• 244 Players on Java
  • us.mineplex.com
  • 6523 Players Online
  • 6279 Players on Bedrock
  • pe.mineplex.com
Attention Internet Explorer Users
To have the best user experience on our site please consider upgrading to Google Chrome or Mozilla Firefox

Reducing Required Players for Larger Minigames (Java)

Discussion in 'General Idea Discussion' started by jis, Mar 22, 2021.


Do you agree with this idea?

  1. Yes, it's necessary

    10 vote(s)
  2. Yes, with changes

    6 vote(s)
  3. No, it needs too many changes

    0 vote(s)
  4. No, it's unnecessary

    2 vote(s)
  1. Hey!

    So, as most of you will have noticed by now, the number of players online in the past couple of months has been on a downward trend, and therefore I believe that a reasonable solution would be to reduce the number of players needed for games to start.

    Here is my list of games that should be modified (not definite or final in any way, just for observation purposes):
    - The Bridges
    - UHC
    - Champions TDB
    - I'm sure there are others as well that could benefit from this change

    Either changing the maximum amount of players in the game or just simply reducing the required players would be a good start on keeping players coming back to Mineplex. For example, UHC lobbies can reach around 20-30 players at peak times nowadays, and thus this change would help start that game up again. The Bridges usually has somewhere from 10-20 people constantly playing the game, but it can be hard to get servers going in the slow hours of the day. Making this change for these minigames is crucial in my opinion, as I do not believe that removing games from the Network is a good move, whereas this seems like a more reasonable alternative.

    For example, starting UHC games at 24 players, and capping them at 48 would still be a symmetrical way to play the (once) popular minigame, and starting The Bridges games at 16 players would allow for lobbies to be started more easily, but without the worry of statboosting. Of course, these numbers are just my own recommendations, and do not have to be considered wholesale with this suggestion.

    Posted Mar 22, 2021
  2. We all can admit, A lot of games aren't very popular due to the number of players required to start and it ending up so that not a lot of people are actually queuing for the game. I would support this idea, you are saying that games would START at a different minimum amount of players and what is currently live would be the cap. I like it! The only issue that I could be seeing is that the maps are built specifically for a specific amount of players, (in terms of resources in bridges and terrain in UHC), with an abundance in players This could lead to players getting a lot more resources then they should be.

    Posted Mar 22, 2021
    aiirr, siee and jis like this.
  3. I did consider this, and thank you for your input and support! As of right now, these games listed aren't getting full lobbies anyways (and that's not even taking into account early deaths/inevitable leaving), so I do not think that the resource change will become a major issue. Of course, it is up to the Staff Team as to how (or if) this suggestion would be rolled out, so I trust them to do as they see fit.
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 22, 2021
    cwos likes this.
  4. This is a great idea for games such as Champions Dominate. Right now, DOM needs to have 10/10 players (5v5) to start. I think 4v4 and 3v3 would be great. Especially since champions isn't that popular and it can take a while to get 10 players.
    Posted Mar 22, 2021
    Fusafez, jis and aiirr like this.
  5. I could definitely see this being a positive change for certain games. I think Bridges and UHC would definitely be some good options to start with a change like this, since the player cap and minimum requirement of players to start a game is relatively high in comparison to other games on the server. A good point was made above though that the games and most, if not all of the maps involved with them, are created to support a bigger amount of players. So I don't think the cap or minimum should drop too low, and should only have a subtle change to it as a start.

    I think for Champions though, there really shouldn't be a change. Though if there were to be one I could see a 4v4 minimum being viable, since a 3v3 game would be extremely bland and I don't think it'd even be worth playing at that point. I feel like I've seen a suggestion similar to this specifically for Champions, where people wanted to the drop the player count/required count for the game to start, but I'm not sure if it was on the forums or just a general discussion I had at one point, though I don't remember many people being fond of the idea. Regardless though, a 4v4 cap could technically work and I personally would like to see some more discussion for DOM having a player count alteration since it is pretty hard to get a lobby going most of the time. Unique idea overall!
    Posted Mar 22, 2021
    Fall and jis like this.
  6. yeah i think you're right, 3v3 would be really different. But 4v4 would definitely work
    Posted Mar 22, 2021
    aiirr likes this.
  7. I would really like this! Personally I'd love to see what UHC is like, but I've never had the opportunity because of how long it takes to actually have a game start. I think making Bridges a minimum 6v6v6v6 and maximum 8v8v8v8 would drastically improve queue times, and as others have said above, I think a 4v4 for champions would keep gameplay roughly the same whilst also improving the queue times.

