a month ago - last edited a month ago
This is becoming quite apparent thanks to Ranked queue - the map feels, in general, over-crowded.
Part of this is to do with the very high mobility offered to players, particularly compared to most Battle Royales.
Part of this is thanks to the audio, with gunshots being so very audible from so far away (in contrast to footsteps being all but silent much of the time...).
Part of this is of course to do with players not all clumping into one area (e.g. Skull Town) just to die quickly, anymore.
It honestly feels like you can't land in any given area without a guaranteed team battle - and that odds are good that will quickly escalate into a third-party confrontation, if not a fourth and fifth. With mobility being as high as it is, the ability to "swing in" on any audible action is impossible to counteract, but something *could* be done about the map being overcrowded. (And the audio, but that's technically a different Feedback section, I suppose.)
Hence my title here - I believe it would be beneficial to experiment with a lower number of players.
48 is personally my guess at a "sweet spot" that doesn't instead make the map sparse and feel 'boring'; 51-54 might not have the desired impact, and 42-45 might have too much of that impact.
Whether it'd be better to try it for ranked queue only is beyond me, but that is a possibility to consider.
That's my 2 cents done.
4 weeks ago
I think if we had more players @hhnbbfggty66, we would need a slightly larger map. With 50% more players I feel like you would need to rely more heavily on great loot and it would feel more like a team deathmatch than survival game. I'm sure more players would be fun though if it was done right though.
3 weeks ago