Suggestion to remove Max Numbers of Deaths in Deathmatch
seventyfive
✭✭✭
Title says it all really.
The reason you ask? Let's cover it:
First of all, who was competitive deathmatch meant to cater to?
- The competitive-minded battleground players.
From what I can tell, the more casual the player is, the more they enjoy the feature of max number of deaths in DM.
This seems to be a very strong connection.
The reason for this is that it is an equaliser, or expressed with a bit of a lighthearted touch: the communist way.
In every single sub-match of DM, by design, one of the teams always ends the team with 3 deaths each. Equal for everyone.
If a player is performing better than their team, yet still doesn't manage to carry the DM on their own, they're punished for it by eventually having to play outnumbered.
From the super-casuals perspective, they never rack of a large amount of deaths, and they have a good shot at taking down better players if they happend to end up numerically superior, which they by design will, in approximately 50% of their matches.
That would be fine if the name was "Casual Battlegrounds", but that wasn't the intention was it?
We have been given a fine separate version for that, namely the 8v8, which casuses an individuals impact to matter less, and is a great option for those just want to relax and enjoy the game.
The reason you ask? Let's cover it:
First of all, who was competitive deathmatch meant to cater to?
- The competitive-minded battleground players.
From what I can tell, the more casual the player is, the more they enjoy the feature of max number of deaths in DM.
This seems to be a very strong connection.
The reason for this is that it is an equaliser, or expressed with a bit of a lighthearted touch: the communist way.
In every single sub-match of DM, by design, one of the teams always ends the team with 3 deaths each. Equal for everyone.
If a player is performing better than their team, yet still doesn't manage to carry the DM on their own, they're punished for it by eventually having to play outnumbered.
From the super-casuals perspective, they never rack of a large amount of deaths, and they have a good shot at taking down better players if they happend to end up numerically superior, which they by design will, in approximately 50% of their matches.
That would be fine if the name was "Casual Battlegrounds", but that wasn't the intention was it?
We have been given a fine separate version for that, namely the 8v8, which casuses an individuals impact to matter less, and is a great option for those just want to relax and enjoy the game.
0
-
tsaescishoeshiner✭✭✭✭✭
✭✭I think it's a nice idea, but winds up amplifying how one-sided a match is. Usually, if one team is stronger, they have to fight the whole match to stay on top. But with death limits, once it's 4v3, there's probably no coming back. Except for those rare, epic matches between two closely-matched highly skilled teams ... maybe.
One benefit is that it does speed the match up considerably. But after waiting in a queue, I'm not sure I want a fast, one-sided match lol.PC-NA
in-game: @tsaescishoeshiner2
