So Trios...

[spice fern]

Thoughts? I know this will be controversial af. I think readability is an issue in this game. Maybe I'm worse on this than some longtime moba players, but personally it's hard for me to keep track of everything going on during fights. And if a top MMR player has this issue I suppose lower MMR players struggle with it even more. So in that sense I could see trios helping. Then we have queuetimes which, if duos is cut, will obviously improve. I've heard many people say the game and the hunter kits are fundamentally designed for 4v4, so I'm wondering how that will play out.
In any case TC is about to throw everything upside-down once again and I can't wait for the drama in this community 😂

[floral cargo]

Im more stoked by the fact that ranked and unranked gets split up.

[latent parrot]

My thoughts can be summarized in one word

Interessing...

In a few more words
I'm very curious to see how this plays and where it goes from here. But until I've actually played i cannot say if i like or dislike this change

I can say for sure that I'll get used to it eventually so it's probably fine and I'll still enjoy the game

[spice fern]

I'm also kind of curious how it'll be tbh. In my opinion they should try whatever they think makes sense. I'd rather have a SV thats quite different to how it started out than no SV at all. And through all the changes so far, I've still enjoyed the core gameplay regardless.

[latent parrot]

I agree with that sentiment

[tiny vapor]

what hunters would you say would be thrown off by 3v3?

[latent parrot]

Impossible to say without the balance changes that are no doubt going to happen
It's to big a change to say
Every single hunter will be impacted in one way or another

[spice fern]

I'm also thinking that 3v3 will require less corrdination or make unified map-traversal easier compared to squads. Its just that squads adds a degree of excitement, which is why I prefer it over duos for example. Hard to say how it'd be in trios without trying though.

The game might also speed up a bit

[tiny vapor]

Do we know what amount of groups we're getting?

[spice fern]

Don't think so. not yet

[latent parrot]

Wdym?

[tiny vapor]

4v4 has 10 squads, duos 20.

[spice fern]

Mabe they'll opt for lower lobby-sizes for better queuetimes. But they'll probably tune it so the current map allows for the right amount of team-density for maximum enjoyment/gameflow/dopamine.

I think big lobbies is also in issue though for this game

Because it can't tank lower playercounts well

Like many other BRs

[latent parrot]

Ah yeah no we know nothing other than it's gonna be trios
It would be 15 to retain the same amount of total players but it's impossible to tell

[tiny vapor]

15 teams would actually be 45 in a lobby, rather than 40.

[sharp nebula]

very excited

[rough pagoda]

Not really sure I want trios

[primal ether]

why not?

[primal ether]

how come?

[sharp nebula]

i just think its the best for this game, ive been advocating for trios since i started playing close to 2 years now

it just makes sense in my mind

[primal ether]

Do you think it is best for game because it helps with que times and stuff? Or is it just makes more sense in your mind?

[spice fern]

The "no fill" option sounds interesting too btw. Do I get this right, that it means you can play solo or duo without a mate while competing against other trio teams?

[primal ether]

I'm just curious the reasoning, no flame either way

[primal ether]

yes

[latent parrot]

It makes a lot of sense to me
But I'm often surprised when i try something out for real
So i remain open minded for now

[sharp nebula]

nah ofc it helps for queues, but even gameplay wise i think its a nice balance of duos and quads, not too boring but not as chaotic as squads

ofc i havent played it so idk for sure

but im excited to check it

[spice fern]

It think it might help with readability personally. Squads is too chaotic at times. Which brings excitement but makes it feel hard to improve. Makes it feel less strategic/tactical and more about handsdiffing and somehow traversing the chaos

[latent parrot]

Same

[acoustic aspen]

this is almost word for word exactly how i feel about squads, i welcome trios

[primal ether]

I see, I feel excited about it as well and am kinda in same boat.Having 1 less hunter each team will amke it so you can track abilities easier as well and im excited see how it goes

[primal ether]

I wrote this before even erading this LOL

[latent parrot]

I've just had a thought
Shrike is already bad in high elo because she's so predictable
I think this gets worse if there is less people to look at.

That's a somewhat worrying thought

[twin ruin]

I'm with Loki, it's interesting... but I'm not sure how I feel about it. I've got pros and cons, but I think having 1 queue is going to be a very good thing.

Oath and KP are going to be the big winners of the patch tho. Maybe more, idk, but definitely those two

[spice fern]

I've been trying to figure out if squishy dps hunters like shiv get better or worse in trios. On hand flanking is harder and you get aggro/attention more easily which is a negative for assasin types. On the other hand you have to deal with less enemies in general which benefits those who can burst others down before taking a lot of dmg themselves.

[tiny vapor]

how so?

[latent parrot]

I can see how that's true
But shrike really is held back by predictability and bennifits from distraction
I think she's going to get worse

[spice fern]

Yeah, that makes sense. Some hunters benefit from the chaos.

[sturdy hornet]

I liked Squads and played in a premade all the time, now we have to cut someone. It's interesting, but feels bad.
Also Trios leave 0 space for Utility characters with the way the META game has shaped up, I think overall it will water down the game a lot.
Not a good move imo.

[iron dragon]

Kp being able to basically guarantee a kill on hook makes him way stronger if teams have less players

[dark umbra]

i can see why for oath
less ppl means less ppl shooting at oath's shield therefore more tanky more opressive but i doubt its gonna make a huge change

[twin ruin]

Oath has less to block, less things to protect. He'll get to be more aggressive AND get more value out of his shield. KP hook gets better the less people there are per squad. A 2v3 is harder than a 3v4

[tiny vapor]

three responses in a minute. Impressive

[spice fern]

Imo this will upset many people the most. Not being able to play with their squad teams anymore and having to exclude someone. It'll be interesting to see competitive teams also changing and new ones getting created.

[twin ruin]

https://tenor.com/view/american-psycho-impressive-very-nice-coping-patrick-bateman-gif-26518058

[sturdy hornet]

They've laid the groundwork for their balance approach to Squads for such a long time, now they're throwing everything out of the window and will have to do some huge adjustments to make trios work, which will take months and months again. Starting to lose faith with TC flip-flopping so hard all the time.

[latent parrot]

I don't think it does. Keep in mind the ither teams also have one less player so the sacrifice of picking a utility character remains the same overall

I can get behind the sentiment of cutting a player from your squad though

[twin ruin]

Disagree about the utility characters! The rest tho yeah that sucks

[tiny vapor]

I don't like how intense in quality that gif is.

[twin ruin]

It's like 200 fps but why 😭

Also I'm pretty sure Brall and Jin are going to get even better

[spice fern]

How are they in duos?

[twin ruin]

Pretty good tbh

[sudden surge]

I think merging duos and squads could be a positive thing.

The number of teams would have to get increased to somewhere between 13-15 (13 is the closest you can get to the current player size per game, 14 is the closest you can get without reducing players on the team, and 15 is the average number of teams between duos and squads).

Keeping it at 10 teams would also have the benefit of making the game less crowded (compared to duos) while also improving queue times (by reducing the number of players needed per game and by not splitting ranked and unranked queues).

There's also benefits from splitting into ranked/unranked, such as having mode-specific changes (coughcoughresurgencecoughcough) and being able to better cater to the experiences players want in those modes (ie aggressively filling unranked games with bots to get players into a game vs consistently matching players against other players in ranked).

My main concern is that team building is going to get really, really boring if they don't add more healers and tanks soon. With a team of 4, you can easily run 2 DPS hunters while still keeping a reasonable team structure, but now if your teammate locks in a DPS you're stuck as the tank or the healer. On this front, Oath is going to be freakishly OP due to his roll compression as both a healer and a tank and being currently balanced around taking damage from 4 players at once.

[round comet]

im 99% sure their initial idea is to keep 10 squads per game, just a guess though
just because it would require changes to the players layout in pre-game screen loool

[spice ether]

10 squads of 3 could work fine so long as the initial storm circle closes off more of the map at the beginning but I suspect some people won't like that part.

[twin ruin]

Oh my god it's already too fast

[spice ether]

I'm not talking day/night timers or close rate

I'm talking purely about how much of the map is available at the start of the match

[round comet]

i think just make the initial circle smaller

[sudden surge]

It probably doesn't need to change because the teams could just fit the same space they do now, only with 3 players. At worst, you have space between teams.

[round comet]

its also better to have some sort of map variety

[spice ether]

the full map is a lot of space for only 30 people

[twin ruin]

What's the problem with having all of the map available? It allows for varied pathing

[spice ether]

We all know there will be the inevitable "trios bad because i never see enemy players before final fight" complaints

[round comet]

this was an issue i had with pubg, map was too big and it took forever to find players

[twin ruin]

Just make objectives worth more, you don't necessarily have to restrict the map.

[spice ether]

that would also work

Or they run w/ 13 teams of 3 (39 players) ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[echo magnet]

not especially the trios, but i fear that the "fill" will juste make a lot of lobbies with 6 teams of solo players

[twin ruin]

Yeah same but PUBG map is MUCH larger relatively

[round comet]

it does change RP gains xd, especially the ability to queue in solo or duo

[round comet]

true, also moving around is way worse xd

but id hate to have a similar experience in supervive

[sudden surge]

Making the initial circle smaller would make parts of the map inaccessible at the start of the game.

More importantly, shrinking the map isn't necessary unless we reduce the number of teams. The main difference between duos and squads is that duos feels a lot more chaotic due to more teams rather than less players per team.

[spice ether]

That is a good point, yeah. I look forward to seeing how that pans out in practice once it actually goes live rather than being in invite-only focus group tests.

[summer pond]

remove duos/remove quads/remove arena(add a warmup TDM or something)/remove unranked/add 1 mode trios

[round comet]

i see the inability to access certain parts of the map a good thing

it gives you more variety

which is necessary for a game with high replayability

[echo magnet]

it should be a minimum of duo, the game is suppose to be a team game.
But it's also good to have the choice, idk we'll see

[twin ruin]

I honestly feel like there's nothing to worry about in terms of the map being too big. The game used to take MUCH longer to have the circle close in and I highly preferred that.

