12V12 Makes Individual Efforts Meaningless
#1
Posted 08 August 2013 - 04:54 AM
If you take out the value of the individual, multiplayer games are not fun anymore.
#2
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:05 AM
*the president of china likes this*
You're right though. Unfortunately this argument can swing both ways. Some may argue that this is a team game and that success should come with working together. Others might argue that weight-matching is missing, matchmaking is sucking and ELO is doing whatever and that, no matter your own effort, you get handed defeat after defeat despite your best effort. Everyone should be able to see that this is frustrating.
Of course: Expecting a near 100% win chance is illogical. But how about something around 50% when you're reasonable good? "Nope", says the matchmaking.
#3
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:15 AM
But if you mean that an individual's actions have no bearing on the game, that's just silly. Every mech's effort counts, and the end result of a match is the outcome of everyone's actions.
Sure, it's harder to carry a match on your own now, but that's reality for you. Deal with it.
Also, you are totally incorrect about "sticking to the death ball". If anything, 12v12 has cut down on the "blob of doom", and most of the time the group splits in two forces of its own volition, creating more frequent AND more diverse brawls. And it'll get even better as people adapt to 12v12 and the faster mechs learn to hang out and move around together. Heck, with these added number it's now possible to do some truly stunning flanking maneuvers, and that's not to mention the increase need for capping (and cap defense).
Furthermore, "teamwork" is not the reverse "individual effort". It's possible to show great individual skill while still being a good team player. The big difference with 12v12 is you need to be a better team player, and it just so happen that that's a skill that everyone needs to develop anyway.
#4
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:20 AM
Individual efforts in a team based tactical game are NOT as important?!
Edited by mwhighlander, 08 August 2013 - 05:20 AM.
#5
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:25 AM
Edited by Budor, 08 August 2013 - 05:27 AM.
#6
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:27 AM
Conquest game does need looking at, as main objective now much harder to slow capture and give time to effect outcome.
#7
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:35 AM
Now you can get 5 or 6 kills and still lose. That feeling of being able to 'make the difference' has all but gone.
It is an unfortunate side effect of 12 v 12 but it's very real (and yes I play PUG and I play with friends - different mechs, different tactics etc)
#8
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:37 AM
#9
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:40 AM
Itkovian, on 08 August 2013 - 05:15 AM, said:
This is not universally true. What about a fast medium or light flanking to distract the enemy? What about a surprise-cap to punish the enemy super-heavy-team for just storming and trying to stomp the lighter opposing team?
Not doable anymore, because of the number of mechs and their behavior as a "blob of doom" and due to PGIs brilliant idea to lengthen cap times.
The single, most efficient and most encouraged tactic is now the blob. And even on bigger maps like Canyon Network I see my own team trippig over each others toes, shooting in the back of teammates and blocking of firing lines. It's chaos. And it was not as chaotic before.
#10
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:44 AM
I was pugging alone and It was on frozen city, we dropped south and split (not coordinated split, just people following other people) with one lance going tunnel, the other at the most left side of the ridge and the third lance (where I was in) going through the city part on the right side of the ridge.
I was piloting a hunch with one PPC, 2ML and 2SRM6 and we saw a cat in the city and a dragon I think. By then we allready lost 2 guys so it was 0:2. One of us said we should all push together but noone was really doing anything.
I then went deeper into the city and moved towards the center part where the cat was standing (the LRM spot). He didnt see me coming and I thought If I'm the first to open fire I'll have 10 enemies on my toes in matter of seconds but I said who cares and sneaked to the cat and placed an alpha into his back. He immediately started to run away (LRM boat) and one of his mates (vic or highlander, cant remember) helped him and I thought this is it, now they are after me, but at the same moment all our other lances pushed them from all sides and hell broke loose. It was a massive brawl, we circled them from all sides, beautifully enveloped.
I don't know how I did it but I made it out alive right until the last enemy who shot me dead, but by then I already had 4 kills and around 600 damage so it was worth it, we won.
Effing great match it was.
Edited by TexAss, 08 August 2013 - 05:46 AM.
