Can you bring back population counts for each playlist so we know which playlists will have the fastest search times.
No.
Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
> 2533274796134361;2:
> No.
>
> Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
The more people the better
> 2533274898721100;3:
> > 2533274796134361;2:
> > No.
> >
> > Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
>
> The more people the better
Yes, but they’ve already said they’re against player counts. Simply put, because a lower population playlist will continue to lose players because “no one’s playing it”, so people won’t queue up for it. It works better if they just leave it as is. Also, seconded to what Kitten said.
> 2533274823625840;4:
> > 2533274898721100;3:
> > > 2533274796134361;2:
> > > No.
> > >
> > > Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
> >
> > The more people the better
>
> Yes, but they’ve already said they’re against player counts. Simply put, because a lower population playlist will continue to lose players because “no one’s playing it”, so people won’t queue up for it. It works better if they just leave it as is. Also, seconded to what Kitten said.
So basically no chance whatsoever for a population counter of any sort is what you guys are saying correct?
> 2533274912854336;5:
> > 2533274823625840;4:
> > > 2533274898721100;3:
> > > > 2533274796134361;2:
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
> > >
> > > The more people the better
> >
> > Yes, but they’ve already said they’re against player counts. Simply put, because a lower population playlist will continue to lose players because “no one’s playing it”, so people won’t queue up for it. It works better if they just leave it as is. Also, seconded to what Kitten said.
>
> So basically no chance whatsoever for a population counter of any sort is what you guys are saying correct?
I hope they never implement them for all the reasons stated. They just draw players to the bigger number and not to what they necessarily want to play.
> 2533274912854336;5:
> > 2533274823625840;4:
> > > 2533274898721100;3:
> > > > 2533274796134361;2:
> > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
> > >
> > > The more people the better
> >
> > Yes, but they’ve already said they’re against player counts. Simply put, because a lower population playlist will continue to lose players because “no one’s playing it”, so people won’t queue up for it. It works better if they just leave it as is. Also, seconded to what Kitten said.
>
> So basically no chance whatsoever for a population counter of any sort is what you guys are saying correct?
That’s exactly it. It’s alright in theory, as you have a better idea of why it’s taking so long to find matches, but it just causes a whole “rich get richer” mentality with the playlists.
> 2533274816788253;6:
> > 2533274912854336;5:
> > > 2533274823625840;4:
> > > > 2533274898721100;3:
> > > > > 2533274796134361;2:
> > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > Also, there are considerably more factors determining wait times than just player population.
> > > >
> > > > The more people the better
> > >
> > > Yes, but they’ve already said they’re against player counts. Simply put, because a lower population playlist will continue to lose players because “no one’s playing it”, so people won’t queue up for it. It works better if they just leave it as is. Also, seconded to what Kitten said.
> >
> > So basically no chance whatsoever for a population counter of any sort is what you guys are saying correct?
>
> I hope they never implement them for all the reasons stated. They just draw players to the bigger number and not to what they necessarily want to play.
I don’t agree, I always try to play the game type I want to play, if I can’t get a game, I play a different title, I’ll never play a game type because it’s popular, I don’t know anyone that would play something because it has a higher population than their favourite.
Why do games like Rocket League have a population counter? What’s makes it so different then other games that had population counter’s in the past? When Halo Reach was released it had a population counter, why was that so if there is no need for one?
It’s not rocket science guys, the game has a dwindling player base, you mentioned reach, that gets 5k players on a good day? last time I booted it up all but 2 playlists had 0 players.
Are you going to queue up for H3 hardcore if you see it has 56 players? or are you going to boot up BTB that has 5k? the majority will pick BTB
If I want to play a particular playlist in my opinion it would be nice to see if anyone’s playing that playlist. I wouldn’t want to waste time searching to find out that I cannot find a match is all.
343 has stated previously that they will never bring population counters back to their games, I don’t know people keep asking for it.
If a playlist has an average lower population that others and you give players the exact number, then even less people will search and it will truly become dead. We saw this happen a lot with Halo 4.
Yeah not sure about how this would work. Also Match Composer is starting to change the way we look at playlists.