[spice ether]

As much as I support it as-is, I'd argue closing parts of the map off with initial storm works a lot better in a hypothetical reality where the map has been expanded a lot more; i.e. closing part of entire years worth of region/biome additions off rather than just locking out the edges of the map we've been using for years

[twin ruin]

The brief solos mode was maybe the most fun I've ever had in this game

[round comet]

yea having a bigger map helps too

probably just a matter of time

[echo magnet]

but it was solo for everyone at this time

[twin ruin]

Yeah i mean as the map gets larger then that makes more sense

[echo magnet]

not a solo vs trios

[twin ruin]

Yeah I don't really understand that tbh

Not sure why that's an option they're going for but like idk

It's interesting

I might give an actual solo run a try

Sounds fun tbh

[round comet]

ill certainly play some games solo to mess around and test stuff, also to farm masteries and daily missions and whatever xd

[sudden surge]

I also feel like duos and squads shouldn't be completely removed completely. They shouldn't be modes you can queue into all of the time, but having them for scrims/competitive will help maintain current team structures in tournaments, and the modes themselves might be a good side mode every once in a while (like League of Legends' feature game modes, Brawlhalla's brawl of the week, or even the clone squads event we had closer to launch.

[round comet]

thats a great idea, i hope they do that

we dont wanna mess with the current formed teams, that'd suck

[twin ruin]

Honestly the less I have to think about what my teammates are doing the happier I am and the better I play

[echo magnet]

yup

benching time

[round comet]

yea

that'd be so bad lol

make sure to suggest that in the playtest thing

[echo magnet]

"who's not playing the most meta hunter is our team ?"

[twin ruin]

They have to tho. Like if trios is the answer and positive for the game, at some point the competitive scene will be trios. Might as well rip the bandaid off now

It'll be worse later

[round comet]

yea but at least they will have time for that

i dunno, im just trying to put myself in their position

maybe they wont care too much at all xd

[wide skiff]

i am indifferent to the idea

maybe good, maybe bad, we will see

[twin ruin]

The playtest is gonna be everyone just queuing solo 💀

[sudden surge]

I think dropping already handles that in a better way because it provides areas you can't access from the start but can still choose to access. Furthermore, the way Supervive handles map restrictions is through the storm, and modifying the storm to restrict areas of the map would probably either be redundant with current drop mechanics, lock off part of the drop zone, and/or do absolutely nothing.

I definitely agree that variety is important, I just don't think that restricting the map for trios would create a desirable amount of variety.

[rough pagoda]

I like the way team building is in the 4 person format right now. . but we will see how trios lands

[sudden surge]

I'll also throw out that IIRC Eternal Return also uses a trios format. This might be a bad thing since Eternal Return is our closest competitor as a MOBA BR, but IIRC Eternal Return also doesn't have a solo queue so Supervive might still be ok.

[cerulean sentinel]

Tried it the other day, it’s actually pretty good.

would recommend to try people looking for stuff in this vein of gameplay.

[rough pagoda]

Eternal return is fun to play but they handle builds differently than supervive

[sudden surge]

Competitive already uses a different ruleset than what's on live, so scrims being 4v4 when the rest of the game is 3v3 still makes sense.

Furthermore, 3v3 might not be nearly as good for tournament as 4v4 because there's less room for teambuilding. If the meta requires a DPS, a healer, and a tank, then in 3v3 you have very little room for deviation, while in 4v4 you have a lot more freedom because you have a free slot to play with.

[tiny vapor]

how... how do you tell characters apart?

[cerulean sentinel]

No idea, it’s got a lot of problems too. But I was entertained for the couple hours I played.

[tiny vapor]

what sort of problems?

[summer pond]

heals will have to be nerf'd for 3s

[spice ether]

healing was never nerfed specifically for 2s but maybe there's broad numbers tuning once the change goes live

[unkempt finch]

they rarely go back on tests

rip duos

[twin ruin]

It doesn't really matter, IF trios is best for the game, then scrim players will want to change to trios. They're hoping for an esports scene, that won't happen if players aren't interested bc they are playing a fundamentally different game

[twin ruin]

I gotta be honest before this discord I had never heard of Eternal Return in the slightest. Idk if they just don't market or what, but if this genre can explode, I don't think Eternal Return is a worry as competition.

[summer pond]

healing wasnt neccessary for 2s cause 1 dps 1 healing vs 2 dps is slightly balanced due to less dps. where in 3s healing sustain with 2 dps will probably beat 3 dps

[iron dragon]

Eternal return is like very very dead in the west, but decently popular in korea

[twin ruin]

Makes sense.

[sudden surge]

The main reason I originally heard about it is that I started getting a MOBA itch and found it while scratching that itch. Only reason I haven't tried it is that I found Omega Strikers to scratch that itch instead.

If you're not looking for a MOBA you probably won't find ER at all unless you get really lucky looking for a BR.

[leaden birch]

some of the main anti 4 member arguments are around readability in fights

trios would without a doubt make fights more readable, but I'm wondering why we can't use team colored HP bars like in customs/spectating

I feel like that improves huge fight readability quite a bit. unless there's some technical limitation or downside I'm not seeing?

[zinc raft]

Have they explained in anyway what the 'no fill' option means? Am I just playing with a disadvantage for bragging rights? Does my team get a buff?

It just seems really vague and I haven't seen anything explaining it.

[rough pagoda]

I never felt like readability in fights was bad. Unless the enemy team colors are close to the same, but that's not a 4 vs 3 man squad issue.

Personally I'm hoping trios doesn't end up the final game I really enjoy 4 man squad.

[rough pagoda]

Seems like no fill is you can queue duo without the 3rd member

So you can just queue with 1 extra person and skip the random teammate

[zinc raft]

Why would anyone do that beyond being THAT impatient?

[sudden surge]

Some players really just want to play with their 1 other friend and not have to worry about other players beyond them.

Sure, it's a disadvantage, but it’s a disadvantage you're opting into, and opting into that disadvantage can lead to the game being more fun for you and/or your teammate.

[zinc raft]

That's fair, it just seems like an odd thing to add to the announcement like "Don't worry duos players." When in reality it's mostly meaningless.

[white tulip]

Fortnite players play with no fill sometimes because a matchmade noob giving your position away is worse than not having them in a fight to inevitably get 1 tapped to begin with

[zinc raft]

Hence why I played Duos and not squads in the first place.

I understand there's some advantages to it. I just don't think they outweigh the disadvantages.

[white tulip]

yeah it's primarily for the people who would like to 1v33 versus 1v35, it sounds counter-intuitive but genuinely you should see some people in solo queue

[zinc raft]

It's not going to stop me playing.

I would just like more explanation from the devs.

[round comet]

ill most likely do that with my duo friend, my main concern with squads was getting teammates that didnt communicate and didnt know enough about the game to do things on their own

also the reason why i stopped playing squads entirely

[carmine lava]

for the challenge

[spiral path]

I will assume every champion has 1 or 2 more abilities and that ttk is significantly higher in the playtest. No way they implement trios without these changes to compensate the lowering of depth. Because even I think TC wouldnt make these changes to the game without properly analysing the inherent problems with swapping to trios.

[twin ruin]

What?

[echo magnet]

tbh, waiting that long for a playtest "just" for it to be trios is kinda disapointing

and we all know that even if we don't like it afterward, it will still be applied.

[topaz yarrow]

I mean trios change is better for solo players as if u choose a character who can quickly assassinate you instantly turn the game into a 2v3 which is harder to recover from than a 4v3 id say

Not really excited for the game as I think 4v4 are just more fun but we’ll see

[fiery pendant]

I'm very excited that they are trying out trios, I always thought it might be the sweet spot for combat. Most top down arena type games are trios already and this could help tremendously with balancing and combat clarity.

Someone said above that this might make competitive comps less varied, but I think if they go this way TC can double down on their vision of making every hunter fairly independent and able to 1vX.

[spiral path]

Well the only difference from this game and other top down arena games is that this isnt a top down arena game

[echo magnet]

once again, they don't care about support or tank gameplay

[fiery pendant]

thanks for your insight. And Supervive is not an FPS like apex legends either.
EDIT: I wasn't aware apex and fortnite have switched competitive to trios

[echo magnet]

only 1vX dopamine kids

[white tulip]

I mean it's top-down, so is the only difference the game mode?

by this reasoning let's make arena mode 3v3 too yeah?

[rough pagoda]

Not every character in the game needs to be a 1vX machine IMO

I want to see varied design

[fiery pendant]

I'd be happy if the whole concept of "tank" was abolished

[echo magnet]

disagree

tank can have a good value for diverse interaction for both sides

not everyone is a Joule cocaine addict that focus only on his own gameplay, i like to play for the team

What made me like playing KP is the fact that i can hook my teammates to save/rez them. It's the team play. Most fighter are individuals it feels boring to play for me

[fiery pendant]

With the change to trios maybe they can finally remove the heal on knock though!

[echo magnet]

surely they are gonna be reasonable right ? right ?

[sturdy hornet]

I've been thinking for a long time now if I should upgrade to the biggest supporter pack, but with how hard the devs are flip-flopping every single patch, they make it really really hard to have faith in their decision making. Not sure about others, but I'll most likely play a whole lot less if I have to leave one of my mates behind.

[autumn snow]

Lately was thinking about removing Squad normal and only have SquadQ ranked and as learning mode the DuoQ un/ranked with reduced lobby size of 20 players/10 teams to get into the game fast and to improve MM. But well, going TrioQ un/ranked is just an other way.

• Lets hope that they stay with 10 teams per lobby. Means 10 less players needed per match what hopefully leads to better MM quality (still would prefer a system with variable lobby sizes depending on amount/rank of players in queue tho)
• And also that they gonna remove the "on knock"- stuff since comeback mechanics are not needed that much anymore ( what in case of that feature was more of a snowball mechanic than a comeback mechanic anyway)

[floral cargo]

Its an open beta- Teams that formed now should have been prepared mentally for something like this to occur before release.

[carmine lava]

organized is such a tiny fraction of the playerbase and should not be designed for, mostly

[floral cargo]

I agree, focus on what makes the game fun first and foremost.

[white tulip]

I'mma be real the largest tier is whale bait I don't think they actually expect most people to buy it

[fathom fjord]

The heal on knock thing honestly just should exist. The dash thong feels somewhat unneeded at times. Since I see people getting chased massively sometimes by a celeste and it just looks so dumb to see.

[twin ruin]

I wanted that "Ah ah ahhh!" emote badly enough

also Glitchwave KP

[spice fern]

Okay, I tried it and I didn't like it at all. I was very open to it and liked the idea but in practice some of the magic and excitement of SV goes missing in my opinion. Perhaps they could remedy that with more mobility and more complex hunter-kits but at least in this playtest I was pretty bored. Especially after enjoying squad soloQ a lot today.

[ebon agate]

If they want to make it trios and keep it interesting I think they should rework/rebalance characters for it

[tiny vapor]

What characters are thrown awry by it and in what ways?

