Reduce Game Count On All Maps

[WM Feedback]

I'd like to cut the required games to win a map by about 1/3.

Here's why:

The second map's count usually gets cut down anyways
We have fewer people this war, and playing the same map 4+ times is overkill
Don't we all love it when battle night ends a little early? I do.


Number crunching
A rough 33% cut would look like this:

(4v4s) 27 -> 17
(6v6s) 19 -> 13
(8v8s) 15 -> 9

Why this isn't really a big change:

Using this last week as an example where 45 games were played with 28 games on haven and 17 games on Pitfall (See what I mean?), we would have played 19 games on haven (assuming 1 tie and 1 tiebreaker), and 17 games on Pitfall.

Total games would have been 36 instead of 45 (20% reduction) and we would have finished about an hour earlier.

[Jam Cliché]

There was discussion about this in the War Council, and it was generally agreed upon to change the game count based on the attendance that night.

I believe this to be a complete flop of an idea.

I went over some suggestions for static changes, but we never came to an agreement.

The other issue surrounding the game count is how many times we allow a team to play a map. I did some digging and then some math:


2.4 Battles fought on large maps (8v8) shall be played best 8 of 15 games. Medium (6v6) battles will be best 10 of 19 games. Small (4v4) battles will be best 14 of 27 games.
3.3 No single squad or player is allowed to play in 6 games on a 4v4 map, 5 games on a 6v6 map, or 4 games on a 8v8 map. Any squad or player participating in more games will cause those games to be forfeits. (Tiebreaker games not included in this)

8v8 map
Best 8 of 15
Max 4 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 4 teams (32 people)
(4 teams * 4 games = 16 > 15)

6v6 map
Best 10 of 19
Max 5 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 4 teams (24 people)
(4 teams * 5 games = 20 > 19)

4v4 map
Best 14 of 27
Max 6 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 5 teams (20 people)
(5 teams * 6 games = 30 > 27)

My recommendations have changed some as time progresses, but here is what I suggest currently in terms of changes. I've been really firm about having a flat number of max games per map as well as a flat number of people required to play through the whole map, then adjusting the game count around that. This is what I come up with if you hold the max games per team at 3 and the minimum number of people at 24.


8v8 map
Best 5 of 9
Max 3 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 3 teams (24 people)
(3 teams * 3 games = 9 games)

6v6 map
Best 6 of 11
Max 3 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 4 teams (24 people)
(4 teams * 3 games = 12 > 11)

4v4 map
Best 9 of 17
Max 3 games per team
Minimum teams needed: 6 teams (24 people)
(6 teams * 3 games = 18 > 17)

[Fernando Naranj]

I like this idea, this would suit the UK guys a lot better.

And ultimately, the times we have to leave the BN at.


I am definitely in agreement with this suggestion.

[KazuhLLL]

The other issue surrounding the game count is how many times we allow a team to play a map.


That's a non-issue compared to the issue of ~4.5 hour Battle-Nights (with game counts slashed on 2nd map).

IMO, these two changes are a given:

8v8 : Best 5 of 9
Max games per team: 3

4v4 : Best 9 of 17
Max games per team: 4


The only toss-up for me is the 6v6s. It would either be:

6v6: Best 7 of 13
Max games per team: 4

or

6v6: Best 6 of 11
Max games per team: 3

[Barry Soap]

I'll be in favour of anything that helps the UK side. :) Good suggestion!

[Jam Cliché]

That's a non-issue compared to the issue of ~4.5 hour Battle-Nights (with game counts slashed on 2nd map).


You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the max game count is an inherent subject to the overall game count issue. If you lower the game count without changing the limit, you cause a problem.

[silversleek]

really the only issue in the past few weeks was multiple 4v4's at the same time.

i'm only really in favour of a decrease in the number for dlc maps, since they will cause the most issues. For others i believe it to be fine.

[Jam Cliché]

really the only issue in the past few weeks was multiple 4v4's at the same time.

i'm only really in favour of a decrease in the number for dlc maps, since they will cause the most issues. For others i believe it to be fine.

The debate has been going on since before we started doubling up on 4v4 maps. If we keep making excuses as to why the Battle Nights take so long, we're never going to make them go faster.

[silversleek]

The debate has been going on since before we started doubling up on 4v4 maps. If we keep making excuses as to why the Battle Nights take so long, we're never going to make them go faster.

is it really so bad that battle nights are longer though? wasn't that the whole point of increasing the number of games in the first place? I know i find it much more enjoyable now then when they were like 1- 1 1/2 hours.

[Jam Cliché]

is it really so bad that battle nights are longer though? wasn't that the whole point of increasing the number of games in the first place? I know i find it much more enjoyable now then when they were like 1- 1 1/2 hours.

No, they are not. People get tired of playing for all that time. Why do you think we have already been reducing the game count on the second map? The night is taking too long.

[Al Capone111]

is it really so bad that battle nights are longer though? wasn't that the whole point of increasing the number of games in the first place? I know i find it much more enjoyable now then when they were like 1- 1 1/2 hours.

Didn't we up the numbers when there was significantly more people jumping on? Because then squads were only playing maybe twice on a map. Since it seems that less people are showing up, and squads (each half of the squad on small maps) are now having to play a single map 5+ times, it would make sense to lower the game number a bit.

Personally I hate playing the same map 5 times and it taking almost 2 hours for just one map.

[silversleek]

No, they are not. People get tired of playing for all that time. Why do you think we have already been reducing the game count on the second map? The night is taking too long.

i assumed it was for the aforementioned dlc thing since less people could get on, but if you wish to lower the battle count it shouldn't be by a lot. start with a small reduction and wait from there.

