Reduce Game Count On All Maps

[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(GEN)]

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.