[ebon agate]

Hudson atleast either teamwipes you or just drops dead

But thats the hudson experience. coin flip and hope your stats are enough

[tiny vapor]

How do you find that different in trios versus its two neighboring game modes?

[spice fern]

The game feels more stale/slow and less exciting. There is less stuff going on, which can be good for readability, but it has the side-effect of making the game less fun as well. Even when I won my games I just wasn't having as much fun. It felt a bit more like 3 people running around rather than "a team". Something about the team-dynamics goes missing I feel.

Trios sort of leaves a hole where previously there was something else. But that hole now needs to be filled with something else that they haven't added.

[tiny vapor]

Could you talk about what feels missing in that dynamic, either by comparing specific experiences between quad and trio, or else where it lies between quads and duos?

[spice fern]

It feels a lot like duos in a way. I feel duos has the same issue of feeling more "casual" (even if its still a tryhard mode for many). The gameplay-moments that get created aren't as interesting and it feels more like a brawl than a teamgame. In many games I personally like 1v1 or 2v2 modes (instead of 3,4,5 stack modes) but in supervive I get the sense it isn't designed to be as fun or exciting with less players. The chaos adds excitement. If you take it away you need to replace it with something that is currently missing.

[ebon agate]

I feel a part of why it might feel that way is because every character is kinda designed to be simple so fights dont get TOO chaotic.

[sudden surge]

That makes sense.

I remember an FGC content creator (probably Sajam, but it could have been Core-A Gaming, Lordknight, or Leon Massey) talking about the same thing within fighting games and comparing depth in Street Fighter with its 2D competitors like King of Fighters and Guilty Gear. Street Fighter is very slow and methodical, but it gets a lot of its depth from the size of its movesets, which makes it much harder to choose the correct option in any given moment. For contrast, KoF, GG, and a lot of other fighting games have much smaller movesets, but are still incredibly deep because their faster pace forces you to respond at a faster pace, allowing the game to get equivalent depth with smaller movesets.

Is this what Supervive feels like to you? Like the current depth is built for the speed of squads, so when the game is slowed down by removing 1 player per team does the game not feel as deep because you don't need to engage with the lesser amount of depth at the pace you used to play at?

[ebon agate]

Thats a pretty good summary, game slowed down so it feels staler since less stuff to look out for. In return they would need to either hasten the kill times more or make per character kits have more depth

Theyve gotten away with pretty simple kits because they work really fast

[tiny vapor]

While the tempo versus options makes sense, and i do think the notion (or implication, perhaps unintentional) that kit complexity is an inherent good is a bit misplaced.

[odd zodiac]

Free respawns also seem more impactful than before, which I am not appreciating xD

[primal swift]

less hunters and more the team comps i feel, the game doesnt yet feature more than 2 initiators, supports or tanks. with minimal variety in crucial defensive and engage roles, its just gonna be glass cannons glassing each other and ttk will be very low between people who can actually land their shots and skills

top shrike and shiv players will mop the queue im calling it

[primal swift]

you might even need to speed up day/night cycles in that case because the map size will make those smaller number of players run around for a good while looking for one another

by like 10-25%

17,5-18% being the happy medium

[agile swan]

If this was true it would be especially true in duos and it never was. Shrike felt like one of the weakest characters, shiv wasn't even top 3

[primal swift]

i will say that crysta is kind of a better shiv and shrike is a half-broken glass mortar

by that i mean that if you look at her too hard she might get spiked

[twin ruin]

Yeah something was off about Trio's. You just don't feel like a team

[latent parrot]

I'll say that i believe for me it's going to be a fact of just getting used to it

The map felt a bit too empty but otherwise I'm okay woth the changes i think. Obviousky balanace aint perfect but i can look past that

[fathom fjord]

I think it can work well they just kinds gotta balance aome hunters around trios. Since a good amount of the cast is balanced around squads so even just taking 1 person off every team causes issues.

[twin ruin]

That's like my exact opposite experience lol, the map felt like I was constantly bitched off of everything from the second I landed. Most games I couldn't even get to a base camp without having to fight someone first

[sturdy hornet]

From the people that I've watched participating in the Trios playtest, most of them did not enjoy it and honestly the viewing experience was a huge downgrade as well as fights were a lot less "Supervivey" and exciting. Obviously need to play it myself, but seems like it will be a huge downgrade.

[indigo rain]

Just wanted to say after playing Trios pugs for the last few nights I am completely sold. I've been loving it. Contrary to Misc's feelings on feeling like a team, I actually felt more connected to my teammates because there are fewer of them for me to focus on. I find that the mindshare each of them gets from me has increased and it's been easier for me to instruct plays and work together with them because of both less crap being shot at us, and less options to choose from in the form of plays/engages.

Big caveat being that I was always on comms with my teammates in pugs and I know that doesn't reflect the ranked experience directly.

[fathom fjord]

I should honestly do some trios pugs sometime. Since I'm really unsure whether i do like trios or not. I've seen some good points why it's good and good points why it's bad so idfk.

[indigo rain]

It definitely will make Hudson better, less ppl to flank/cc lock him

[fathom fjord]

Yea I did think of that. Another Hudson player said that he didn't really feel much difference tho. I feel it will prob help Hudson but it's kinda hard to tell. Especially since I don't really see him ran in pugs much.

[indigo rain]

Definitely an unfortunate side effect of him being a contender for worst hunter in the game. Everyone in the pugs so far has been playing hunters they can win on against tough competition

[fathom fjord]

I don't get that tbh. Like test shit out. I dont get just playing hunters you can win with.

[ebon agate]

Tho the other side is that 1 less person to protect/help you
I feel its about neutral Just maybe very slightly worse

[fathom fjord]

I feel like it's better for solo cus I'm almost required to 1v4 in solo que. 1v3ing is gonna be sooooo much easier. In like actual comp I do feel like it'd prob be about equal. You can't just pick all the hunter who work well with huddy in trios either. Like do you want a good engage or good healing?(like zeph or felix basically)

[ebon agate]

It was also possible I got unlucky with teamates cus I remember having like an Elluna Ghost team like twice in a row

[twin ruin]

My question is were these pugs played on the current patch?

[indigo rain]

yes current patch so some things are a lil different, mainly the mana hasn't changed yet

[twin ruin]

yeah that's the thing that I'm not sure of. I feel like my entire experience with Trio's was impossible to gauge because the mana changes made the game so miserable for me.

and bc everyone in the playtest was just looking to fight nonstop, which I notoriously dislike

even so I can usually have a lot of fun in the playtests

but I felt like I was playing without legs bc of the mana stuff

that's why I haven't made a post about Trio's, I want to give feedback but I really can't distinguish if my problems are from Trios or from the mana changes. I've been mulling it over.

[acoustic surge]

terrible change

80% of core playerbase grandmaster+ on verge of quitting

what can go wrong

[ebon agate]

I do think trios could work but needs more extensive system wide changes

Id say invdividual hunter strenght needs to go up slightly. And we would need a more diverse roster with more "defensive/utility" oriented hunters

Also the mana changes felt like a step in the right direction just WAY too long of a step. Too extreme

None of the characters are designed around that system

Like as kp I just ran out of mana in 1 rotation even tho I hit my spells. Mana regen should be character spesific

Like for example kp getting mana on backshot. Or maybe permanent mana on knock like his hp stacking passive

Void getting high mana regen when in empower.

Hudson using mana to fire rmb but regens it when hitting.

I feel stuff like this could be really cool

[fiery pendant]

to me it sounds like third partying will just become an even bigger problem with the mana changes, not to mention the higher number of teams already adding to that. two teams having a bit of a scuffle and oh no out of mana and here's the hyenas coming. how did the playtesters feel about it?

[echo magnet]

https://discord.com/channels/852642429105995786/1350258130654728312

[boreal gazelle]

The argument why its bad is: The game has tested 4 man squads for like 2 years now and A LOT of people who played the playtests GAVE A LOT of feedback to make the game better and balance it better for 4 MAN SQUADS and they put SO MUCH time into it. They put in so much effort to balance everything out and its still far from ''perfect'' and they are basically throwing 60/70% out of the window with the new trios patch so the balance changes that a lot of people put a lot of work in, is gone.

[ebon agate]

I may have taken inspiration from you. Also niptys mana talks

[fathom fjord]

I feel like this is kind of dumb logic tbh. They testing shit, and if it doesn't work out there is this thing known as reversing the changes. The game has been balanced around 4 man squads, so they'll have to do some balancing stuff but I cannot see how that is necessarily bad.

Solo queing and squad feels pretty bad rn and has felt bad for a while. Trios will honestly help that a good amount.

Also that is not even a point as to why trios will be bad that I was referring to. It's a change and just saying "they're throwing everything away" is imo not a good point against trios.

[boreal gazelle]

Okay let me phrase it differently, They are throwing A lot away for now. They will eventually realise that people DO like squads better for a competitive format. The whole reason why they are doing trios is not necessarily because they are ''testing shit''. The korean devs have disabled duos a long time ago so people can only play squads there which is a better fit imo. But there are people that just like solo qing, solo qing into squads is very hard and not that fun most of the time I agree on that 100%. The EU and NA and the rest want to disable DUO's aswell but the people that play duos play duos for a reason, most of them dont like squads because they dont have the people to play with, or think its to chaotic. So then they would be forcing the duo players to play squads and they probably wont, so they will quit. thats why they introduce trios so they can find a middleground between duos and squads and being able to split q's. which is a good option for the time being but eventually squads will be better for a game like this. especially when hunter dynamics are better fit for squads, TTK is this high, and a lot of other reasons

[fathom fjord]

Yea they should not focus on comp. They shouldn't just avoid trios due to it not being good for comp.

I do see that squads will be bettwr as more people play the game while trios will more or less take away from a lotnof stuff. Trios will probably be more readable I feel, which is a good thing. Then trios will help solo que, but in that process will hurt comp. Also I do honestly see trios helping ranked a good amount. And ofc there are balancing issues(like joule, brall, shiv, zeph, and oath will all be problems if left alone imo).

Tbh it more or less seems like yall are just against change and can't see how they could possibly make it work. Like chances are trios will be bad, but there is also a good chance it will be good. Complaining like this before we've even tried the finished version honestly doesn't make sense. If trios truly is bad(the final version) then they will likely undue the change to trios.

[spiral path]

Trios lacks a lot of depth compared to squad, depth is a key reason for developing retention due to there being obvious things that keep people entertained

[fathom fjord]

I can't really see how it lacks depth tbh.

