Jump to content

12 X 12 = Fail


73 replies to this topic

#41 El Bandito

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Daddy
  • Big Daddy
  • 26,736 posts
  • LocationStill doing ungodly amount of damage, but with more accuracy.

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:34 AM

View PostSlashmckill, on 08 August 2013 - 11:33 AM, said:

It's there, though when i performed a clean install it was gone... so theres that. I personally like 12 X 12, though it could be far better without the -15% cbill nerf. (seriously pgi, was that really necessary? it's already painful enough driving a 64kph blackjack but now i have to work even harder to get the exact same cbills as before)


Oh, it is far worse than 15% when you factor in match length and what not. Especially since you are dividing the now reduced salvage with 11 other guys. I think our C-Bill per hour got reduced to around 40%.

#42 MeiSooHaityu

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • Knight Errant
  • 10,912 posts
  • LocationMI

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:37 AM

View Postjakucha, on 09 August 2013 - 07:32 AM, said:


The ammo issue is actually due to user error. Make your shots count more and/or load a few extra tons. The ammo load-outs I used in 8v8 haven't changed for 12v12, and I usually only run out of ammo at the end of the match, if even.


I wouldn't mind seeing an ammo bump across the board since there are more players, but if they leave it, that's fine too.

#43 Karazyr

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Moderate Giver
  • 274 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:54 AM

I love 12v12 it finally lets mediums do thier job of fire support, 8v8 was to small for role war fair.

nothing better than sneaking up on a distracted mech and dumping 24 srms into him :)

go bigger pgi! 100v100!!

#44 Tombstoner

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bridesmaid
  • Bridesmaid
  • 2,193 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:09 AM

View PostDerrpy, on 09 August 2013 - 07:54 AM, said:

I love 12v12 it finally lets mediums do thier job of fire support, 8v8 was to small for role war fair.

nothing better than sneaking up on a distracted mech and dumping 24 srms into him :)

go bigger pgi! 100v100!!

i kinda agree with this post unfortunately from whats been described regarding the game infrastructure i cant see the game supporting 16 vs 16 any time soon. let alone 100 vs. 100.

#45 Iskareot

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Universe
  • The Universe
  • 433 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • LocationNW,IN

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:24 AM

View PostBallBuster, on 08 August 2013 - 10:56 AM, said:

I think it just might be more fun if you could have organized clans playing like in just about every other online game out there. I think that might make bigger maps and larger teams a lot more fun..


This is the key.. but sadly now the games true reach has changed more so. Pug is a doomed fail 80% of the time for sure. SOOO there is a starting issue now and also the solo play issue at a even higher rate of fail and frustration.

This is a fact not even an opinion.

Being single in this game now with 12 v 12 is even more of a issue then premades before.

#46 Agent 0 Fortune

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 3,403 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:56 AM

I am not liking the new 12 v 12 format either.

I have found that my individual effort has littele or no impact on the match outcome. Last night I played for 4 hours and lost over 85% of my games, and despite putting up good numbers and playing well, my efforts were futile. The three games we did win were when I was a member of a 4 man team.

Tactics in PUG matches are non-existant. Both teams blob together and wait, the team with the better snipers and/or most LRMs wins. Scouts rarely left the main group so there was no intel, and medium/heavy brawlers like myself could do very little without support. I tried flank and faints and was continually left out to dry, and when I took a defensive role ever match ended with the enemy snipers killing 4-6 of our mechs then rushing with numbers.

This may open some new vistas for 12-man premade team only play, where tactics are relevant, but in PUG play it simply reinforces the sniper and LRM meta and offers zero benefit to diverse tactics. Of course this is just my perspective, obviously there are 12 guys out there who won 85% of their matchs and their PUGs ran like a well oiled machine.

#47 MaddMaxx

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Survivor
  • Survivor
  • 5,911 posts
  • LocationNova Scotia, Canada

Posted 09 August 2013 - 10:35 AM

View PostVaktor, on 08 August 2013 - 10:49 AM, said:

I disagree... on the bigger maps 12 v 12 is amazingly fun for me and it seems to add a lot of tactics to the mix... of course on some of the smaller maps it is quite the cluster *Beep*... Of course I kind of find that fun too.


It is hard to be sad about, or in disagreement with, a "Target Rich" environment. Even if you are also one of those targets. LOL

Dakka Dakka baby... :)

#48 Clit Beastwood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,262 posts
  • LocationSouthern California

Posted 09 August 2013 - 02:20 PM

View PostBallBuster, on 08 August 2013 - 10:19 AM, said:

I'm a huge hater of this new 12 x 12 game plan. The game lags horribly and the game play is just not fun anymore. Now it's just one big pack mentality of ganging up on everything and the game truly just is not fun with this configuration. In the effort to make the game better, they made it much worse and moved it in the wrong direction. IMO, what should have been done was the opposite and gone with a smaller map with a 4X4 game or even a 2X2 game which seems like so much more fun. How about even a 1X1 matchup instead? That's -WAY- better than 12x12. Why can't they give options for this just like they do for conquest/assault? My bet is, if they did, you'd see way more people playing the 8X8 or smaller games than you would the 12x12. Compound all of this with the fact that each new patch they come up with makes the game more unstable and buggy than the last, but I'll save that conversation for another time. In the mean time, if anyone is listening, please put in game size option and go smaller, not bigger. Sorry, but bigger is not always better.


in all seriousness, turn shadows to low and see if that helps. Made a huge difference for me. Everything at ultra high very high whatever its called, like 60fps - turn off shadows, 110-120 fps.

