Jump to content

Battalion Vs Battalion (36 Vs 36) Private Matches


18 replies to this topic

Poll: Allow 36 vs 36 (battalion vs battalion) in private matches on suitable maps? (30 member(s) have cast votes)

Allow battalion vs battalion matches in private matces?

  1. Yes (28 votes [93.33%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 93.33%

  2. No (2 votes [6.67%] - View)

    Percentage of vote: 6.67%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 Katotonic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 169 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:27 PM

One of the things i would love to see in game is the larger battles we saw in the battletech universe. While it would not be feasible on some of the smallest maps, 36 vs 36 would allow both a development in team play hopefully resulting in more realistic military tactics as well as allow larger player made units to really fight together not just have individual companies drop indepently. This would also fit in really well with the introduction of community warfare.

#2 Jaeger Gonzo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,219 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 07:52 PM

Sure, but we need way bigger maps for that.

#3 Impyrium

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The God
  • The God
  • 2,104 posts
  • LocationSouth Australia

Posted 26 July 2014 - 09:24 PM

For that size, we'd need massively bigger maps, proper battlefield objectives and conventional forces such as armour and aerospace. That, and I doubt the game could handle it well, considering the difficulty it has with handling 12v12.

#4 Katotonic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 169 posts

Posted 26 July 2014 - 11:00 PM

I would agree that larger maps would be necessary but i also think that maps like tourmaline, alpine peaks, and Terra therma could handle it as is (granted a little bit cramped).

Edited by Katotonic, 26 July 2014 - 11:01 PM.


#5 ExAstra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 131 posts

Posted 27 July 2014 - 05:30 AM

I voted yes, but I feel I should explain my current position on it:

1) We need bigger maps than we already have.
2) We need more mechs than we have.
3) We need better weight balance than we have.

I feel we need bigger maps because 36v36 is rather monstrous. It would be fantastic for sure, but I'd like to see more mech chassis than we have. If it was a balanced 3/3/3/3 x 3 on both sides, we'd run out of mechs in a single match. I mean obviously it's not like we can't have duplicates but it'd be nice to see more variety.

And finally, we need better weight balance than what we have to run those types of matches. What I mean is, right now it just seems like if you're not in a heavy or assault mech with as many ballistic hardpoints as you can find, you're not gonna have a good time. Granted that's not an absolute, but it feels like mediums and lights have no role to play in the current game. I don't want to see 36 Ilya Muromets vs 36 Thunderbolts.

I'd like to see an actual battalion vs an actual battalion. So long story short, yes, but not anywhere in the near future.

#6 DI3T3R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 27 July 2014 - 05:59 AM

Won't happen: the bottleneck is the synchronization of 72 players.

#7 Katotonic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 169 posts

Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:24 AM

View PostExAstra, on 27 July 2014 - 05:30 AM, said:

I voted yes, but I feel I should explain my current position on it:

1) We need bigger maps than we already have.
2) We need more mechs than we have.
3) We need better weight balance than we have.

I feel we need bigger maps because 36v36 is rather monstrous. It would be fantastic for sure, but I'd like to see more mech chassis than we have. If it was a balanced 3/3/3/3 x 3 on both sides, we'd run out of mechs in a single match. I mean obviously it's not like we can't have duplicates but it'd be nice to see more variety.

And finally, we need better weight balance than what we have to run those types of matches. What I mean is, right now it just seems like if you're not in a heavy or assault mech with as many ballistic hardpoints as you can find, you're not gonna have a good time. Granted that's not an absolute, but it feels like mediums and lights have no role to play in the current game. I don't want to see 36 Ilya Muromets vs 36 Thunderbolts.

I'd like to see an actual battalion vs an actual battalion. So long story short, yes, but not anywhere in the near future.


I agree with you on point 1 and partially on point 2 but not on point 3.

Point 1 is a given as previously discussed. Although as stated, it could work in some cases.

Point 2 I would completely agree that 36 ilya's vs 36 jager's or the like would be silly. But! Have you looked at a drop breakdown recently? Generally we are talking very diverse group of mechs and I believe that you see enough variety to make this work. Besides, lorewise, seeing a few mechs that are the same chassis in any unit was very common due to access that said unit had to various mech types.

Point 3, i agree completely, but disagree completely at the same time. How you ask? 3/3/3/3 would be ridiculous in this setting. But do not forget I am not talking PUGs here, I am talking private matches and in that case we already have a system in place to make it work (max tonnage). You could do max tonnage by company individually or by battalion as a whole. Either way for a private match like this, we throw out 3/3/3/3 and just go with max tonnage. If you get stomped, that is your problem as you had the tonnage and choices to play with.

View PostDI3T3R, on 27 July 2014 - 05:59 AM, said:

Won't happen: the bottleneck is the synchronization of 72 players.


I agree it might take a while to get organised, but we are talking private matches here. No need to wait on the matchmaker to figure out ELO. Just get two units who can get their troops together and in order and go. No different than 40 man raids in WoW or any other big mmo.

#8 ExAstra

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Predator
  • The Predator
  • 131 posts

Posted 27 July 2014 - 07:37 AM

I will respond that I had forgotten that you were calling for 36/36 private and not public matches, in which case people can play to whatever degree they like.

