Solo Lobby Size Experiment Feedback and Survey!

[Yoshiro]

Agents, please let us know your detailed feedback on the Solo Lobby Size experiment after you've had a chance to play. The schedule of this experiment is listed below as a reminder.

Player Count Schedule:

• Monday Nov. 6-Tuesday Nov. 7: 7 Players Solo matches
• Wednesday Nov. 8 -Thursday Nov. 9: 8 Players Solo matches
• Friday Nov. 10 -Saturday Nov. 11: 9 Players Solo matches

For the poll, please let us know if you feel the reduced player count in solo benefits the experience, and if so, which lobby size was the best experience. And please feel free to add the why in your post in this thread!

 

[Z&B]

Reduced player counts won't actually do anything to make the game less deathmatch-y. All it does is make the game more boring because you're less likely to even see anyone.

Respawns in solos with decrements in health (and possibly not losing chips on death) are the way to go, at least matches won't end the second a fight breaks out.

 

[Realmjumper]

So far I am enjoying the lower player count. Today I was able to get two wins.

 

[Range]

I actually like the 10 solos, it's more sometime the spawns can just be truly unfortunate, If anything, The map I would lower the player amount would be Diamond Sphere (looking at you D floor.) But the trill of being in a vault with 5+ other people alive is soooo fun! I'm just afraid that lowering the to 7 would make it that only 2 people would be alive after the first phase

 

[Realmjumper]

I am enjoying the lower player count. I think 7-8 is the sweet spot. I haven't tried 9 obviously since that isn't out yet, but with the 7 player count I was able to win a lot easier and had less of a stressful match. 8 was fine as well, although escaping was a bit tricky sometimes as there were more players alive at the end.

 

[Bob M.]

7-8 player lobby felt way better (did only one win but still had more fun)
- It doesn't speed up the game since people are less likely to run into each other
- It doesn't slow down the game (there are still games where peoples rushed vault terminal)
Overall, I feel like the pace of the game is determined by the players gameplay rather than the number of people: If the lobby wants blood, the game becomes quickly a 1v1v1, but if there are some serious spy, then phase 2 and 3 gets really interesting

- With 10/9 player lobby, you often end up with 2other people in the same vault as you, but only one can get out alive. thing is, when you are playing for stealth ant thus always die in this situation, you find yourself looping games where you die after 5min because its too crowded.
7 player lobby reduced by A LOT the occurence of this situation, making it sooo much pleaseant to click the "play button" after losing a game

I understand people saying that it creates less fight, but Deceive inc has been a Shooting range since it's launch and I don't think it is the direction for the game.
Anyway the game is the recent improvment, and i hope I'll be able to say the same in the future
Cheers to the Devs

 

[Skiffin]

When it was 10 players lobbies, I was mostly spawned with another spy somewhere close. I made my strategy around avoiding early fights at all costs and getting into terminal rooms as soon as possible. The new proximity sound update made it so the safest place to be is somewhere with walls, otherwise anyone can hear the fight and 3rd party. 10 players' lobbies are fine, it just makes people play more passively on purpose if they want to have better chances of winning imo. I like 7 players' lobbies more because spawns are safer, which means getting starting intel is easier, rushing is easier, finding local region lobbies is also faster, and more people are in the endgame. Both 10 and 7 have their advantages, I like 7 more just because it is less chaotic and more competitive. Please add some kind of ranking in the game so people have a purpose to grind. Echalon is cool, but it is not enough. People want to see themselves on the leaderboard even tho there is not much matchmaking. We need smth to grind for - TummyAches words.

 

[Emire]

Reduced player counts won't actually do anything to make the game less deathmatch-y. All it does is make the game more boring because you're less likely to even see anyone.

Respawns in solos with decrements in health (and possibly not losing chips on death) are the way to go, at least matches won't end the second a fight breaks out.

I agree with you with this statement. I feel like the same rules should apply if you were to be revived at an exit station in duos or trios. I think the balancing behind it should be you come back with 80HP, and you had to spend 5 (or 50% of your max intel if you have the intel carrier perk for further ideas) intel on the station already. You're locked out of it when the Vault opens (games already over by the time the vault opens), and if you already have it set up before the package was retrieved you can revive after that point and that's it. I think respawning with chips you spent when you set up revival point should be taken to consideration as well, but I think that's a bit too rewarding for dying.

 

[Z&B]

I agree with you with this statement. I feel like the same rules should apply if you were to be revived at an exit station in duos or trios. I think the balancing behind it should be you come back with 80HP, and you had to spend 5 (or 50% of your max intel if you have the intel carrier perk for further ideas) intel on the station already. You're locked out of it when the Vault opens (games already over by the time the vault opens), and if you already have it set up before the package was retrieved you can revive after that point and that's it. I think respawning with chips you spent when you set up revival point should be taken to consideration as well, but I think that's a bit too rewarding for dying.

I think respawns should just be something that happens by default, otherwise people will swarm the stations and that will lead to deathmatches. Killing people shouldn't be rewarded as much as it is and respawns could/should only be turned off the second the briefcase is stolen. Your health would decrement to 80-60-40 before you finally die for good and briefcase would restore it back to full, like in the team modes.

Some will argue that it ruins the point of stealth if you can risk everything and then just respawn but every other stealth MP had lives and so should DInc.; no shoddy BR gameplay. If anything, I think it would make people third party less since there's not AS much to gain from killing somebody than lowering their health by 20 if you kill them.

 

[Emire]

I think respawns should just be something that happens by default, otherwise people will swarm the stations and that will lead to deathmatches. Killing people shouldn't be rewarded as much as it is and respawns could/should only be turned off the second the briefcase is stolen. Your health would decrement to 80-60-40 before you finally die for good and briefcase would restore it back to full, like in the team modes.

Some will argue that it ruins the point of stealth if you can risk everything and then just respawn but every other stealth MP had lives and so should DInc.; no shoddy BR gameplay. If anything, I think it would make people third party less since there's not AS much to gain from killing somebody than lowering their health by 20 if you kill them.

Right, which was thinking about that last night from the few matches I played. Instead of it being revival in the extraction areas, I was thinking about them respawning in rooms like bathroom stalls and other rooms where other players might not be in.