#49 Burpitup

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • Overlord
  • Overlord
  • 89 posts
  • LocationIn the land of Farts a lot

Posted 09 August 2013 - 07:29 PM

I think the game is much harder now with 12v12.

I have not had a lot of lag issues. I get a little choppy when you get in big battles.

I am not sure i do any better or worse in a 12 vs 12 than an 8v8. the battles are bigger and sometimes they turn out way cooler than the 8v8, but those battles are few and far between. Most of the time it is a wipe with very few people dead if any one the winning side. And that isn't as much fun even when you are in the winning side. I think there were more good battles in the 8v8 platform.

It would be nice if there were a way to select 8v8 or 12 v12 battles.

#50 Khobai

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Elite Founder
  • Elite Founder
  • 23,969 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:06 PM

Quote

I have found that my individual effort has littele or no impact on the match outcome.


Exactly. In 8v8 one person could make a difference. In 12v12 they still can but the effect is greatly diminished. Even when I kill 4-5 enemy mechs, my team still loses half the time.

A respawn gamemode would fix most of the problems with 12v12 right now. The game would no longer be a steamroll 75% of the time, bad players wouldnt be a burden to their team, good players wouldnt get so frustrated. Disconnectors/AFKers wouldnt ruin the game. Respawn fixes so many of the problem we have with the current game modes.

#51 Sephlock

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Legendary Founder
  • Legendary Founder
  • 10,819 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:12 PM

View PostBallBuster, on 08 August 2013 - 11:15 AM, said:


I've been encountering this bug more than anything. I've had more than one game on the volcano where I can't even walk up the bridges in an Atlas or a Cat. That's pretty stupid.

Also you can get stuck in a lot of places- including up on any slope, both normally, and (worse) if you happen to shut down on one.



#52 Ihasa

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Clan Exemplar
  • Clan Exemplar
  • 843 posts
  • LocationSan Francisco

Posted 09 August 2013 - 08:41 PM

View PostLord of All, on 09 August 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:


The lag is more than likely your CPU. The hot patch helped that alot. This game is very CPU bound. Try an OC if you can and see if your rates increase. AFA your 2 480's, When did they add SLI Support?


I have a brand new Haswell-Intel i7 chip at 2.8GHZ with 32GB RAM, and I still have problems even with the new patch that was supposed solve the lag and freezing problem. From a frame rate of 30-ish on high settings, I now wildly go from 7 to 90 frames, and it is not heavy action dependent, it is inconsistent.

#53 Phero77

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 21 posts

Posted 09 August 2013 - 09:39 PM

I dont hope they scrap 12vs12.. Maybe they will make 4x4, 8x8 maps etc like other shooters have. In the future i woulde like to see bigger maps, like 16x16 or something. But they should rly make a choice for players, if they wanna do 4x4 or bigger maps. C-bill havent noticed a big diffrence other that, i have **** loads on fun in 12vs12...Lag.. non here, i have a Haswell i7 4770 and 780gtx max settings and 120fps almost constant. If people lag in games, get new hardware, or check your drivers..its not rocket science.

#54 Horation

    Member

  • PipPip
  • Big Brother
  • 31 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 12:23 AM

I get fps fluctuations of about 5-10 at times but its still always over 55 fps. I am running the game on all MAX settings as I like the advantage that shadows give when someone is just about to come out of cover. I have an i72600k 16g ram am using gtx780 and running 3 asus 24" screens.

#55 Jabilo

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Philanthropist
  • 1,047 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 01:18 AM

12 v 12 is horrible on the maps designed for 8 v 8.

OP is spot on, it is just two big blobs converging.

Everyone is scared to try to pull of any tactical manoeuvre or be the first to make a bold move - because focus fire will rip you apart.

It is interesting that the community is split over 12 v 12.

It seems everyone running in a unit is having great fun and most people who are pugging are having issues.

#56 BumbleBee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Bad Company
  • Bad Company
  • 540 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 01:21 AM

Personally, Im loving 12vs12. Most fun I've had in AGES playing MWO.
Most matches have been great for me. Yes there are a few stomps, but there are also a hell of a lot of nailbiters too.
Sometimes you're the bug, sometimes you're the windsheild, as one of my clanmates is known to say.

Performance for me has been fine. no noticeable change from my regular ~45fps with an i5-750 (4x2.6GHz), 8GB RAM and a GTX570.

Sometimes (rarely) the client does freeze and ALT+TAB fixes it most of the time, but that was in the last couple of patches too and not really related to this one in particular.

Edited by BumbleBee, 10 August 2013 - 01:31 AM.