[indigo rain]

I can see removing one player per team simplifying encounters a bit, but I don't think there's an issue in making combat more readable. There's plenty of depth to still be had in 3v3 encounters

[undone hemlock]

In the last dev talk with Mr. Tom Kick, safelocked said that they were going to add 2 new features to balance the depth that could be taken away by removing a player from each team. One not related to the hunters, and one seemingly related. I guess we'll have to wait for Fireside chat to know more, but they are not going to just remove depth and do nothing else when the game needs it the most

[nimble ivy]

Ya it sounds like trios is only one piece of a set of larger changes they are going to implement. It's going to be hard to judge things until we see the full picture.

[neat solstice]

They are working on two things that will add more depth to compensate for this [51:13].
One will be universal to characters, and the other will be character-specific [51:13].
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ANR4F6y-MAY

[ebon agate]

How long has vive been in developement for?

4 years?

Most smaller scale games take atleast 3 years to develope so Im not really surprised that vive is still kinda figuring itself out and doing these bigger changes

[neat solstice]

and their team isn't really big compared to the big studios

[ebon agate]

I do feel the fact it came out as open beta is annoying just because we get so many people doomposting about an OPEN BETA game still figuring itself out

I feel it should have maybe been branded as early access

or have like 2 week play periods. I really wouldnt have minded that

Like vive seems to have similar playrates to deadlock from what I can tell

Granted deadlock is from valve but it also "Fell off" when it comes to playrates

[neat solstice]

but it's good for devs to learn and be prepared for 1.0 in terms of 24/7 open game

[indigo rain]

deadlock has significantly higher ccu, it's not too similar

[ebon agate]

Deadlock retained around 11% of peak player count vive has around 4% of peak player count as far as I can tell

[fathom fjord]

If this is true then yea we can't judge anything. We kinda just have to wait till then.

[ebon agate]

Neither isnt really a finished game and both are taking large swings. deadlock just went to 3 lane map like a week ago

[nimble ivy]

The term "beta" has morphed over time to mean something like "finished core game that still needs peripheral features"
supervives beta is more like the old version of beta which involves significant changes and iteration.

[ebon agate]

Like the game isnt out. Monster hunter wilds Open betas where 2 weeks long in total. And some people got really negative perception from them because that build was a test build. Like ??? its a test to see how the game runs, for people to give feedback

They fixed a lot of the issues we had from the betas too

For example brought back Hitspot which was missing in the beta.

Not really a fair comparison since wilds beta was an old version of the game made for a "Demo/beta" build

But they serve the same purpose. Gather Intell and feedback

[indigo rain]

holy shit did they? that's insane actually

[ebon agate]

Cant tell if you are being sarcastic or not

But yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d7ZI-_OPfY0&ab_channel=DeadAir

[indigo rain]

no sarcasm, that's a huge change for that game. 4 lanes at least when I played back in september was kinda the identity it dug out compared to the "standard" moba formula

[acoustic surge]

alpha game trying to find itself vs early access beta game with core that everyone loves

its wrong to compare these

deadlock core is so dogshit and unfinished

i was playtesting it since neon prime and the moment they went public with deadlock the entire development went on halt it felt like

they stuck to number tweak balance patches and barely worked on unique ideas and changes anymore

[ebon agate]

Well hey now they went to 3 lanes and are doing big changes

[neat solstice]

u didn't answer me. "everyone loves" who r u talking about?

[cerulean sentinel]

Both failed, different reasons

[acoustic surge]

dont need to if i dont want to ive explained this 40 times in the last week it feels like, sry

have a nice day tho

[neat solstice]

but why then u ask to keep the game the same and not try different things only coz 2k people enjoy it?

[acoustic surge]

the current patch is one of, if not THE best theyve had, you can build on this so much and get the game so a amazing state for 1.0 release

the competitive community was until 1 week ago still very much alive and hosting many tournaments, ranked may be dead but at its core even those who quit still love the game (atleast everyone ive spoken to, which are atleast 30 people)

trios will now kill that part of the community or atleast greatly shrink it

[neat solstice]

nothing has changed for solo players like me tho

[acoustic surge]

there are many big names that i was trying to get back into playing the game and it was looking very hopeful, and then it just gets fully killed

any content creator that originally got me into the game whether it be a youtuber or ex battlerite, has now quit the game :))

for me even if trios provides temporary fun arcadey deathmatch gameplay, it will always be temporary

and they are fucking up big time

[neat solstice]

and 47k left before on fisrt two weeks

[acoustic surge]

because back then the game was absolute dogshit

its just such a fun game at its core that we looked past all of the awful balance,matchmaking and soloque experience temporarily

on the current patch it is much more playable, if we had a 1.0 release with marketing people are much more likely to stay this time

9/10 content creators that were ever showcased in the supervive main menu have quit the game

and 9/10 of them hate trios

healthy for the game for sure

[neat solstice]

many people think it was much better before resurgence. resets etc

[acoustic surge]

it is, resurgance is terrible

my favorite part of supervive is the scrims and tournaments

im not too involved with ranked, while i am legend, i barely play

i have been enjoying it a bit more after duo restrictions unironically

[neat solstice]

so maybe trios gonna be better and we could delete resurgence from the game

[acoustic surge]

ill keep resurgance if trios gets cancelled

❤️

dont get me wrong, i will give it a try

but i am so certain this is the death of the game

ive seen it in so many games i have played in my life and i just have this gut feeling

[neat solstice]

ye, coz u r team player. Most people dont have full party all the time and don;t want to look for it

[acoustic surge]

the same one i get when i que up supervive currently, i can enjoy this for 2 more weeks and then its over

[acoustic surge]

thats true

but why kill the entire team-based synergy and combat from the game

[neat solstice]

it's just false

[acoustic surge]

just imagine league removed jungle one day

[indigo rain]

in NA so far trios has been generally liked at least by the scrim/pug community. Definitely not wholesale endorsement, but I've seen more positive takeaways than negative

[acoustic surge]

or support role

[acoustic surge]

any name that matters over there has quit / voiced their dissaproval

[sturdy hornet]

Na it hasn't

[acoustic surge]

on EU its even more serious

we genuinely HATE this shit

[neat solstice]

wdym names that matters lol. U want game to be better only for cscrim players XD

[acoustic surge]

the worst part is every team having to kick a member

[indigo rain]

I'm sorry that you speak for everyone? I've been in the trio pugs almost every night and people have been enjoying it

[sturdy hornet]

trios just change the game too much, even though it makes the game more readable, it also cuts a big portion of the fun out of the game

[acoustic surge]

hosts trios pugs
people enjoy playing the trios

i wonder what happend here

[neat solstice]

so it's actually better to wait for the whole patch

[acoustic surge]

people who actively sign up for trios pugs enjoy playing trios 😲

i am dumbfounded

it improves quetimes, it improves the soloque experience

these are 2 things i can possibly agree on

[indigo rain]

people wanted to try it out, so they tried it out. This narrative you're trying to spin is kinda weirdge ngl. Is it so hard to accept that some people have liekd it after trying it?

[acoustic surge]

but this game appealing to peoples first 30-40 hours of gameplay is not a good thing

after 40 everyone just quits

double edged sword i guess

[neat solstice]

and soloQ experience which is the most important

[acoustic surge]

it is

i can agree on that

but there are other ways to go about it

im just not interested in a game with no competitive integrity

if i wanna fuck about and have fun with friends there are so much better games to play

especially after trios release

[neat solstice]

do u think that duos have 0 competitive by design?

[acoustic surge]

this game has literally 2 things going for it and they are

1. amazing community
2. very promising competitive gameplay / learning curve

the community part will stay, we all fw eachother in the eu discord

but we will not be playing supervive together anymore, it will turn to a variety gameplay server

v rising waitingroom btw

i promise u i am not trying to exaggerate or ragebait with my statements

i have seen this happen to so many games i loved and i said nothing and thought "this can work"

it cant

"this realm royale change will improve player retention!" (servers shutdown 3 weeks ago)
"this darwin project change will improve player retention!" (4 ingame currently)

"this supervive change will improve player retention!" (pending.....)

people dont only quit because they dislike a game, the majority of supervive players that quit just didnt consider it worth sinking their time into

1.0 release had so much potential, unlucky #haveaniceday

[nimble ivy]

I think its fine to dislike the chamge, bu theres a difference between disliking it and somehow "knowing" its going to be worse.

[neat solstice]

"not trying to exaggerate" U kinda do tbh

[sturdy hornet]

The rest of the patch barely matters when the issue is with Trios to begin with

[neat solstice]

what issues trios bring in your opinion?

[acoustic surge]

my favorite part of things like these is bookmarking and returning to the server after 3-4 months to laugh at all the people that disagreed

may i ping u when the time comes?

i have a flawless track record almost

[neat solstice]

ye sure, but we lets wait for 1.0

[cerulean sentinel]

Let’s be real, 1.0 is not going to differ meaningfully from the games current state.

[neat solstice]

the difference between beta start and ark 2 is already huge

[acoustic surge]

the good part of 1.0 comes from getting a marketing push, whats important for this is that there is a competent ranked system to grind for and a good soloque

trios might improve this, but at the cost of making the base game much worse

[neat solstice]

and devs can improve it

[acoustic surge]

no matter what they do to trios, the base game will be much worse

they can min-maxx the fun to be had in the trios format however much they want, squads will always be superior

[ebon agate]

I dont think its THAT binary

[neat solstice]

thing is without good soloQ experience the game will never survive. And as of today nobody came with better solution for soloQ

[acoustic surge]

agree to first part, semi agree to 2nd part

ive been saying since NDA got lifted, not having a proper soloque experience will kill the game

a certain kom tick streamer tried to convince me its a "skill issue" and that soloque was fine

[ebon agate]

Omg Kom Tick mention. The Evil version

[sturdy hornet]

It throws off the entire flow of the game, which has been established over multiple years of development at this point. Due to the reduced number of players it forces TC to add more teams to the game, which in return massively increases third partying and reduces the effective number of creep camps on the map. Fights will conclude a lot faster, which will increase the need for terrible bandaid systems like resurgence even more. Obviously there will also be less space in comps to include pure Utility characters and massively favour allrounder-type characters like Bishop or Oath even more.

But most importantly, Trios sacrifice a whole lot of Supervive's DNA for nothing but slightly more readability. A huge part of what makes Supervive fun for a ton of people is the chaos / unpredictability and surviving through anything that's being thrown at them. In the end we're playing a BR and not a MOBA or Hero Shooter, which are usually played in a vacuum with a very strict game flow.