On 4v4's, say, down from 14/27 to 11/21

[Zeta Crossfire]

So how many games do people want to play a night? last war we had 4 games a night (2 per map) this war it looks like 8 games a night (4 per map) is 6 games a night (3 per map) a better number?

[KazuhLLL]

You misunderstand me. I'm saying that the max game count is an inherent subject to the overall game count issue. If you lower the game count without changing the limit, you cause a problem.

I see no issue, lol.

Rec 1 had:

8v8
Best 6/11

6v6
Best 7/13

4v4
Best 10/19

And the BN's ended between 8:30-9:30, depending on which size maps were chosen. I believe the max games per team were 3/4/5 respectively. We should just go back to that.

[Jam Cliché]

I see no issue, lol.

Rec 1 had:

8v8
Best 6/11

6v6
Best 7/13

4v4
Best 10/19

And the BN's ended between 8:30-9:30, depending on which size maps were chosen. I believe the max games per team were 3/4/5 respectively. We should just go back to that.

The issue there is in the math.
If you have to play 11 games on an 8v8, and a team can only play 3, you need 4 teams (32 people)
If you play 13 games on a 6v6, and a team can only play 4, you need 4 teams (24 people)
If you play 19 games on a 4v4, and a team can play 5, you need 5 teams (20 people)

Larger maps require more people for less games, and as the map gets smaller, you have a smaller amount of people playing more games. It's what gets everyone so burned out by the end of the night.

The suggestion I made sets the personnel count at 24 and builds the game count around that. And it makes it so that a team plays 3 games per map regardless of size.

[Houdini]

I would prefer a slight cut in the number of games each squad plays. If each play played 5-6 games a night, I would be much happier. 8 is too many.

[KazuhLLL]

The issue there is in the math.
If you have to play 11 games on an 8v8, and a team can only play 3, you need 4 teams (32 people)
If you play 13 games on a 6v6, and a team can only play 4, you need 4 teams (24 people)
If you play 19 games on a 4v4, and a team can play 5, you need 5 teams (20 people)

Larger maps require more people for less games, and as the map gets smaller, you have a smaller amount of people playing more games. It's what gets everyone so burned out by the end of the night.

The suggestion I made sets the personnel count at 24 and builds the game count around that. And it makes it so that a team plays 3 games per map regardless of size.

Bigger maps are done first, so it doesn't really matter in most cases. The whole point of having a "max game" limit is to prevent an army from abusing a good team to get an unfair number of wins, and the limit is so flexible that he almost never even see it. The only time we ever hit the limit was when BLUE had like 3 squads on a 4v4 map.

The max game limit is a secondary factor that should be worked around whatever decision we make. It's nowhere near a primary factor which we should base our decision around.

[Jam Cliché]

Bigger maps are done first, so it doesn't really matter in most cases. The whole point of having a "max game" limit is to prevent an army from abusing a good team to get an unfair number of wins, and the limit is so flexible that he almost never even see it. The only time we ever hit the limit was when BLUE had like 3 squads on a 4v4 map.

The max game limit is a secondary factor that should be worked around whatever decision we make. It's nowhere near a primary factor which we should base our decision around.

I don't understand why we are arguing then. I'm saying everything you're saying. The decision should be if we should lower the game count. Given that I feel we should, I'm supplying what I feel is the best way to do so. Rather than just say "let's lower the game count", I am acknowledging that there are other factors that are affected by the number of games we play on each map. So instead of just cutting games and hoping for the best, I have made a suggestion based on how many people will be playing and how many games a team really wants to play.

24 is a good number to work with. All team sizes that we use (4/6/8) divide into it evenly. So as we transition from one map to another, team building under the pretense that we need at least that number of people is easy, and with a limit of 3 games per team, we can ensure that a particular player will participate in 5-6 games in a night.

These are under ideal circumstances, of course, and we can't always be idealistic. We will change player count as the night goes on, and some players will leave and be replaced, but this method forms a baseline that we can adhere to without causing any problems when the player count increases. If, at some point, we exceed an average of 30+ players per army per night consistently, then I would recommend increasing the game count again, but with the same guidelines of a set minimum player count to meet and a set maximum number of games.

If you want to chop the number of games while keeping the maximum games constant, so be it. I, too, think that the max game limit exists in the background of all the goings-on and almost never comes to the surface, even if I think it should be adjusted along with everything, but I don't see the point in arguing the finer bits of how much to lower the game count, because that's exactly how the discussion in the War Council dissolved into inaction.

Do we or do we not lower it? If yes, then we can decide to how to approach that.

[Yehsus]

jam I sometimes think your salvanous.....in disguise.

[Maxdoggy]

jam I sometimes think your salvanous.....in disguise.
*except that Jam isn't as annoying as Salvanous is. And Jam doesn't speak in essay-form.

Otherwise, JAM IS SALVANOUS.

[McL00V]

personally i just hate the waiting between games, not actually playing the games themselves. i could play 10 games if it was done in a timely manner. 4 hour battlenights are just too long though.

[Houdini]

personally i just hate the waiting between games, not actually playing the games themselves. i could play 10 games if it was done in a timely manner. 4 hour battlenights are just too long though.

When teams are pushing 7-8 games during a Battle Night, that is 2 hours of in game play time. Even if we only had ~5 minute waits between games plus a ~15 minute break between maps we would still be pushing 3 hours for a Battle Night. I would prefer to have a battle night that is closer to 2 hours with all of the wait times included.

[ThatAwkardGuy]

Yes, so I can have more time to play Halo 3.

[Jam Cliché]

The War Council has agreed to refocus the game count this coming Sunday based on the attendance. Each team formed should expect to play 3 games on each map. The exact number of games will depend on the amount of teams that attend.