#57 Appogee

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 10,967 posts
  • LocationOn planet Tukayyid, celebrating victory

Posted 10 August 2013 - 01:34 AM

View PostAgent 0 Fortune, on 09 August 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

Of course this is just my perspective, obviously there are 12 guys out there who won 85% of their matchs and their PUGs ran like a well oiled machine.

Those 12 guys are in premades scoring the 85% wins in their well-oiled machines.

It's the solo players like you and me who are getting creamed. (See thread I just made on this.)

Interestingly, my loss rate has been exactly the same - 85% - since 12v12 was introduced too. My k/d is also rapidly declining from its former 1.75. Such fun we're having...

#58 OneEyed Jack

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,500 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:19 AM

12 x 12 = 144. You're right. That would be a huge fail on maps of this size.

#59 Theodor Kling

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 604 posts

Posted 10 August 2013 - 07:33 AM

I actually enjoy 12 vs12... rewards need some tweaking, but the matches themselves are fun.
I have seen the occasional steamrolling too, but in general matches grew more intense and longer.
I also saw quite a few matches that looked like total steamrolling, but got turned around suddenly.

So all in all 12vs12 is great :)

#60 Meta 2013

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 131 posts
  • LocationNorth Eastern US

Posted 10 August 2013 - 08:07 AM

View PostLord of All, on 09 August 2013 - 04:30 AM, said:


The lag is more than likely your CPU. The hot patch helped that alot. This game is very CPU bound. Try an OC if you can and see if your rates increase. AFA your 2 480's, When did they add SLI Support?



Ahh No. If you understood the tech specs in my post you would not have said that to begin with. That 980x gulf town is a hex core with hyper threading for 12 logical cores at 3.3ghz. It is overclocked to 3.6ghz. I watched matches last night where little guys where warping across the screen ...you know the ones you cannot hit because of the lag warps ... they all had pings over 300.
also note my ping is generally 54-58. Again another indicator that I shouldn't be seeing lag. And again I'll say it, I rarely see a lag problem, and even when I do its only for short periods in a match, and its normally other folks lag warping, that large lagout I saw the other day was just weird and not a normal occurrence, 1-2 seconds is a more normal lagout, and again those are pretty rare. Note lagouts vs lag warping by others are 2 different events.

I have the graphics set to low on this game solely due to the heat generated trying to drive a 24 inch monitor. I maintain 60fps. Since I have the first gen 480's with the single fan and its rear placement, the heat is just horrid at ultra resolutions, but the game will run fine. I've added some 120's inside dedicated to moving air across the 480's and that has helped quite a bit to keep the heat under 70c while playing on low. If I set graphics to max, I'll hit 90c fast.

I really do think they need a ping limit to help with lag warping.

View PostAgent 0 Fortune, on 09 August 2013 - 09:56 AM, said:

I am not liking the new 12 v 12 format either.

I have found that my individual effort has little or no impact on the match outcome. Last night I played for 4 hours and lost over 85% of my games, and despite putting up good numbers and playing well, my efforts were futile. The three games we did win were when I was a member of a 4 man team.

Tactics in PUG matches are non-existant. Both teams blob together and wait, the team with the better snipers and/or most LRMs wins. Scouts rarely left the main group so there was no intel, and medium/heavy brawlers like myself could do very little without support. I tried flank and faints and was continually left out to dry, and when I took a defensive role ever match ended with the enemy snipers killing 4-6 of our mechs then rushing with numbers.

This may open some new vistas for 12-man premade team only play, where tactics are relevant, but in PUG play it simply reinforces the sniper and LRM meta and offers zero benefit to diverse tactics. Of course this is just my perspective, obviously there are 12 guys out there who won 85% of their matchs and their PUGs ran like a well oiled machine.


While I have also experienced matches like this, I have seen enough brawler type matches amongst these as to not make it too frustrating. Even some of the roll stomps have been good brawls that we just did not have the better shot placement going for us. Over all I still think once this rolls out, and we weed out the "XBOX I wanna win what are the cheat code folks" and run off the little kids who play simply to annoy folks, at some point hopefully we get rid of the ridiculous lazy mans heat fix they put in, and we'll start seeing some really good "epic" matches more often from more diverse/creative loadouts.

Yes the match maker ELO weighting system will still suck, but at least it does get it close most (70-80%) of the time. I personally think we should get to move into tier brackets, allowing us to get away from noob matches based on other stats besides match wins. That has to be the least descriptive stat for an individual one can pick. I personally would enjoy working up a ladder tier where I know each bracket earned will mean harder and harder matches.


As far as the ammo goes .. I vote to leave it as is. That helps cut the cheese so to speak. You can still run it, but now shot selection is way more important .. as it should be. It also helps encourage the more realistic builds, where instead of 2 ac/20's, you run 1 with 2 large lasers. This keeps your ac/20 ammo precious, while helping keep you useful for the entire match.

Even ams should be left alone, now it encourages more folks to carry it to help stave off all those lrm's, and it gives the lrm folks hope that ams ammo will run out before the lrm's

The only thing still worth complaining about as now we see even more of them, is little mechs carrying assault class weapons. ie PPC sniping spyders. Bloody silly. That's the equivalent of putting an m60 in a listening post.

Good Hunting





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users