392 replies to this topic

[armyof1]

Ralgas, on 12 July 2013 - 03:45 AM, said:

It is a very good counterpoint for not upping ammo count!! And note "Good" spots for cover on the small maps are rarer due to the extra and constant view coverage the extra mechs and long battle lines afford.

Yes it does not make sense to up ammo count, as more players also means more weapons that can do more damage already.

[ssm]

armyof1, on 12 July 2013 - 03:53 AM, said:

We must be playing on very different maps, because in no shape or form are there plenty of cover for LRMs on Frozen City, especially on one side with a lot less taller buildings. And little cover of course means a lot more targets to be hit by LRMs, that is just obvious. And you're against changing the map, but somehow upping the amount of players by 50% wouldn't effect how the map is being played?

I'm not against changing maps (in terms of maps, I go with 'bigger = better'), I'm just against changing them to mitigate some imaginary scenario of LRMs prevalence. Also, I don't think upping the amount of players wouldn't effect way maps are played,

I'm just not certain It effects it in bad way.


I consider LRMs are in good spot - extremely situational, dangerous and punishing to unskilled/unaware players, but overally a lot less efective than other weapon systems.

Edited by ssm, 12 July 2013 - 04:10 AM.

[armyof1]

ssm, on 12 July 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

I'm not against changing maps (in terms of maps, I go with 'bigger = better'), I'm just against changing them to mitigate some imaginary scenario of LRMs prevalence. Also, I don't think upping the amount of players wouldn't effect way maps are played,

I'm just not certain It effects it in bad way.


I consider LRMs are in good spot - extremely situational, dangerous and punishing to unskilled/unaware players, but overally a lot less efective than other weapon systems.

I think this is where we have to disagree. Because sticking that many more players into a small map that had just about enough cover for 8 on each side and not do a single addition to increase cover, just means you're making easy targets for LRMs. Frozen City 8 vs 8, LRMs are working just fine. 12 vs 12 with a couple either struggling to find cover or have to keep way back to not get rained upon? Really bad.

[Rhialto]

What about 8vs8vs8 as an option? Is that conceivable? Or it has to follow strict rules of past game and/or universe I never looked into like BT and such. On my side I see MWO like a game which originate from already existing concepts, picking up ideas along the way and that can also innovate.

Edited by Rhialto, 12 July 2013 - 04:34 AM.

[Azzras]

ssm, on 12 July 2013 - 04:06 AM, said:

I'm not against changing maps (in terms of maps, I go with 'bigger = better'), I'm just against changing them to mitigate some imaginary scenario of LRMs prevalence. Also, I don't think upping the amount of players wouldn't effect way maps are played,

I'm just not certain It effects it in bad way.


I consider LRMs are in good spot - extremely situational, dangerous and punishing to unskilled/unaware players, but overally a lot less efective than other weapon systems.

Bigger does not equal better.
Alpine Peaks pushes the limit of what a map size should be.
Pilot an Atlas and tell me it should be bigger.

[Trev Firestorm]

See complaints on the forum about cover on small maps, yet the rounds I played on them the problem wasn't lack of cover, it was everyone trying to blob and not using all of the map (and therefor not use all of the cover) and somehow the smaller the map the less routes were used, I just don't understand what some of these people are thinking when they play.

[EVA1313]

One suggestion: to make these games longer what are the chances we could get a repair bay at each base or make the base a repair bay? And instead of capture by standing have it damage based. This would make a base something that is more pivotal. I love the game but I have a hard time sitting in my Jenner waiting for a base to count down... it seems very Arcade not Battle tech. This would allow you to make smaller maps work with 12v12. you would want to leave a lance to guard your repair base/ and be a reserve if you need a push other wise on these small maps it is more like back ally brawling (fun but lacking finesse).

Other wise I like the 12v12 the mini map should be made public it is super easy to see my team and my lance!

[Belorion]

Rhialto, on 12 July 2013 - 04:33 AM, said:

What about 8vs8vs8 as an option? Is that conceivable? Or it has to follow strict rules of past game and/or universe I never looked into like BT and such. On my side I see MWO like a game which originate from already existing concepts, picking up ideas along the way and that can also innovate.

8v8v8 isn't very realistic (I know video game and all), but has the added problem of temporary alliances and what not. For many of the same reason you never see sports games with three teams.

