Posted 16 June 2013 - 01:21 PM
Many many thoughts:
TL:DR: 8 mans need work, 8 mans are getting work, we don't know how it will turn out. They're not as bad as the OP makes it out to be.
Increased rewards for 8 (12s when it happens) are a great idea.
(1) We probably average 1.5 searches to find a match. Matches are usually similar in length to most PuG matches. So 5-10 minutes, So you can get more than 3 drops in an hour.
(2) if it takes you 15-30 min to find a group, and 15-30 minutes to organize your group, that is mostly your issue. Join an organized unit. Set rules. Have people on in time. Make sure you know what kind of thing you want to run in advance.
(3) related, I don't think lobbies are what people think they are. A lot of people assume "lobby" = "private match" --- i.e., pick your opponent. Personally, I think what a lobby will be is for forming groups only. I.e., a centralized area where you can say "6 people looking for 2 more for 8s" in chat. IT will also hopefully display what mech people have selected and total tonnage. But it won't let you pick your oponent.
(4) all the evidence of games and queues is anecdotal. I guarantee you the top 10% of 8 man ELO games play differently than say the bottom 50%. So please stop assuming you know. But I agree I urge PGI to watch it.
(5). You can "self police" by basically not running the best builds and keeping your elo at a lower range where your "everyone take Hunchbacks!" squad can compete with significantly worse players in better mechs. The community as a whole, however, can't really. Because the incentive is to win.
(6) In any event, PGI is Clearly making regular balance adjustments, and we are still waiting on all the finalized missile-mechanics tweaks and the implementation of 12 v 12 before true balancing can happen. I understand people are not happy with the pace of things, for that I'm sorry, but it is just plain ignorant to think PGI isn't trying to do stuff as quickly as they feel they can, and I'm pretty tired of unrealistic "well, I'm a software developer, and this shouldn't take so long" stuff. I've seen how long blizzard, with 10 more years of experience, a thousand times the budget, and way more handpicked personnel can do it (hint, it's not just about going out and hiring people, it can take years to grow a good team).
(7) I totally agree enhanced benefits for 8 mans would be great. Also, unlike PuGs, it's fairly easy to police 8 mans, because you're not going to have 2 people d/cing and 6 people trying hard to win. You're going to have 8 people all intentionally losing fast. In other words, no afk farming. Double the c-bill rewards and, if not xp, then double the gxp rewards. A small motivator. Given that we are still in Beta, and having everyone own everything before launch is a bad business model, I'd be content with a post saying "we are planning on extra rewards to motivate people to drop in 12 v 12s to reward the extra difficulty of organizing.
(8) I've thought a lot about weight/tonnage balancing, and I think that weight class and tonnage balancing both have different strengths and weaknesses. I think weight class balancing is great for 4 mans, because you can drop in a cicada and think "ok, my job is to be more valuable than a hunchback, that's it." Or "I'm going to be a really fast mech for my weight class (quickdraw, awesome, cicada), their heavy may not be, so I'll give our team a speed advantage on average".
It's also easier to make teams with the match maker.
On the other hand, for 8 mans, because the whole team forms in advance, a simple lobby UI that shows total tonnage of selected mechs adds a great team-building meta. This is particularly true if PGI changes the tonnage limit every month or something (that would be awesome). This also gives mediums a purpose in theory. Atlas and Raven vs stalker and centurian, actually a potentially interesting choice.
(9) game modes need some balancing. I think part of the issue with the ppc meta is the assault game mode. If you take a strong defensive position near your base, on most maps, you literally cannot be capped. Then you just have to wait. The enemy either has to attack you in your prepared position OR they have to wait for a stalemate. Unfortunately, that's just the way it is. I will not get angry at people for playing to win, but I would ask PGI to keep that in mind.
(10) Part of the issue with PPCs and long range weapons will always be focus fire. I.e., they make it easy to punish someone for making a small mistake and to absolutely murder scouts. On the other hand, if scouts can stay far enough away, you're suddenly on a map that is so big that a team can't risk moving out of their base at all until they know exactly where the enemy is, and the team fighting near their base is always at an advantage. But, PGI is looking into game modes. So. There ya go.
(11) Playing to win and cheese are basically synonymous, So I don't have a lot of patience for complaints about *people* playing cheese. [Asking for better balancing from PGI, however, to make the cheese less cheesy or less definite, is legit. But balance is much harder than most people think it is.] Variety is good! [I just made an earlier post that "balance" is not about *fairness*, it's about *variety*. You don't balance because it's unfair that people run cheese, you balance so the game will support a variety of competitive styles. ]
5
