Developer perception of 10v10?

[Hidden Gunman]

With the post advising of the return of 10v10 to 40 minutes (thank you and well done on that...), could someone from Eugen advise us of what their perception of the imbalance of the 10v10 game is, please?

With the reduction of time limit, players from both factions were claiming that they were disadvantaged, not withstanding that it reduced the time we got to play with the phase C toys.

I've suggested before that the 10v10 game could be a stand-alone mode in its' own right, balanced separately to the other game modes (decks having less air, less off-board arty, and an embargo on the number of peak phase C units onboard at any one time per deck), but at the present situation people are happy with it due to the fun factor, despite the obvious cluster issues. A couple more maps would really pick things up, too.

 

[morpher]

It was proposed a long time ago.

 

[1776ZOOMSNIPE1911]

With the post advising of the return of 10v10 to 40 minutes (thank you and well done on that...), could someone from Eugen advise us of what their perception of the imbalance of the 10v10 game is, please?

With the reduction of time limit, players from both factions were claiming that they were disadvantaged, not withstanding that it reduced the time we got to play with the phase C toys.

I've suggested before that the 10v10 game could be a stand-alone mode in its' own right, balanced separately to the other game modes (decks having less air, less off-board arty, and an embargo on the number of peak phase C units onboard at any one time per deck), but at the present situation people are happy with it due to the fun factor, despite the obvious cluster issues. A couple more maps would really pick things up, too.

That's a lot of work for the gimick game mode

 

[Hidden Gunman]

That's a lot of work for the gimick game mode

The point is to create a legitimate game mode, and move it away from the gimmick mode. The same gimmick mode that has currently kept the game numbers afloat, by the look of things.

The point of my post isn't that though, it's to find out what the devs are thinking, specifically about the "...unfair..." aspects of the current 10v10 situation. It's been near impossible to have a rational discussion of problems with the 10v10 game with the discussion always being hijacked by calls to shut down the 10v10 game, or being sidetracked into balancing focus on the other modes. Now that we are seeing some traction with the 10v10 game with a few of the more vocal naysayers no longer with us, we may as well have some reasonable discussion about it.

 

[Eug_garnet]

Hi Hidden Gunman,

I understand your point of view. However, at this time we have no plan to create a dedicated balance for the 10v10.

 

[Zinegata]

The core issue is that 10 v 10s aren't really "balanceable" to begin with. The math simply shows there are too many possible match-up combinations for balance to be possible. Note that a 1v1 matchup already has 81 potential match-up combination on its own. You can have 3,486,784,401 (9 to the 10th power) possible Division combinations for one side alone.

The thing is you don't necessarily need balance to make a mode fun. It may be unfun for "competitive" players (many of whom just use use "balance" as an excuse for defeats or boredom at unbroken string of victories), but the 10 v 10s had been consistently one of the most-played modes for much of the game's run until recently.

That people keep mistaking balance for fun is a big reason why the new patches aren't really helping the game, and if anything might even be killing it faster.

 

[Hidden Gunman]

Hi Hidden Gunman,

I understand your point of view. However, at this time we have no plan to create a dedicated balance for the 10v10.

No problems and thanks for that response. Could someone let us know what aspects the devs see as imbalancing? We fully appreciate that 10v10 as it stands is not a primary focus, nor a specific balancing target, but the fact that the devs saw fit to reduce the time limit in the first place indicates that you guys are seeing something off your telemetry...we aren't asking for secrets, just to know that we (devs and 10v10 fanbase) are thinking on similar lines.

 

[Gilmund]

The core issue is that 10 v 10s aren't really "balanceable" to begin with. The math simply shows there are too many possible match-up combinations for balance to be possible. Note that a 1v1 matchup already has 81 potential match-up combination on its own. You can have 3,486,784,401 (9 to the 10th power) possible Division combinations for one side alone.

The thing is you don't necessarily need balance to make a mode fun. It may be unfun for "competitive" players (many of whom just use use "balance" as an excuse for defeats or boredom at unbroken string of victories), but the 10 v 10s had been consistently one of the most-played modes for much of the game's run until recently.

That people keep mistaking balance for fun is a big reason why the new patches aren't really helping the game, and if anything might even be killing it faster.

I agree with you. The balance thing is way more crucial in 1vs1, 2vs2 i'd say. Players do not play 10vs10 to get balance i think, i guess the ones who does gets angry with arty or plane trains. You mostly play 10vs10 to get a scale of big engagements. It's fun, even if you loose.
The worse 10vs10 are probly the ones where noone is helping each other. I'm fine when i loose against good teamplay.

 

[Archonsod]

I think the main issue is that every time you go into a 10v10 game the 9 idiots get put on your team

 

[Red Army]

The same gimmick mode that has currently kept the game numbers afloat, by the look of things

Better dead than red.

 

[Aeon221]

When people say they want balance in 10v10, they mean they want things that suck to play against to be toned down. Not that they're looking for competitive balance. Emphasis on the sucks part. Something might be wildly ineffective at winning - spamming artillery for example - but could still be so unpleasant that something would need to be done about it.

Example problem : it sucks to fight a team where a couple of players spawn 40 Hs129 between them and scour the earth of allied armor.

Example solution : Hs129 availability was reduced by eliminating duplicate cards in each phase with no impact on competitive gameplay

Eugen seems fine with removing sucky experiences from 10v10 so everything is good.