If it were to go public, however, lights and mediums would definitely need to be more attractive.

And I'm not saying we have to have a different mech for each of the 72 mechs on field, I don't really care about that. It's more of just it'd be nice to have a more diverse selection. For example, a CPLT-C4 and a CPLT-C1 are so close they are practically the same (stock). A Thunderbolt TDR-9SE is a different chassis, different looks, different feel, different weapons placement, but the same tonnage and is practically the same as a CPLT-C1.

So if you don't like the Catapult's looks, or loadout, or anything like that.. you can grab a Thunderbolt. It'd just be nice to have those sorts of "options" and diversity in a match with that many mechs.

#9 Arctcwolf

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • The Vicious
  • 147 posts

Posted 28 July 2014 - 03:15 PM

several maps are already large enough to support 36 vs 36 matches. it just means there will be multiple fronts being fought over...several angles of attack to exploit...and more of the maps being utilized at the same time.

#10 Heklin

    Member

  • Pip
  • Stone Cold
  • Stone Cold
  • 14 posts

Posted 28 July 2014 - 09:55 PM

Id be happy with 24/24,, wouldn't need the as much room and that would be a significant upgrade.

#11 Fiona Marshe

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 756 posts
  • LocationAustralia

Posted 30 July 2014 - 03:25 AM

It comes down to what the engine and server load is.

They're initial code couldn't handle 24 mechs and they had to chop it to 16 in Closed Alpha/Beta.

With the code improvements, it could be worth a public test to see what it can handle.

#12 DI3T3R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 30 July 2014 - 04:50 AM

With 36/36 we would DEFINITELY need some kind of command-structure. At minimum we would need a Mechcommander.

#13 skorpionet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 292 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 05:09 AM

I'd settle of 12vs12 with bigger maps to have time to develop a strategy different by camp / rush

#14 BourbonFaucet

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 767 posts

Posted 30 July 2014 - 06:13 AM

I support the idea, but the poor server trying to handle 72 people.

It'd be like trying to get a chicken to swallow a basketball whole.

#15 Lala Satalin Deviluke

    Clone

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 146 posts
  • LocationTokkaido, COMST4R B4SE

Posted 30 July 2014 - 08:03 AM

Please public matches at the scale of 36 vs 36 also.

#16 DI3T3R

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 549 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 31 July 2014 - 02:41 AM

View Postskorpionet, on 30 July 2014 - 05:09 AM, said:

I'd settle of 12vs12 with bigger maps to have time to develop a strategy different by camp / rush


The problem is not the size of the maps, it's the lack of opportunities:
- the starting positions are again at a point where they have become well-known, meaning the battles are always fought in the same areas.
- the capture-points are always at the same position

If the victory-condition were connected to a random event that you can't control (e.g. your scouts have to find a ship that crash-landed somewhere on the map) that would make matches more unbalanced but also much more interesting.

Increasing to 72 players would also drastically alter the dynamics, because you could cover more area, but it would also make the game more unbalanced because it would increase stomps.

#17 JTAlweezy

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 269 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationConnecticut, USA

Posted 31 July 2014 - 06:57 PM

this sounds aweomse, but would require pgi getting their heads outa their butts, give the community something other than the same thing since before the game launched

#18 Katotonic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 169 posts

Posted 31 July 2014 - 07:09 PM

View PostArctcwolf, on 28 July 2014 - 03:15 PM, said:

several maps are already large enough to support 36 vs 36 matches. it just means there will be multiple fronts being fought over...several angles of attack to exploit...and more of the maps being utilized at the same time.

View PostDI3T3R, on 30 July 2014 - 04:50 AM, said:

With 36/36 we would DEFINITELY need some kind of command-structure. At minimum we would need a Mechcommander.


Exactly, this would hopefully encourage more actual military tactics. Currently, if a team flanks with 3 or 4 mechs it can be devastating to the enemy. Imagine if it were company scale? And I agree, a command structure would definitely be necessary. This is why I suggested private matches only for now. Most player units already have command structures in place and with teamspeak this is very possible. Also with 36 players on a team if a commander takes 30 seconds to input in the (granted bulky and not overly developed) in-game command prompts it is a lot less of a problem than in 12v12 where it is much more important for absolutely everyone to pull their own weight.

View PostFiona Marshe, on 30 July 2014 - 03:25 AM, said:

It comes down to what the engine and server load is.

They're initial code couldn't handle 24 mechs and they had to chop it to 16 in Closed Alpha/Beta.

With the code improvements, it could be worth a public test to see what it can handle.

View PostTechorse, on 30 July 2014 - 06:13 AM, said:

I support the idea, but the poor server trying to handle 72 people.

It'd be like trying to get a chicken to swallow a basketball whole.


This could be a problem, granted. But they have updated it to 12v12. Even if 36v36 isn't possible right now (and it might be) it shows that it can be upgraded and done.

Also, I LMAO at this image techorse.

Edited by Katotonic, 31 July 2014 - 07:12 PM.


#19 Katotonic

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 169 posts

Posted 01 August 2014 - 09:40 AM

bump





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users