    Posted Mar 23, 2021
    jis likes this.
  8. I could be mistaken but I thought bridges' minimum was 5v5v5v5
    Posted Mar 23, 2021
  9. Pretty sure it isn't, I was in a game the other day and there were 20 people but game still wouldn't start. It could've been a party issue, but it was like 22 or something in the lobby so seems somewhat unlikely.
    Posted Mar 23, 2021,
    Last edited Mar 23, 2021
    90k likes this.
  10. The minimum for The Bridges is 5v5v5v5, but sometimes lobby glitches do occur like that, which is another, separate issue too :D

    Thanks for your input and I appreciate your support!
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Mar 25, 2021
    HonestTM likes this.
  11. Absolutely 100% agreed. I was the creator of another thread which suggested that the player requirement for UHC be lowered to 30, but it would be beneficial for Bridges/Champions and any other game that requires a high population. I would say to start with, the minimum requirement for each game should be:

    UHC - 30 players (15 Teams of 2)
    Bridges - 16 players (4v4v4v4)
    Champions - 6 players (3v3)

    However, I am totally fine with anything as long as it is a reduction and helps start the games faster.

    - Lucas
    Posted Mar 29, 2021
    90k, Fusafez and fangface30 like this.
  12. Minimum I'd be interested in seeing Champions DOM go to is 4v4. We were actually hoping to raise the hard cap on players to a 6v6, but I have no idea what happened to the dev time we were told we'd get for that.
    Posted Mar 29, 2021
  13. Heyo!

    I give this idea a huge +1! When CS was live over the holidays, there was a required player count reduction to help lobbies start faster, which was also in line with a lowered hard cap to help with lag. Other games with similar player counts, like Bridges, are unable to get games going outside of peak times because of the player requirement, so reducing the players needed to start would help keep those communities alive.

    From what I know, a player count reduction or change in a game's hard cap would be easy to fix in terms of dev time, but there are concerns about stat boosting in smaller lobbies. Personally, I think allowing players to have smaller games for their own enjoyment outweighs the worries of stat boosting.
    Posted Mar 29, 2021
    SALB Music and jis like this.
  14. bump for Staff review <3_<3
    OP OP
    OP OP Posted Apr 2, 2021
  15. I'll start off by saying that I agree with your suggestion, it's been something that has been raised by the community many times in the past and so it's definitely something many people desire. I think we need to consider how gameplay could be affected by this change though, I am all for lowering the required number of players needed for a game to automatically start, but changing the cap could then affect how gameplay works when the server is at its peak of players during the day.

    The changes you suggested for both Bridges and UHC sound reasonable, I think those two games would definitely benefit from this kind of a change. I wouldn't be too concerned about many other games out there though, since they don't have that large of player requirements anyway. So overall, I like your suggestion and would like to see it implemented in some way or another, as long as gameplay is still prioritised and is not negatively impacted.
    Posted Apr 2, 2021
    Fusafez and jis like this.
  16. I think this is a wonderful idea, thank you for bringing it up.

    I have seen this suggestion before and I think it needs to be implemented, as with the current standings of player it is sometimes difficult to get games going even though there are people wanting to play the game. Many times I have seen players complaining that they are unable to join a game and end up leaving, and in the bridges example, I've seen the game be cancelled more than once because there was only one person missing for the required 40. I think a reevaluation for each of the games is necessary and not just the ones proposed, to allow for more lobbies to start and attract a bigger population.

    Hope to see this implemented later. Huge +1.
    Posted Apr 3, 2021
    Fusafez, 90k and jis like this.
  17. I definitely agree with this! I can see that is would be very frustrating for some players when they can't play their favourite games due to lack of a player base yet there are enough to almost reach the limit to start the game. Also, if more lobbies are starting and it becomes easier to play consistently then it may attract more players and increase it's popularity! I hope to see this implemented at some point.
    Posted Apr 3, 2021
    Fusafez likes this.
  18. Reducing the player count for some games sounds like a good option but it can affect gameplay. I definitely agree with minimum players to reduce in games like UHC, and can support it for Champions as it used to run lower. However, I have heard people say that it's just not a long-term solution, and just because we have less players doesn't mean we have to give many games the Skywars treatment (player count kept getting lowered).

    Rather, money should be spent on marketing and bringing new people to the server or existing ones to different games, rather than constantly lowering the players required.
    Posted Apr 3, 2021
  19. This would help, it's hard to queue games on Java.
    Posted Apr 12, 2021
  20. I would rather the focus be on bringing more players so that this won't be necessary because this is only a temporary solution that doesn't fix the root cause of the problem
    Posted Apr 12, 2021

Share This Page