And people that think the SoloQ experience will magically turn out to be amazing suddenly, because there is one less player on each team, are honestly completely delusional. 1v3 fights for the average Bronze to Platinum player will also be just as impossible as 1v4 fights. Generally Trios will just not change anything for solo players.

[neat solstice]

A huge part of what makes Supervive fun for a ton of people is the chaos / unpredictability and surviving through anything that's being thrown at them. In the end we're playing a BR and not a MOBA or Hero Shooter, which are usually played in a vacuum with a very strict game flow.

which in return massively increases third partying and reduces the effective number of creep camps on the map. Fights will conclude a lot faster

nah but like you contradict yourself

if u like chaos then 3rd partying and faster fights should be good for u

[twin ruin]

That's not true ^

[acoustic surge]

ning kidhogg

the true goat

[twin ruin]

Fights can be chaotic due to more people but the pacing between multiple fights can be slower due to less teams. More teams is generally more chaos in a negative way because there's so much in the way of third partying. Which no matter what anyone says is the worst part of BRs

[sturdy hornet]

I don't whatsoever. You just don't understand what I'm saying.

Third partying has nothing to do with the "chaos" I mentioned. I'm obviously talking about the unpredictability of a 4v4 fight compared to the very slow pace of a 3v3 fight. If you would have ever played duos for a bit, you'd know exactly what I mean. Needless to say Third partying is a frustrating part of BRs and it happening more often would never ever be interpreted as something positive. That's just how you want to spin what I said.

[neat solstice]

U just didn't explain what u mean by chaos. I'm not trying to change your words.

[sturdy hornet]

Well we're talking about Trios here, so what else would I be talking about?

I mentioned Third partying is bad and with Trios there will be more of it, so why would I then also say third partying is good?

Makes no sense.

[carmine lava]

there is only more third partying in trios because the teams went from 10 to 12

id be interested in a playtest/scrim with only 10 and I bet the constant third partying would subside

[rough pagoda]

Third partying is always going to be viable I don't think it would change much with more/less teams. What it feels like is too many people are alive because of free rez day 1

So come day 2/3 it's not unfeasible to see more than half the teams still in the lobby majority of the time. And then the circle closes and creates cluster fks when everyone has to rotate

[ebon agate]

So does thrid party problem come back around to the free revives

[rough pagoda]

Idk. I think the game state can only improve with more players. Trios doesn't really do anything differently other than make queueing easier and pooling everyone together. As it stands now the NPE is just queue play vs bots. Also 5050 if your teammate is afk/just completely unable to understand the game or they are way higher rank and just impossible to keep up with. So it will filter a lot of people. So that issue needs to be worked on heavily in time for full release

[olive swan]

Interacting with multiple teams at once is what makes the game so dynamic imo. You have to play fights differently when there is a third party threat and I find that interaction to be really interesting.

Multiple team endgames in tight zones are some of the most interesting scenarios in the game and it’s in large part due to the near guarantee of third parties.

I think third parties just feel bad when you don’t know there coming, and it can be hard to keep track of all the teams early game to be able to identify that.

The sound pings are helpful tho, checking minimap for sound pings of other approaching teams has definitely saved me more than once.

[acoustic surge]

i agree with all of this but cant quite pinpoint if its anti-trios or pro-trios

[rough pagoda]

Idk I think it's just a statement about how supervive is in general

I LOVE the insane fights

Especially the extended 3-4-5 team fights are crazy fun

[acoustic surge]

character role wise they are getting everything in a good spot rn especially with the saros release

i just hope the balancing doesnt fully tank with trios

[olive swan]

It’s not necessarily either, personally I think Trios will be an interesting experiment I don’t know if it’ll be a net good or bad, but I’m excited to try it more.

[rough pagoda]

I played like 3 games of trios it's not too much different just smaller fights

It needs to be live to really get a feel

[acoustic surge]

i dont think it will be terrible, but even at its peak it will feel worse than squads to me

[olive swan]

I kept thinking “where the hell is my 4th teammate what are they doing” before realizing that I don’t have a fourth teammate. Likewise with enemies wondering where their 4th was and if they would suddenly appear to kill me xD.

[rough pagoda]

I just hope trios change helps me actually get to play. I only had 2 hours today and could barely be in game for half of the time. Game state doesn't really matter if I can't even play it.

[olive swan]

I don’t think it changes queues that much, like duos and squads combined ranked/unranked queues, now we just split unranked and ranked but combined squads and duos.

So people are still split between the same number of queues, there’s just 10% less people in a match. 10% of 10m is 1m 🤷‍♂️

[sturdy hornet]

It will. Characters like Oath suddenly only have to block projectiles from 3 instead of 4 people, Characters like Zeph suddenly only have to spread their heals across 3 people instead of 4, Kingpin hooks fully eliminate 33% of a team instead of only 25%. Reviving in general will be a lot more difficult, which makes characters like Elluna a lot weaker. Characters like Beebo or shrike that massively benefit from the chaos of squads to chip in damage will be a lot worse.

Trios is going to throw off the balance in a major way. Will most likely take months of balancing to get back to a somewhat decent spot.

[agile swan]

Everyone here saying trios will lack competitiveness is on something. Battlerite had some of the most depth to combat you could ever hope for as a trios game. Supervive will have more and in a more fun way. Getting better at battlerite was exhausting and as it's a true 3v3 competitive game with 0 randomness, it creates burnout fast. Supervive has so many more elements to keep it interesting in fun ways and 3s will have plenty of competitiveness. Squads sucks (my opinion, not fact), and the devs even said earlier that duos had more stickiness. Hoping trios will be a nice middle ground

[half comet]

I honestly don't fully buy this criticism just because Duos exists ... The issues here would theoretically be doubly as bad with two fewer players, but duos isn't an unplayable mode

[cerulean sentinel]

This game is not anywhere near battlerite in terms of combat.

[acoustic surge]

supervive characters have 10x less depth and the TTK is 5x as fast

rlly awful point u make ngl

[agile swan]

You're missing the point. Supervives depth comes from other areas. But saying trios is uncompetitive is just entirely baseless

[cerulean sentinel]

I don’t disagree with either of those statements, but battlerite having deep combat 3v3 doesn’t necessarily mean this game will, since the combat is very different.

[agile swan]

Really awful point you say as you previously made blanket statements of opinion as fact and claim to know how everyone feels. "Everyone who matters" when quite frankly the 2k remaining players don't really matter. What matters is the the players that get the game to critical mass

[cerulean sentinel]

Gonna have to quibble on this one, losing 50k players and then trying to relaunch definitely will matter some, many of those won’t come back, and many of those early adopters are who you need to get the snowball rolling.

[agile swan]

Gain back the 48k and lose 2k feels like a good deal. Anyways it's simplistic statements to make a point. Pissing off early adopters isn't good, but pretending they're the end all be all is also bad. Lose 1k to gain 5k is a win. I think trios will gain way more than it loses

[sturdy hornet]

Supervive's depth comes exclusively from team coordination and positioning with very little individual agency. Watering that down to Trios with the lacking depth within hunter kits will do nothing but make the game feel dull and massively lower the overall skill ceiling.

[agile swan]

You will still need team coordination in trios

[sturdy hornet]

Didn't say you need none, but you need a whole lot less than in Squads, ultimately resulting in the game being a lot more casual & less competitive.

[agile swan]

Quads felt dull AF for me and a lot of people I played with. I see your side, but quads players seem unable to see the other side

[cerulean sentinel]

That was my point, you won’t get those 48k magically back. People who have quit are much more likely to stay quit.

Is it the end of all? No. Will it stack the deck against the game a bit in the future, when the game already is struggling? Yeah.

[sturdy hornet]

The vast majority of the playerbase are playing squads.

[agile swan]

Cause duos you couldn't even get queues. Everyone left and the only people remaining were people with dedicated squads. I stopped playing mostly because of I queued with anyone it was 20 minutes on a good day (fairly sure it was bugged). But as mentioned before, the devs said duos had more stickiness, but when you lose a vast majority of your player base that hardly matters overall. People liked duos, I think trios will be liked more

It's a problem that compounded on itself. No one will stick around with 40 minute queues and it actually became that even before duos was officially dead.

[sturdy hornet]

"People liked duos"
Based on what metric did they like duos when nobody is playing it? If it's not hard to get 3 people together to play Trios, it would be even less effort to get a single friend to hop on and queue. I just don't buy the "compounding effect" explanation. The only reason Duos is not played is because the entire game is balanced around Squads and for most people it's the more complete experience. Trios will run into the exact same issue, and based on the feedback from most high elo players like Tom or Lemur, Trios just seems to be a watered down version of what Squads currently is.

[agile swan]

Would you stay with a 40 minute queues? And I say it's bugged cause if the party leader disbanded, the other would get an instant queue pop. It was bugged and you could not play with friends

I'm actually not convinced it would ever pop

[sturdy hornet]

If enough people had the interest to queue, 40 minute queues would not exist to begin with.

[agile swan]

See where I say it was bugged. It was bugged when people were playing together making queue times outrageous compared to what they should have been.

Playing solo had pops no problem

[sturdy hornet]

So you're saying Duos would be hugely popular if the queue wasn't bugged?

[agile swan]

It would have been more popular. No part of supervive would have remained hugely popular

[sturdy hornet]

Well Squads has remained popular across their current playercount.

[agile swan]

Squads queue was never bugged when queueing with friends

[sturdy hornet]

Even if it was bugged at one point or another, people would still play squads now.

[agile swan]

Guarantee it dies if they had to wait over 40 minutes

[sturdy hornet]

You can queue Duos right now and still nobody is playing it.

So not sure what you're trying to say.

[agile swan]

There aren't players remaining, largely because to play with a friend you have to wait nearly an hour. All my duos people quit because you could not party with anyone

[cerulean sentinel]

Duo queue was not 40 min bc of a bug.

[agile swan]

What I'm trying to say is all these trio doomsaying arguments are not based on facts. There will likely be some friction with the change but saying the only depth comes from 4 players is just completely unfounded

[cerulean sentinel]

Which is understandable. The rest of these points you’re making aren’t solid though.

[agile swan]

Even before player count dropped immensely it was like 15 minutes min

My only point is there is plenty of depth with duos, there will be plenty with trios

[sturdy hornet]

No matter how you twist it or turn it, Duos are less popular than Squads and always have been. A lot less popular. The game is clearly designed around Squads, and scrims have followed the format for exactly that reason ever since the Closed Beta. The way hunters are designed more akin to hero shooters rather than having a lot of individual agency like in MOBAs or Arena games is clearly, because it emphasizes the teamplay aspect rather than individual carry potential.

