carriers have on the game.  Not only do they detract from the fun, they also dictate the size of the teams and that added to an endless list of other things they interfere with.  Truly, a frustrating state of affairs that Wargaming seem incapable of addressing for the better.

 You may have noticed, that depending on what class you have and your play style, the game is more fun to play with a slightly 'stupid' MM. My best game yesterday (playing Musashi) had such an MM; we did have CV's (fortunately), but oddly only 1 DD per team and about equal numbers of BB's and cruisers. My tally was 1 cruiser, 3 BB's and 1 CV (getting to sink that was why I said 'fortunately').

 

Me actually getting to contribute was the odd thing, which felt fun. I brought up the unusual MM, but the real explanation for the fun part is that battle was dynamically paced and IMO our team won because we were able to thwart the enemy push, reverse the direction of the battle and outflank the remaining enemy. Was this due to not having so many DD's? If the DD's are the cause of the camping playstyle why don't we have sufficient options for counteplay under normal conditions (MM)?

[anonym_h2A7Pq9RjcIx]

Regardless of other factors, doesn't the size of a team dictate how much an individual participant is likely to effect the outcome of a game?

 

 

[Johnny_Moneto]

I really like the idea that we skip the dogma of 12 vs 12 in Randoms. MM could randomly create an 8 vs 8 or 7 vs 7, choose a not-big map, 1 tier difference and no CV. Just make it happen randomly.

[ghostbuster_]

Making team size smaller makes skill requirement lower since you have less enemies you need to keep an eye on. Imo team size should be bigger. Like 15v15 or 18v18. But wows still dont have enough players for bigger teams.

[tocqueville8]

I love how the OP simply downvoted all the replies that disagreed with him 

[Karasu_Browarszky]

Does anyone still remember 'Asymmetrical Battles'? I kinda liked those, also the maps were a welcome change.

[ghostbuster_]

6 minutes ago, tocqueville8 said:

I love how the OP simply downvoted all the replies that disagreed with him 

Thats how they do in kindergarten

[ghostbuster_]

5 minutes ago, Karasu_Hidesuke said:

Does anyone still remember 'Asymmetrical Battles'? I kinda liked those, also the maps were a welcome change.

I remember playing fuso against yamatos or montanas. Wasnt that fun.