Im all for it but i voted no. There is a simple demographic reason for it, it would never work. In EC we have different maps with different playerpoolsizes, this splits up the queque since there will be no "filling material" in the gvg queque. Its either 15 v 15, 20 v 20 or 30 v 30. No inbetweens, no randoms to fill the void. Now lets take a step back and think about the player numbers EC produces on a regular weekday. Primetime we are looking at 1500 concurrent users. Let us assume that we have 20% of those in guilds which can muster atleast 15 people on one weekday (this means not every weekday ofc). Thats a playerpool during primetime of 300 players which would in our example all be willing to form exactly 15 man groups. So 20 groups. With our assumed faction split of 45/30/15/10 this leaves us roughly 9 LSM 6 CSM 3 Ork 2 Eldar stacks on prime in the best case example. Those guys would be forced to play the same 2 maps over and over again and basically the system would require everyone to play against LSM otherwise the system will break. Now this might be working for a small time but how will the population react? Will every guild who is able and willing on the first day even return? There need to be 50% losses for 50% wins in each equatation. Some guilds might be "tier 3" and will not join because they get stomped and hence pressuring the system aswell. How will you gurantee enough targets show up? The system is not practicable and everyone who played orks v eldar will know how it feels to wait for your opponents to show up because there are not enough players. If EC had tripple the numbers or maybe 5 times the numbers it has you could think about such a system but it would need more maps and more incentives to work. Your idea would just not work and would not be picked up by guilds.
Yes. In my view the purpose of a guild is to find a suitable challenge. That the game doesn't support easy competitive play in realistic terms isn't helping matters. Edit: What Sloth says above is kind of correct, but ignores the possibility of flexible team sizes. i.e. bands which accommodate smaller teams.
In the current (non campaign) matchmaker, which allows flexible teams and has all those guild teams 15 man and 5 man warparties and a rich pool of soloquers included it takes on average 15 minutes + to find a match as a 15 man+ stack. This does not tell me that a system which would reduce the playerpool even further would enhance that time. The truth is there are so few stacks out there that you often have to wait for one to finish its current game to get yourself in the next game. This is not healthy. People don't want to wait 15 minutes+ for a 20-25 minute game. Especially since the primetime of this game only lasts 3-4 hours and after that you feel the steep decline of stacks and increase waitingtimes.
I read your concerns and gave it some thought. I've been thinking about it more since before you posted the quoted reply. Suppose both team size and the map win conditions were flexible AND the queued teams were visible as proposed. Have set team sizes to hit; 5 vs 5, 10 vs 10 and equal multiples of 5 up to the limit Supremacy maps have 3 points, so permanently disable 1 point for 5 vs 5 (and perhaps 10 vs 10) and set the win condition to be achievable within that time frame Hold the Line maps should scale the times & the number of reinforcements to accommodate smaller team sizes Likewise Fortresses should do the same For all maps limit vehicles to an appropriate quantity for the map & team sizes Balancing the optimum time frames, vehicles and reinforcements (where applicable) for the win conditions to be achievable for both sides might be tricky. Playing the same map twice with a dice roll to see who defends first could be a possible solution. While anything below 15 for a Fortress probably isn't a good idea, 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10 Supremacy or Hold the Line maps can work. That could be really good for practicing, as well as building competitive guilds. As for the queue being visible, i.e. how many of each size of team are queued and playing, then aim for the team size that gives you the shortest wait time if you're impatient. You'd undoubtedly see more 5 player teams than anything, but it's an opportunity to scale guild sizes as the mode gains popularity. At non-peak times you might at least get some sort of guild vs guild match, even if it's not a big one. I'll freely admit I have zero interest in being in a guild under the current system. If there were a competitive system that starts at 5 vs 5, an easy way to start a guild, you better believe I'm signing up somewhere. I want to see just how good (or bad) everyone is, myself included.
Im really open to a discussion about it but in every possible way i do not think this works in EC. Do you really think a 5v5 system could work on any of the current maps? They are currently not very well balanced in a non competive way, modifiing them would even worsen that 10 fold. You would need to adjust so much like entry points, runtime, transports to make every scenario equally challenging and hold the line maps 10 v 10 would be very boring since the defender lacks the manpower to effectively hunt vehicles while defending the points. Last but not least, even if that all was technically possible, financially possible, demographically possible, I personally do not think that the bhvr-team could stomache to balance such a feature not to mention running it ontop of how little we saw moving forward in the last few months. With their limited ressources in manpower, funds and skills to work on an exclusive feature only concering in the first stage 20-30% of their customers seems adventorous.
They have happened. Suprising that no one ever noticed it was working huh? Also, the original idea was that guilds could queue up against other guilds and that players that were looking for structured battle could fill any empty slots. What ever happened to that?
I will not pretend creating such a game mode is trivial. I think competitive 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10 is an attractive proposition which I believe could bring more players to the game, if it can be made to work. The game has a low bar to enter because players can play for free. Whether 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10 can work on every map I just don't know. Vehicles should probably be limited, below the number they are in the normal rotation, for smaller teams. Entry points are something I had not considered and I'm glad you raised it. Honestly, I'm not certain of a solution to that. Moving starting spawns for some maps may be necessary. Using @Forj 's map guide https://arkhonareports.wordpress.com/maps/ I suggest the following for 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10. Anyone feel free to nit pick these suggestions, they were done on the fly. Supremacy 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10 All Supremacy maps - Vehicle tickets reduced, Win timings reduced Pegasus - Attackers use West spawn, capture point B is inactive, all turrets inactive Torias - Attackers use South spawn, capture point C is inactive Olipsis - Attackers use West spawn, capture point B is inactive Medusa - Probably unsuitable without changing the physical starting spawn locations Blackbolt - Probably unsuitable without changing the physical starting spawn locations Hold the Line 5 vs 5 & 10 vs 10 All Hold the Line maps - Vehicle tickets reduced, Defender tickets reduced, Win timings reduced Maggon - Attackers use North spawn Zedek - Attackers can use South spawn and East spawn, South East Attacker spawn is inactive Fortress maps are probably all unsuitable for teams of less than 15 without significant physical modification. *Physical modification means moving objects around. Deactivating points, spawns & turrets and changing the number values of tickets, vehicles & timings is relatively simple by comparison; although balancing it would not be. Edit: Jump classes should probably not be available on 5 vs 5; it would make it too easy to cheese. No jump on 5 vs 5 would also make the mode an attractive start point for free players.