[agile swan]

You can find a feedback post from me a while ago. I've always said trios would be a great sweet spot

If anything if the game doesn't die, I see more room for 5s then 4s. Quads always confused the crap outta me. Lackluster on the team aspect and individual agency. Literal worst of all worlds

[sturdy hornet]

lol What are you talking about? The devs themselves feel like the individual agency of each player is way too low and people have to rely too much on their teammates, which is why they're making the change to begin with. That's why they're constantly leading their discovery with 1vX fights feeling impossible.

[olive swan]

I think I remember a dev responding to a question about why Duo’s is the default queue when you open the game. I believe the response being that data showed Duo’s being stickier for new players. Not sure if I can find the actual response…

Maybe it lacked depth to keep them around though, don’t think we really know.

[spice ether]

not sure if i can find the actual response
I believe it's #💬│supervive message

[olive swan]

Yeah that’s it, thanks Oatmeal

[sturdy hornet]

The main reason why duos feel "stickier" is that they let premades queue with randoms in squads. Obviously people feel more comfortable running into a duo than a full team that can run them down.

[olive swan]

Is it?

[agile swan]

Yeah as a duos main that's not a fair statement. Duos had a lot going for it.

[sturdy hornet]

And realistically it's going to be the exact same with Trios. People with full 3 man premades will completely steamroll anybody solo q'ing with 2 randoms. Individual player impact will be slightly raised artificially through subtracting a player, but ultimately will be not nearly enough to successfully 1v2 or 1v3 for 99% of casual solo players. Unless Trios comes with some monumental changes to hunter kits, it won't improve the average players experience.

[sturdy hornet]

like what?

[agile swan]

Like less third parties for 1. I think it's counter intuitive for a lot of people but being able to more consistently wipe a team made it so the mid game wasn't 90 percent of players were alive. Your little duo had more agency to control the flow of the game than in squads. If you go for a team wipe in squads it often led to the third party and death sentence so it's gone for a lot less

And if you were third partied it's way less lethal. There's more room to counterplay and get out than getting jumped on by 4

[olive swan]

There’s a lot of potential factors, can’t reliably know what ones are relevant broadly.

[agile swan]

Essentially there was more opportunity to outplay and live or outplay and turn the tides

[sturdy hornet]

You're contradicting yourself here. On one hand you say fights conclude faster, because you can more consistently wipe teams and then you say there is more room to counterplay and get out?

[agile swan]

Yeah it was skill based. I can make a skilled play and finish a team, but there was room for them to turn it back on me. It wasn't a death sentence to go for it due to the risk of the team sitting around waiting for other people to fight. That was guaranteed in squads, not so much in duos

Or if they were waiting. It takes less time to kill 2 then 4. Kill 2 and stabilize by the time the next duo is on you

[sturdy hornet]

I mean it kinda doesn't though. Like you said it is skill based, you can wipe a 4 man squad just as quick as you can wipe a 2 man squad.

Obviously if you're super uncoordinated, you're never going to wipe anybody quick.

[agile swan]

Really you think it's easier or the same to wipe a team of 4 compared to 2?

[olive swan]

I theory yeah, but practically that isn’t really the experience most people will end up with. That’s what matters.

[sturdy hornet]

I'm not saying it's easier or harder, but more or less about the same. We're talking about Supervive here where a good celeste, void, oath or beebo ult can instantly wipe a whole team. The TTK in Supervive is ridiculously low.

[sturdy hornet]

They don't because they play in a random squad vs. other squads that are premade.

[agile swan]

Here's reality. There was always more people that survived longer in squads

And the remaining people in competitive duos games always felt better than squads to me

I felt more agency as a player to make big plays and for my duo to control the flow of the game. It was fun that had a better risk reward structure than squads

[sturdy hornet]

See, it's one thing to say "I liked duos better because it felt better to me", which is completely fair, or to straight up blame any issues on the game's main format being Squads. Because the reality is that there are no direct issues with Squads, while there are a lot of issues with the way the game was designed around squads and teamplay rather than individual impact. Obviously a solo player technically can feel better about himself in a smaller team size than in a larger one, but in the end it does not actually adress the core issues of why the solo & casual experience is so bad.

And there are also issues with matchmaking that make it a much worse experience than it should be if done correctly, like queueing full premades together with 4 randoms in a team. The low playercount also results in diamond players often getting matched with grandmaster or legend players, which happens way more often in Squads as it's seen as the "main mode" for most ranked grinders.

[white tulip]

"yes I'm gold in duos, how could you tell?"

[agile swan]

I'm making arguments for duos because trios will be somewhere between the 2 game modes which I am excited for

Squads had problems and duos had problems

I just think squads was garbage (for me) and trios will alleviate a lot of my issues with it

[sturdy hornet]

Trios will be squads with one less player though rather than duos with one more player, in terms of how it feels to play.

[agile swan]

And on the flip side I think you will maintain a lot of what you like about squads

Literally think it's a win win

[sturdy hornet]

No it won't, which I have explained above.

[agile swan]

agree to disagree then. Cheers

[sturdy hornet]

Fair enough. Guess we'll see on the 2nd if there is a massive spike in players from this transformative change or, surprise surprise, Trios won't change anything but alienate a lot of the current players.

[agile swan]

I think expecting an instant spike isn't totally fair. It's a long term play

[sudden surge]

We will 100% see a spike if we get a new character and a new battle pass. In other games, new content tends to get players interested in the game, and I'm reasonably certain that some players finished the battle pass and stopped playing because the battle pass was what kept them engaged with the game.

It may not be too big of a spike though. At best we'll get the numbers we had in around January.

[cerulean sentinel]

Tbh, no matter what the patch is it’s unlikely to get us above 5k unless there’s more marketing. God himself could code the perfect patch and it wouldn’t get us back to January numbers.

[sudden surge]

I agree, that's why I said numbers in January (which peaked around 4k)

[twin ruin]

In all honesty, what matters isn't the raw numbers. What matters is the trending numbers. If the game can just retain players and gain new ones, even slowly, then it'll work out. It doesn't need to shoot up to a threshold. Hunt Showdown had an incredibly similar arc. Early Alpha/Beta tests were popular and got attention, and then most players left. But they had a core audience and kept making good changes. Over time they got to a very healthy place

[cerulean sentinel]

I kinda disagree. The relatively large lobby size, and much larger needed player count for a halfway decent ranked queue mean you kinda do need a certain player count to work with to avoid long queue times or bad match making. Both of those things have been cited repeatedly as stress points.

[twin ruin]

Well yes you need critical mass to sustain, but that's much less than 40k. It's unlikely we see a sudden leap in playercount but that's genuinely ok as long as there's consistent growth. If the game is sustaining then we will eventually hit that critical mass

And again it's not some crazy high number

[cerulean sentinel]

Yeah, I’d put the number at about 15-20k for healthy queues and ranked. Thats maybe a bit low for the ranked part, but good enough. The patch may be helpful in other ways, but I don’t see it getting us to that number, or solving the other retention issues if it does get us there by some miracle.

[twin ruin]

Any positive change would be welcome. It doesn't have to come all at once

Regardless of how I feel about Trios (and I'm honestly unsure about it either way) having 1 single format is a good thing, and splitting up ranked and unranked is a great thing. Combine that with the custom lobbies for everyone, and the game feels like it has real foundation to keep casual players and attract more competitive ones at the same time

[cerulean sentinel]

I don’t really have an opinion on trios either. I see it as a bit of a nothingburger designed to bandaid the queue times while they split ranked and unranked again.

What I do have some feelings on is the general wheel spinning of the last 4 or so patches. I don’t think any of these things have been tackling the biggest weak points of the game except for maybe resurgence, and it brought its own serious issues. I don’t think I’m alone in that hopeless feeling.

[twin ruin]

I think that's a bit negative. Changing to trios is a really big deal, I'd hardly call it a bandaid. But it does solve several issues at once. Multiple queues splitting playerbase, lack of true unranked making casuals not have fun and making sweats not value the rank. Plus readability and solo agency, which are huge retention issues. Mainly the solo agency, the game won't survive if you have to have 3 friends online to have fun

I'm kinda wondering what you consider to be the biggest weakpoints are, because I just listed a lot of them imo

[spice fern]

I started SV as a duos player. It was easier to get into as squads can def be overwhelming at first. But I switched after I had gotten more used to the game and noticed squads is actually more fun. Duos has its own appeal so I see why some like it. But to many its more dull. And I had the same impression of trios. The game wasnt designed around it. If they want to shift to trios they have some work to do in order to bring it up to par imo, thats all.

[cerulean sentinel]

For me, trios is sharpening a broken sword. Like sure, it’s a change and arguably an improvement, but also sort of missing the point.

[twin ruin]

Ok but what is the point

[cerulean sentinel]

Let me put it like this then, do you think having 3 person teams rather than 4 will be a major improvement to the games retention?

[twin ruin]

My HOPE is (and I doubt it will happen) that they use this as an opportunity to really add more to the formula. I don't think the genre is being pushed hard enough, there's space to actually do some new things here.

[twin ruin]

Alone, no, but the effects that trios are allowing might. But you're not answering my question lol. You're saying it doesn't address the real issues, I understand that. But what are the real issues? What is the game missing?

Bc the real issues aren't playercount. That's a symptom of an issue.

[cerulean sentinel]

I started to write a giant book about it, but I realized I just can’t be bothered to do it again.

The short version is it lacks the right kind of depth. It’s made to have a fighting games kind of depth, but that is a niche appeal that won’t support the player count that this game needs even when done textbook, and supervive with its genre bending is far from textbook.

I said 3-4 months ago that strategic depth or at least the lack of feeling of it was this games Achilles heel, and that people wouldn’t stay long once the flash wore off.

Until that gets fixed, you can patch it to have 1 -10 players and it’ll be the same. You can make the gold shop on the moon, and gold fall from characters butts, or give everyone 10 dashes that reset when you kill a mosquito. Whatever they do, the game won’t be able to get and stay off the ground until that’s fixed.

[olive swan]

Does Oath even have a butt to have gold fall from? He’s kinda just in a mech suit so I don’t think that counts personally.

[spice fern]

For a live-service game to be successful nowadays you need a lot of factors to be dialed in at the right time, it seems. Even a decent game with potential, once it bleeds players too quickly, because of some mistake or issues at launch, it can be hard to come back.