Trev Firestorm, on 12 July 2013 - 04:48 AM, said:

See complaints on the forum about cover on small maps, yet the rounds I played on them the problem wasn't lack of cover, it was everyone trying to blob and not using all of the map (and therefor not use all of the cover) and somehow the smaller the map the less routes were used, I just don't understand what some of these people are thinking when they play.

I agree. I think a lot of the small map complaints are from people who are not yet used to the way 12 v 12 movement/strats work. There is a lot more going on, and contrary to peoples stated fear, clumping up no longer works. Lance movements become more important, and everyone charging in focusing one target at a time is not as viable as some would have believed. This is due large in part to PGI having made Mech unable to occupy the same space, and there is a limit to how many mechs can engage another just due to space constraints. I think this is where other games have really fallen down and could have had much more dynamic battles if they had disallowed multiple characters occupying the same space (WoW).

This will make 12 v 12 most interesting indeed.

[Trev Firestorm]

Belorion, on 12 July 2013 - 05:14 AM, said:

8v8v8 isn't very realistic (I know video game and all), but has the added problem of temporary alliances and what not. For many of the same reason you never see sports games with three teams.

This, I used to play a game, Navyfield, that allowed up to 128 players and 8 way battles but it was a hardly ever used feature for exactly this reason, eventually they removed it(3-8 teams) completely and I think the player limit might have been lowered as well due to stability issues.

[Henry Pride]

With 12vs12 there is no strategy left, then duck and cover with the actuall Meta... 4 more Mechs on the field means 16 PPCs more with the current game settings. Unfortunately there is noch well mixed Heavy/Med Lance that occures and carries more movement and strategy into the game.. its just 4 more Stalker, Highlander, Atlas, Awesome or Cataphract with 2-4 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle.

I will celebrate the day, when a well mixed build leads the way to victory, than just boating the **** out ouf your mech...

[Shumabot]

I was averaging more players per team than frames per second in the game. These days I'm averaging ~35 fps in the normal game. 8 more mechs, most of which aren't being rendered at any given time, do not account for 75% reduction in performance.

Work on that.

[Smokeyjedi]

Shumabot, on 12 July 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

I was averaging more players per team than frames per second in the game. These days I'm averaging ~35 fps in the normal game. 8 more mechs, most of which aren't being rendered at any given time, do not account for 75% reduction in performance.

Work on that.

I felt that too, although the FPS @ start of a match was higher than usual which leads me to believe they are doing some kind of optimizations, even though when you see 16+ mechs in a valley scrappin it out your FPS is gonna take a hit like that lil ol one legged cicada.poor guy.

[Roughneck45]

My initial impressions.

Stability was great for me, No crashes, no issues in game. (other than the 1 or 2 shots that don't reg)

12 mechs per side made the games feel a lot more intense. Many more situations where imminent death was right around the corner. Maybe I got lucky with the players in my drops, but there were only 2 sweeps, the rest of the matches were very well fought and close, 4 mech difference or less usually.

It also seemed like much more of the battlefield was used on the smaller maps. The matches lasted longer, and I found both sides making advances retreats and flanks through many parts of the map. It was nice having a reason to use more of the map.

My only issues are the same problems we have today. So many f*cking assaults and PPC's. I had 1 match the whole session where less than half the team were in assaults.

[Shumabot]

Smokeyjedi, on 12 July 2013 - 06:02 AM, said:

I felt that too, although the FPS @ start of a match was higher than usual which leads me to believe they are doing some kind of optimizations, even though when you see 16+ mechs in a valley scrappin it out your FPS is gonna take a hit like that lil ol one legged cicada.poor guy.

It seemed to happen to a portion of the playerbase, I asked other people in the game. It certainly wasn't happening to everyone, which leads me to believe that there is just a hardware or driver issue that they haven't figured out yet. It made the game totally unplayable for me though, doubly unpleasant since I just had the internals on my system replaced and was finally able to play the game at a reasonable framerate.

I played a few rounds on a 12 man team and a few of us were experiencing repeated crashes on launch as well.

Edited by Shumabot, 12 July 2013 - 06:08 AM.

