Larger Deathmatches on Larger Servers!

[HalfSquirrel]

It may make logical mathematical sense, and I may have agreed with this on the past, but after further thought I now disagree. Larger deathmatches would cause a lot more confusion in death match, and a large change in deathmatch PvP strategy, where there are normally 3 players there would be plenty more and completely change you have to fight.

It definitely does make sense, and would speed up games a lot (especially in 120 player servers), but it would be annoying to have to do a more than 4 person deathmatch. I don't want to have to try and kill that many people, especially if it's a team of 3 against me which will undoubtedly happen a lot.

You might say that "It's a bigger game anyways though, you have to create new PvP strategies for that too!" Well not really. For bigger games, there are bigger maps, so everyone will get more territory than they would in a normal game. In the end, it will always end up playing out similarly to a normal 24 person game.

 

[KorStonesword]

It may make logical mathematical sense, and I may have agreed with this on the past, but after further thought I now disagree. Larger deathmatches would cause a lot more confusion in death match, and a large change in deathmatch PvP strategy, where there are normally 3 players there would be plenty more and completely change you have to fight.

It definitely does make sense, and would speed up games a lot (especially in 120 player servers), but it would be annoying to have to do a more than 4 person deathmatch. I don't want to have to try and kill that many people, especially if it's a team of 3 against me which will undoubtedly happen a lot.

You might say that "It's a bigger game anyways though, you have to create new PvP strategies for that too!" Well not really. For bigger games, there are bigger maps, so everyone will get more territory than they would in a normal game. In the end, it will always end up playing out similarly to a normal 24 person game.

While I have to agree somewhat with what you say, I also have to disagree. I think it would spice up the games, and make them more interesting. Hey, if you don't like larger deathmatches, 24-player is still there! Also, a lot of people are suggesting major increases in deathmatches by multiplying the number (i.e 48-player = 6 person dm, 120-player = 12 person dm), my suggestion is a very small change. Perhaps 48p server just increase the deathmatch player-count to four, since it always seems like that's the number I'm stuck on anyways. I also wanted to increase 120p server deathmatches to six. Something small, but would help the games go faster and be less boring.
You said that teams in deathmatch would not be much fun, two-person deathmatch teams are bad enough (especially on maps that have terrible corns for fighting a team in deathmatche, like Valleyside.) But if you think about it, if you are stuck fighting a three-team in a game, you're still going to have to fight them eventually. Sure, you might have more area to work with, it'll still suck. Also, I rarely see three-teams that don't have terrible gear and suck.

While I understand where you're coming from on the standpoint of teams, I've weighed the pros and cons and it seems like it's still the better choice. This is purely my opinion on the matter. I can completely understand your point of view, and it makes sense why you disagree with this.

 

[HalfSquirrel]

While I have to agree somewhat with what you say, I also have to disagree. I think it would spice up the games, and make them more interesting. Hey, if you don't like larger deathmatches, 24-player is still there! Also, a lot of people are suggesting major increases in deathmatches by multiplying the number (i.e 48-player = 6 person dm, 120-player = 12 person dm), my suggestion is a very small change. Perhaps 48p server just increase the deathmatch player-count to four, since it always seems like that's the number I'm stuck on anyways. I also wanted to increase 120p server deathmatches to six. Something small, but would help the games go faster and be less boring.
You said that teams in deathmatch would not be much fun, two-person deathmatch teams are bad enough (especially on maps that have terrible corns for fighting a team in deathmatche, like Valleyside.) But if you think about it, if you are stuck fighting a three-team in a game, you're still going to have to fight them eventually. Sure, you might have more area to work with, it'll still suck. Also, I rarely see three-teams that don't have terrible gear and suck.

While I understand where you're coming from on the standpoint of teams, I've weighed the pros and cons and it seems like it's still the better choice. This is purely my opinion on the matter. I can completely understand your point of view, and it makes sense why you disagree with this.

I can take a slight increase, but having the same fraction of the players get sent to deathmatch seems a bit crazy. What you suggested allows for only slight adaptation, and maybe a good amount for the total amount of players in the lobby. I'd rather have no increase, but I could live with a slight increase like what you said.

 

[silvah777]

15 player death match on 120 server would be pretty sick

 

[Nebulousity]

This is a really good idea to be honest. Though increasing the number of players required for deathmatch by 3 survivors per 24 users can be a bit excessive.
I think that in 48 servers deathmatch can be triggered when there is 6 people left but on 120 servers it should be triggered when 8 or 9 players remain.

 

[Chaos_Slayer_]

Yes add this, I would like to see this.