Most people like to go where the masses are. And unless you're making a game that's intended to be niche and fills that niche well you need those masses.

The game is easy on some levels but confusing and hard on others.
It's a new genre and isn't super intuitive for a lot of newer players.
I think that def hurt retention.
And frankly those alone can already be enough to trigger a downward spiral. Then you add that big lobby sizes make healthy matchmaking difficult and you easily have the whole thing break down on you. And at that point the masses move on quickly and don't come back.

Now the question is, even if matchmaking had been great and we had started with better readability (maybe trios) and a more intuitive start and with streamers playing together with veterans, would the game have been solid enough at its core to retain high playercount and thrive medium to longterm? That's not super easy to answer. Maybe the genre or game-style in general has a more niche appeal.
Most of the successful big-playercount live service games that still exist were cultural phenomenons (apex, fortnite, LoL etc.). SV would really have to hit a right vein to join such titles and retain high playercounts.
The Finals is a good comparison. It's great and innovative FPS from a new studio that managed to gain a footing. Much more accessible to people due to more familiarity with the genre. But even it can't pull very high numbers I also don't think it needs as big lobby sizes as SV either.

SV mixes high teamplay, macro-strategy, positioning and creative item/power-usage with fairly simple ability and aim based gameplay.
Does that formula have mainstream appeal?

It's pretty different from the appeal of mobas and pretty different from the appeal of shooters. It's something new. Which is great. But to bring it to the masses and not have it be too niche the package/presentation/marketing has to be incredibly dialed in most likely (unless you get really lucky somehow with major streamers taking a liking to it or something).

Those are some thoughts on the challenges for this kind of game.

[agile swan]

Ugh I was an avid hunt player. They were doing so well. Game is just another cod now (hyperbole but they're trending away from what made them great and unique)

[twin ruin]

I was forced to stop playing Hunt when they banned Reshade. With their awful Antialiasing and greyscale, I can't see shit

[agile swan]

Were you playing at the upper end? That was the best thing they did. A vast majority of my opponents were using it for an unfair advantage and that is no hyperbole.

The toggle scope via reshade was so egregious.

[twin ruin]

Upper end? What do you mean? And yeah I'm aware of the people turning everything pink and orange and turning off flashbangs. I wasn't doing that, I just upped the contrast and color values slightly.

[agile swan]

Yeah that I had no issue with that but I'm talking high 6 star. Most players around my rank were using it to cheat

[twin ruin]

Don't remember all my settings but I had avid Reshade haters look at my game and go "Ok that's fine, that's barely anything"

[twin ruin]

Yeah nah Ive never been interested in being 6 star lol too much consistent sweat

I'd just run into Hornet and get shot through 8 walls because his friends mom was thinking about me and he heard it

Mfr is psychic

[agile swan]

I exist to sweat on games lol. But yeah I'm sure it wasn't an issue low 5 and below. High 6 they weren't even trying to hide it. Like you definitely can see me 500 meters away with your non scoped mosin spitzer and land 4 shots in a row.

They nerfed wallbangs a ton which I hated too. Loved that aspect

[twin ruin]

I'm just mad that they banned it without fixing the game so that we didn't need it. Like I get people were cheating but everyone else had to use it because they made the game look artificially shitty

Like just fix your damn AA and give us actual quality settings, and I wouldn't need Reshade

[agile swan]

Idk I get that but I liked how it was

[twin ruin]

I mean i literally can't play games like that lol

Same with PUBG

Everything is grey and brown

[agile swan]

Color blind people definitely forgotten/ignored...

[twin ruin]

I'll die to someone standing right in front of me and I won't even know what's killing me bc my eyes suck ass

I'm just normal blind lol

[sturdy hornet]

Hunt also didn't do constant massive changes to the core game to alienate the existing playerbase repeatedly.

[agile swan]

very debatable

[sturdy hornet]

Not debatable. Recently they did a lot of controversial changes, but not during Alpha/Beta. After the initial change to be an extraction shooter, the core game always stayed the same.

[agile swan]

Move more and more towards spam and gutting wall bangs is changing the core game

[sturdy hornet]

When did they gut wall bangs?

[agile swan]

Recently. They supposedly "fixed the bug" that made it stronger than intended. Total BS even if it was a bug, it was definitely a loved feature

[sturdy hornet]

Mate, do you even read before commenting?

Nobody is talking about recently

It's about the early stages of the game around 2018

[agile swan]

"After the initial change to be an extraction shooter the core game stayed the same." I am arguing that to me, they are changing the core game, because it was so much more than extraction shooter. It's still an extraction shooter yeah, but it's being dumbed down in a way that substantially changes the core game in my eyes

[sturdy hornet]

The whole point that Miscfitt brought up was that Hunt had a similar development arc to supervive, with a low, but loyal playercount.

"Hunt Showdown had an incredibly similar arc. Early Alpha/Beta tests were popular and got attention, and then most players left. But they had a core audience and kept making good changes."

Which is why I brought up that they also didn't make crazy changes to the core experience, like randomly changing the team size, letting people respawn for free or get health back on kill. I'm sorry you dislike the recent changes to hunt, maybe I'd dislike them too, but it's kind of irrelevant for what I said.

---

Realistically a game like supervive can steadily grow with careful and consistent updates, but TC is most likely alienating too many players with their constant sweeping changes. With Supervive you honestly just never know if the thing that makes the game fun for you right now is still around next week.

[daring jungle]

If I recall right from the playtest it was 12 or 13. I remember it being less than 40 players for sure

[tiny vapor]

oh yeah, other folks answered that awhile back. I think 12 is what I heard.

[twin ruin]

Kinda depends on what you consider core features. I did not like Hunt during its beta, I thought it was turbo garbage. After awhile I heard good things and tried it again and they had changed a ton and I enjoyed the new version

And they changed a lot of the central features, stuff like the bounties and how guns functioned, how purchasing things worked, etc

Now that I'm actually thinking about it, Hunt changed a LOT of core features. Mainly simplified and condensed them because the original versions were too frustrating and not enjoyable enough for people to want to interact with. Which is literally what TC is doing with SV.

[spiral path]

12 teams in trios, which means more 3rd partying but hey

[floral cargo]

As a void main and mainly solo q/playing with many different friend groups, be it full try hard to casual, Trios seems like it will be easier to have the team on the same page. Mainly as void, the potential to 1v3 is a lot easier than 1v4- Also in terms of a battle royale, being 3rd and heck even 4th partied will be a lot easier, its 2 less people you have to worry about in most situations, not just 1. That and actually learning how to position as a team properly. I see it still, positioning is such a huge aspect in if you can win fights or escape effectively if you need to. Most solo que, casual and players below gm here in asia dont position well at all, and despite mechanics being ok, they get steamrolled from using dashes/not having an escape plan in case of 3rd party etc. Dont think about storm or circles enough, where teams dropped and how the meta plays in terms of pathing for farm, powers and gold- If people were more aware of how crucial positioning with your team is from the getgo, I dont think 3 or 4 stacks would be that big of a problem as it is now, despite the skill disparity in mechanics or comms and such. That said, legend stacks getting match against unranked casuals and below Grandmaster players in ranked, especially solo q groups, will have a hard time winning against them, but player base is too low to do much about that besides splitting the ques, which they finally will! wooo, im stoked.

[sturdy hornet]

Except TC is not simplifying frustrating mechanics, but rather bandaid fixes issues with tagged on systems that undermine already existing ones, resurgence and resets being prime examples of that. Also not sure what you consider "core features", but ever since the Hunt Alpha 2017 (the first time they went public) they never fundamentally touched the gunplay or any other core pillar of the game like reviving, banishing boss targets or teamsize. It's not the same whatsoever.

[twin ruin]

The current gold system is merging several systems together and simplifying them. Also they've changed gunplay a lot multiple times lol
And they literally added a perk that lets you revive from distance and revive yourself. They have changed a LOT

[sturdy hornet]

Well, gold always existed, they just changed the way hunter kills interact with the item economy. Before you'd pick up powers, items and upgrade shards off the ground, now you just buy them with dropped gold instead. More or less the same in my book. Also they added the changes to gold to make killing hunters mainly about a centralized economy, only to then introduce resets on knocks that completely undermine that incentive by adding a much better one and making the game a lot less readable in the process. Now they're adding Trios to make the game more readable. Riddle me this.

If anything the game has gotten increasingly difficult to understand for new players with the changes over the last year and that is not even an opinion, but simply an observation.

Also, Necromancer in Hunt was added in 2020 and not during the Alpha / Beta. The gunplay also was exactly the same between the early alpha showcases and full release 2019.

[twin ruin]

Well. Yeah. That's why Hunt didn't do well until awhile after its release xD

[agile swan]

Remember when tier 1 hunters started with 100hp?

Horrible

[twin ruin]

Super small change honestly. Them changing how wall bangs work? Tiny. Adding beetles? Smol. Everything is a small change unless I don't like it, and then it's a massive change to the fundamentals of why I like the game!

Making bounties automatic and random

changing bullet velocity

allowing respec to health

so many things

[olive swan]

From my perspective it seems like the gold changes and such were meant to change when you’re presented with information, I think because it could easily be overwhelming when they don’t appear at appropriate times.

Moving to gold means your only presented with upgrading items when you are at a shop, and are less likely to be in some kind of fight, PvE or PvP. So you have time to make those decisions and learn.

Similar with powers, now you mostly only steal them on team wipe, usually after the fight is over when you’re more likely to have time to consider your options.

I think they probably did a pretty good job at making the game easier to parse, but of course this is just speculation because we aren’t really new players lol.

[nimble ivy]

I remember when night was literally pitch black and you couldnt see anything without your lamp

[twin ruin]

The "good" old days of lamp being mandatory

[sturdy hornet]

Nobody is arguing about the currrent state of hunt. Anybody that has recently played the game, including myself, will agree with you they made some extremely questionable changes. All I'm saying is that good games, which I consider Supervive to be, don't necessarily need to make fundamental changes on a regular basis as opposed to gradual improvements in key areas (Things like changing the power progression through each round with experience tweaks) to get their game in a good position.

In my opinion, the sudden Trios change seems to be born more out of desperation than clear direction. If the game did well at the start, I'm sure we'd play Squads forever as the main gamemode. And I wholeheartedly believe that the things they're trying to adress, like individual player agency or overall readability, could've easily been solved in other ways without changing fundamentally how Supervive is structured. As I said before, I'd even argue they're harming their own goals by introducing things like resets on knock. 1 step forward, 1 step back.