[Belorion]

Henry Pride, on 12 July 2013 - 05:50 AM, said:

With 12vs12 there is no strategy left, then duck and cover with the actuall Meta... 4 more Mechs on the field means 16 PPCs more with the current game settings. Unfortunately there is noch well mixed Heavy/Med Lance that occures and carries more movement and strategy into the game.. its just 4 more Stalker, Highlander, Atlas, Awesome or Cataphract with 2-4 PPCs and a Gauss Rifle.

I will celebrate the day, when a well mixed build leads the way to victory, than just boating the **** out ouf your mech...

Did you play on there? I was running mediums, and was consistently in the top 3 or 4 on my team for damage.

12 v 12 makes strategy a little more important, and individual performers a little less important. If someone dies or dc's it isn't near the impact that you get with 8 v 8 as you have only lost 8% of your team vs. 13% of your team.

I think you will find lance movements more important in the 12 v 12 context than they were with 8 v 8.

If your whole team moves far from your base and engages 8 of the enemy, it will still take a while to bring all 8 down, while in the mean time their other 4 are capping your base, so you can't just send back one.

All in all I really liked it. Can't wait to see what tactics people start coming up with.


I didn't have much of an fps drop at all, but then again my card is pretty beefy.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

armyof1, I wanted to argue, but after your statement that there is not enough cover in Frozen City (!) I see it would be just a waste of time. This map is made of cover. And I agree with those who say LRMs are not the issue.

EVA1313, on 12 July 2013 - 05:08 AM, said:

One suggestion: to make these games longer what are the chances we could get a repair bay at each base or make the base a repair bay? And instead of capture by standing have it damage based. This would make a base something that is more pivotal. I love the game but I have a hard time sitting in my Jenner waiting for a base to count down... it seems very Arcade not Battle tech. This would allow you to make smaller maps work with 12v12. you would want to leave a lance to guard your repair base/ and be a reserve if you need a push other wise on these small maps it is more like back ally brawling (fun but lacking finesse).

Other wise I like the 12v12 the mini map should be made public it is super easy to see my team and my lance!

It could be more interesting, but the fact is that pretty often you can see enemy base from very far away (River City, Forest Colony, and many more in Conquest mode).

[Belorion]

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 12 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

It could be more interesting, but the fact is that pretty often you can see enemy base from very far away (River City, Forest Colony, and many more in Conquest mode).

Maybe they can make a repair bay consumable that is only usable on ones own base.

ETA: If they did add something like that, it should be somewhat hard to use. You have to stand still or power down for a specified length of time (progress bar), for a slight gain... say 5%, 7%, and 12% or less.

Edited by Belorion, 12 July 2013 - 06:32 AM.

[armyof1]

Duncan Jr Fischer, on 12 July 2013 - 06:22 AM, said:

armyof1, I wanted to argue, but after your statement that there is not enough cover in Frozen City (!) I see it would be just a waste of time. This map is made of cover. And I agree with those who say LRMs are not the issue.

It depends on how you define cover, most buildings on one side of Frozen City (the side where you only have one exit to the cave) are just about the height or most assaults and will not be able to protect you from lrms as they come from above. If you run a Spider then sure, you have plenty of cover. If you run anything tall, then no you'll have to stay quite a way back close to base before you can find cover for everyone.

[Duncan Jr Fischer]

armyof1, on 12 July 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:

It depends on how you define cover, most buildings on one side of Frozen City (the side where you only have one exit to the cave) are just about the height or most assaults and will not be able to protect you from lrms as they come from above. If you run a Spider then sure, you have plenty of cover. If you run anything tall, then no you'll have to stay quite a way back close to base before you can find cover for everyone.

When spawn at that base I usually lead beyond the shuttle and across the open into taller houses near Theta. Battles are much more intense this way, though in Assault mode it leaves the base open. When team is spread to that houses while having some slow assaults near the shuttle, it makes the other team fight on two fronts.

[Smokeyjedi]

I would have really liked to have made drops in a full 12man, but my timeframe didn't line up, I dropped @ 1-3pm EST almost solo for a while had a max group of 4 man to try it out, man when I got caught in an ambush of 6-7 lead by a pesky raven 3L and DDC Atlas with jagger, and Bj lazer boat, awesome 9M, X-5, It wasn't pretty and the rest of their squad was already engaged, but they didn't need more tonnage at that point. scary stuff.......