#11
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:45 AM
#12
Posted 08 August 2013 - 05:52 AM
GODzillaGSPB, on 08 August 2013 - 05:40 AM, said:
This is not universally true. What about a fast medium or light flanking to distract the enemy? What about a surprise-cap to punish the enemy super-heavy-team for just storming and trying to stomp the lighter opposing team?
Not doable anymore, because of the number of mechs and their behavior as a "blob of doom" and due to PGIs brilliant idea to lengthen cap times.
The single, most efficient and most encouraged tactic is now the blob. And even on bigger maps like Canyon Network I see my own team trippig over each others toes, shooting in the back of teammates and blocking of firing lines. It's chaos. And it was not as chaotic before.
Factually incorrect. We did it yesterday. We lost 2 at start (victor and atlas). We waited fairly close to spawn until the enemy fat team moved up. We engaged and 2 lights went and capped. We all died except those two lights and myself, but we held them off long enough to win the game, heck, I was still alive at the end.
This is a team game, and communication matter more than aim or even loadout. If that is not the game for you, maybe this is not the game for you.
Edited by Sprouticus, 08 August 2013 - 05:54 AM.
#13
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:09 AM
#14
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:10 AM
Rather than silently "pwning" half the enemy, take initiative and provide some basic leadership, especially on the larger maps. It makes a huge difference on the behavior of your teammates, most of the time.
It's more effective than being a leet sniper, too, as you gain reputation with the community.
#15
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:17 AM
#16
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:23 AM
Edited by FrDrake, 08 August 2013 - 06:23 AM.
#17
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:30 AM
12 man pug suck because communication in game sucks, and will until PGI pulls their head out of their....
#18
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:30 AM
Kunae, on 08 August 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:
Rather than silently "pwning" half the enemy, take initiative and provide some basic leadership, especially on the larger maps. It makes a huge difference on the behavior of your teammates, most of the time.
It's more effective than being a leet sniper, too, as you gain reputation with the community.
I get that. And it is understandable. But the fact is with the current matchmaking, if you are doing 1200 dmg and getting 4-6 kills, you are probably a much higher ELO than your teammates, and the MM system probably balanced you with 2-3 really bad player. And until they tighten up the matchmaking system as Matthew Craig indicated in his post this week, that is going to happen. Ezspecially with people on the high high end of ELO.
Try dropping with a friend who is not very good
#19
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:35 AM
Sprouticus, on 08 August 2013 - 06:30 AM, said:
I get that. And it is understandable. But the fact is with the current matchmaking, if you are doing 1200 dmg and getting 4-6 kills, you are probably a much higher ELO than your teammates, and the MM system probably balanced you with 2-3 really bad player. And until they tighten up the matchmaking system as Matthew Craig indicated in his post this week, that is going to happen. Ezspecially with people on the high high end of ELO.
Try dropping with a friend who is not very good
Yep. And this has been confirmed, yesterday, by PGI:
Matthew Craig, on 07 August 2013 - 11:10 AM, said:
Technically the match maker will consider it a 'good' game if both teams were matched by having 1 high elo and 1 low elo player on both teams just as much as putting 2 average players on both teams.
The match maker can only work within the ranges given to it though and currently the ranges can be too large i.e. the matchmaker can drag in a high elo player to balance out a few low elo players, when we start to reduce the range what we should see is that the match maker will wait longer to create a 'good' game i.e it will have to wait for a player with a more average elo to show up (as the high elo player will be out of range). In the extreme case the match maker will simply give up and say it couldn't find a good game, this can potentially be seen as a good thing as you didn't want to play that game anyhow.
As mentioned we'll be monitoring carefully and we suspect we can tighten the ranges without having a dramatic impact on average wait times and failed matches, we can also adjust the timeout up from 2 minutes to compensate. Hopefully that answers your question.
Even still... providing some limited direction can make those really low ELO players worth a great deal more than having them wander aimlessly, by default.
#20
Posted 08 August 2013 - 06:40 AM
With that said, I did have some fun killing a Jenner in the Trebuchet to save a teammate, then effectively running a duel vs an Atlas later on (with the teammate running the heck away for some reason) and winning it.
1v1 battles don't happen often, but they still do. It is still possible to shine, but the team effect is far greater than solo play.
Edited by Deathlike, 08 August 2013 - 06:44 AM.
42 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 42 guests, 0 anonymous users