Making a drastic change like changing team sizes in a BR so far into development tells me that the devs see issues in the game that they don't truly know how to fix directly, so they're throwing stuff at the wall and hope something sticks. If you as a player can't reliably count on the devs keeping the core reasons you love the game for intact from patch to patch, then you create a volatile environment where tons of people might try out your game, but nobody ever sticks around. And besides the lack of marketing, which is obviously something they haven't focused on, people have definitely jumped ship because the devs are constantly alienating the current player base with controversial change after controversial change.

And you're saying they're "simplifying" the game, meanwhile when my casual friends try out the game again after 2 months of not playing, I have to text them a whole essay to explain all the massive changes they've made yet again.

[twin ruin]

Yeah that's just a problem with setting expectations.

If you have a new player who hasn't played before, they'd have an easier time playing today than they would have 4 months ago

[sturdy hornet]

Do they? I don't think so.

[twin ruin]

I definitely do

[agile swan]

I can't count the number of times I saw the devs mention take big swings quickly. If you want pure stability and aren't willing to test things at this point, you probably should take a break. Whether you think they should be is a different story. But I stopped at one point because to me the game became unplayable. Excited to try trios. If you try trios and hate it, leave and wait a bit. It could be reverted or it could be really good

[twin ruin]

^ This

When Open Beta launch didn't go as planned, they had to choose whether they wanted to stick to their guns and please the ever dwindling playerbase, or if they wanted to essentially put it in reverse and go back to development. You can't just shut the servers down and say "we'll try again later" bc they would destroy all the credibility immediately, plus waste all the resources that were put into it. So they openly told the community that they didn't think the core loop was working, and they were going to be trying a lot of big changes to nail that before 1.0. Which is what they're doing. And now you're upset that they're... changing things rapidly, exactly as they said they would?

[sturdy hornet]

No. I don't mind bigger changes, but I just don't think they're focusing on the right things. Their last couple "big swings" have been complete misses and have not achieved at all what they set out to achieve, yet those systems are still in the game and harm the integrity of the game, even though the feedback has been unanimous, loud and clear. Hard to put faith in them "rapidly changing things", when it does nothing but make the game worse.

[twin ruin]

Complete misses? Gold was a great change, reset on knock is imo good it just desperately needed that balance patch to happen first instead of after. The movement changes were also great

I maintain my position of "slow the fuck down"

[daring jungle]

Depends what you’re comparing to. More third partying than squads, less third partying than duos

[twin ruin]

yeah but. honestly I only played duo's as a lark and a way to rank up without having a team tbh. Like duo's never felt strategic, it was just running around pubstomping people.

which, squads has been that too tbh but at least it's considered a problem in squads

[agile swan]

Duos had less third partying than squads. Squads you can hardly move as you're always at risk of third parties

[twin ruin]

very disagree

[daring jungle]

Nah, double the teams means constant third partying. But the third partying is less intense because its only two people instead of four, which personally I like.

Happens more, but less impactful when it happens

[twin ruin]

I think the better you get at duos the less you feel like third parties happen because you're finishing off people fast enough that third parties don't happen while you're fighting. But if it takes a bit and you actually commit to the fight, you're way way more likely to have someone walking up to ruin your time

[daring jungle]

A bit less strategic yea. I personally feel like duos as a gamemode is pretty cool though, but it just never turned out amazing because you were facing a lot more bots and new players in it than in squads

I love the move to trios tho

[agile swan]

So strategizing your engages to avoid a true third party

[sturdy hornet]

Resurgence is universally hated, a ton of people are unhappy with resets on knock and objectively they destroy combat clarity more than Trios could ever repair it, softcaps have a ton of issues that still haven't been adressed, specifically academy being completely broken. Gold changes were pretty neutral, even though they reduced power availbility in the game and homogenized power acquisition too much, in scrims every team has the same powers in the last couple circles. Their recent changes have not been good across the board, and definitely have not been well received.

[agile swan]

Vs I can't be aggressive at all here cause 10 teams are alive in night 2

The flow of duos was so much better in terms of people left on the map at any given point. Especially in the more competitive games.

[nimble ivy]

most of us higher level players dont like it, but that doesnt mean that it isnt increasing overall engagement for the playerbase. They have the actual data, we are just making informed guesses on what is "good" or "bad" for the game

[agile swan]

The classic thing we all do to some extent. I feel so strongly about this that others can't possibly have a different opinion

[sturdy hornet]

Obviously. But what other metric can we go off when discussing other than forum posts and seeing other people's reactions? I haven't heard a single person talk positively about resurgence, and a f*ckton of people talk negatively about it.

[autumn snow]

They decided to go with resurgence because the player numbers didnt drop for two days in a row after the patch dropped ( maybe you also could get the idea that numbers didnt drop because of the patch day itself and not because the mechanic was so loved). If that this the base to make such decisions, oh lord.

[agile swan]

I don't like it but it definitely achieved one clear objective, give people more chances to fight and learn per game

[nimble ivy]

i garuntee you that is not why they stuck with resurgence. Again, we only have a tiny piece of the total picture.

[agile swan]

I doubt any or at least many, experienced players like it. I can tolerate it though if it actually makes new players stickier

[sturdy hornet]

If their plan going forward is to consistently make changes to make people try out the game a little longer for the price of pissing off their core players, the game will never settle in a healthy spot.

[twin ruin]

They have a finite amount of time till 1.0. They're trying to do as much as they can, test as many things out as possible so they can find the best solution for 1.0 release. The plan is not change things fundamentally forever, it's change things until something works in BETA.

You legit just have to understand that this is a true, classic beta.

not the modern "the game is 99% done we just need stress testing and bugfixing" betas that we're used to.

[sturdy hornet]

A true beta with a paid battlepass, ranked with ranked rewards and official tournaments. aha.

[twin ruin]

almost like they thought they had a stronger release than they ended up having so they're trying to do 2 major tasks at once. The alternative is they tell the current community to fck off while they work on the game in secret. They can't put the genie back in the bottle, idk why that's so hard to understand.

[sturdy hornet]

Almost like they thought they had a stronger release and then ship a bunch of changes with a "beta" tag so that nobody can criticize them for not having a strong release.

Early Access Meta 2025 in a nutshell.

[twin ruin]

what is the alternative you are impossible to please

"hmm we can try nothing and fail slowly or we can try things and upset people who don't understand what iterating is"

[sturdy hornet]

Tell me then, Sherlock, how they would exactly know how popular or successful a feature or change will be when there are literally the exact same people playing the game without any marketing? April 2nd Trios will launch and the only spike you're going to see is maybe a couple hundred people, mainly because of a new battlepass and a new hunter. The changes they're making are complete gambles for no reason. You're delusional if you don't see that at all.

[twin ruin]

You have extreme "has never worked in food service" energy

[sturdy hornet]

How about you answer my question from your high horse.

The reality is, you can't.

[twin ruin]

The reality is, I did. You're just really really looking for something to validate your frustration and I'm not going to sit here and continue to argue with someone who clearly just doesn't get it.

[sturdy hornet]

How are they measuring the success of a change with no tangible change in player count?

its a simple question

You're acting as if everything they do is a "big swing" that is guaranteed to improve the game, when there is no evidence that any of their changes have helped the game to be more successful when 1.0 launches.

[twin ruin]

Well you know what they say

If at first you don't succeed, give up already, god what are you doing, just trying stuff until you find something that works? Ugh.

[sturdy hornet]

And according to that logic, how would we know that if we put a ton of money into marketing right now, that the game wouldn't do well?

Such a nothing burger of an argument.

[olive swan]

The only player count we have is concurrent users, which is the one of the noisiest Signals available. They have a lot of way more specific data and also consider Surveys & Feedback.

Here’s something that can show you a bit more detail: #1329236035833565185 message

Some of the context is missing because the original post got deleted, as they usually do, but the thread still exists.

[plush tangle]

Now that this change has been made I'm never playing this game ever again. Game was great, but the devs have no idea which direction they should be taking on this game. Most groups play with 4 players. This game went from Supervive to Shitervive

[twin ruin]

"Most groups" huh? How do you know that? Where are you even getting that from? There are so many squad games that vary in team size from 3-6, why is 4 the magic number?

[acoustic surge]

stopt ypin just to type

[fathom fjord]

Ngl I actually enjoyed trios during the playtest more than I do normal squads. Like I do really like trios and the only real issue I see with it is aome balance issues. Which will be ironed out over time so I dont see it as an actual issue.

And how some people are reacting is genuinely stupid. Like ots fine to not like it but just going "devs are killing their game" cus they're changing something about the core game is kinda dumb.

[tiny vapor]

I mean, have you met the gaming community? A feeling of entitlement - of being owed - is deeply endemic, and plenty of folks take any disruption or negative change as a personal attack. the devs are robbing them of the good times, don't you know.

Not against critique, even critique of this change, but gaming has a bad problem with people turning disappointment or frustration into hostility.

[iron dragon]

Woah! Stop right there! 🛑this chat is in positivity mode! ➕if you wanna talk about Supervive🗣️ Do so in a positive manner! 😀 No negativeity until negative hours ❌or else you lose talking stick privileges

[fathom fjord]

Are other communities like this? The only one I've seen that kinda acts like this woukd be LoL but even that community doesn't seem as bad like this.

Cus any change people are just complaining and complaining with most not even giving feedback or the reasons they hate it.

[ebon agate]

Its fine to criticize/praise something but it doesnt really acchieve much if the feedback isnt constructive. Just a simple "love/hate it" is fine feedback but the better way would be to say "Why" you love/hate something. And engage in conversation about it.

The moment you start saying stuff with hostility and attacking others with a differing opinion it kinda mudies your point. Since it comes across as just being an ass

Being critical of something you enjoy is very important for that thing to improve.
Never critiquing doesnt achieve much. But never praising doesnt either.

[ebon agate]

Theres an unfortunate effect with feedback where the moment people get upset the constructive critisism gets burried under hundreads of "I hate it shit game" comments and dilutes any actually good critisism

And when the masses turn openly hostile I guess it does force change to happen but was it worth it. Now the developers are very scared of chancing anything since now they showed to the community death threats and open hostility works

Flipside if everyone is too positive no proper change ever happens and anyone with critisism gets dismissed as just being mad, since red in a sea of green really stands out.

With too much positivity bad changes are bound to happen and then the community recoils suddenly from the feelings of negatvitiy. Then we get a negative community again

The cycle continues