24 replies to this topic

[CrashieJ]

12 v 12 is pretty ok as a Heavy or an Assault mech as the extra 8 people tend to balance out the Greenies in the other lance

but that extra amount adds some extra chaos in the mix that some of us aren't meant to handle or can't handle due to weapons loadouts and weight class.

please give us the choice between 8 and 12 per team, My cicada can't quite handle the extra Pew-Pew yet.

oh, and give us 4 v 4 too, I'm tired of people crying "n00b teammates" when they get beat.

[Stoicblitzer]

the mainland says no.

[Alcatraz968]

"UI 2.0" I think the dev's said.

[Aeten]

Stoicblitzer, on 08 August 2013 - 05:00 PM, said:

the mainland says no.

Can our island be Japan and the mainland Chinar?

[Zaptruder]

No. 8v8 can die in a fire along with all the sniper orientated gameplay that it encouraged.

[FupDup]

Zaptruder, on 08 August 2013 - 05:40 PM, said:

No. 8v8 can die in a fire along with all the sniper orientated gameplay that it encouraged.

Implying that 12v12 changed that gameplay.

[Stoicblitzer]

Aeten, on 08 August 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

Can our island be Japan and the mainland Chinar?

if we make China the mainland in our story, then we are more like Taiwan.

[Joseph Mallan]

Redacted smarmy quip due to have a shred of PC left in me.

[seymourbalzac]

I don't mind 12v12 on the 3 larger maps, Terra Therma, Alpine Peaks and Tourmaline Desert but it sucks so much on the rest of the maps which were really created for 8v8.

[Psikez]

My #swagbrawler lifestyle appreciates 12v12

[Angel of Annihilation]

I know what the OP is saying. My fast skirmishers like my QDs can't really compete any more because they aren't designed for stand up fights and it is virtually impossible to flank or use hit and run tactics with the current density of mechs on the smaller maps.

If it isn't your friendlies getting in the way preventing you from retreating, turning or generally just moving around, it is the half dozen enemy mechs you will find waiting for you the second you even think about flanking or attempting to hit and run.

I am finding that 12 vs 12 pretty much excludes mediums and skirmisher heavies, at least if you want to be successful. Now you either need jackrabbit speed and agility or lots of armor and firepower if you want to survive long enough to contribute meaningfully.

[Syllogy]

You're just going to have to learn how to cope.

Here's a Pro Tip:

[Yankee77]

Viktor Drake, on 08 August 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

I know what the OP is saying. My fast skirmishers like my QDs can't really compete any more because they aren't designed for stand up fights and it is virtually impossible to flank or use hit and run tactics with the current density of mechs on the smaller maps.

If it isn't your friendlies getting in the way preventing you from retreating, turning or generally just moving around, it is the half dozen enemy mechs you will find waiting for you the second you even think about flanking or attempting to hit and run.

I am finding that 12 vs 12 pretty much excludes mediums and skirmisher heavies, at least if you want to be successful. Now you either need jackrabbit speed and agility or lots of armor and firepower if you want to survive long enough to contribute meaningfully.

And I find the exact opposite. I've have brilliant games with my Fast Attack Centurions since 12v12, with crazy brawls and great flanking actions. Likewise I've had great fights in my Catapult LRM hybrid, and my Brawler Atlas.

You can't play the same as you did before, certainly. If you try to move on your own and get singled out, you're screwed. But if I go flanking I do it with other people (use that lance chat, it works), and end up doing fun flanking moves and having excellent brawls.

The density of mechs realy don't change what you can do with a mech, unless you were doing it on your own. So don't do it on your own. Remember, you have 4 more mechs on your side too, and many of those are likely to be driving fast brawlers too and would loove to go a-flanking (some assaults would too).

[zraven7]

I'm actually ok with the idea of having different team-size matches, though I really, really think we need the ability to select maps first. But after that, having the ability to choose 4v4, 8v8, 12v12, or 16v16 would be interesting.

That, or even make it map specific. make some new, smaller 4v4 maps, and just assign a default team size for given maps.

[MeiSooHaityu]

Nope, 12 v 12 is great.

[East Indy]

Good heavens, no. The difference in player behavior is so startlingly positive in 12v12, my only concern is that MWO languished without the match size for so long.

[3rdworld]

Didn't make sense to me to remove it either.

But I would also like to see 4x4, 8x8, 12x12, 16x16 etc

[NinetyProof]

Are you willing to pay for 8v8? Cause it costs PGI more money, on a per player basis, to run 8v8 matches then 12v12 matches.

WAT? Cost more money? Yes ... they stated this awhile ago, and it makes sense. They pay for server instances ... each "match" is an instance. 1600 players online? that's 100 game instances for 8v8 vs 66.6 game instances for 12v12. That's a HUGE difference.

I don't think there is a huge demand for bringing back 8v8, and I doubt, out of those people that want it back, many would shell out cold hard cash. amirite?

[soarra]

on the big maps it's ok, but pugging you are now stuck with 11 tards instead of 7

Edited by soarra, 09 August 2013 - 12:51 PM.

[xCico]

Give me back my 8v8, you evil devs