21 replies to this topic

[G SE7EN7]

When are we going to get diversified game modes.

How do you know what people want when there is only one choice?

Maybe we all want 12 mans, I dont know but with no choice we cant exactly choose any different, I prefer 8 mans because the games are tighter, just my opinion. How hard is it to give us the option? If after a couple of weeks (or months) maybe it will become clear that 12 mans are the preferred option, but for a game that has 'launched' I'd expect to see a little (if not a lot more) diversification towards the options of game modes and team sizes.

Come on PGI help me love this game.

[MadPanda]

Less is worse. I want 16 man or 24 man.

[Wispsy]

I agree, 24mans would be best.

[IntX]

Wispsy, on 29 September 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

I agree, 24mans would be best.

Why would it be best? What is the logic underlying that conclusion? On one hand, the increased number of players could allow for tactics like flanking but I would be concerned that some of these maps would be too small or confined...

[Wispsy]

IntX, on 29 September 2013 - 04:09 AM, said:

Why would it be best? What is the logic underlying that conclusion? On one hand, the increased number of players could allow for tactics like flanking but I would be concerned that some of these maps would be too small or confined...

Tactics would become properly useful. River City would be such an awesome scary brawl.

[stjobe]

12 is a logical BattleTech number; it's a full company of 'mechs (three lances of four 'mechs each). The next logical step up would be a battalion; three companies, or 36 'mechs on each side.

That's going from 24 'mechs on the field to 72 - quite the step, and I don't think it's in the future of MWO at all.

[General Taskeen]

There wouldn't need be more than 12 or 14 per side if there were respawn game modes. That would simulate multiple lances or battalions reinforcing or counterattacking.

[Zyllos]

General Taskeen, on 29 September 2013 - 06:12 AM, said:

There wouldn't need be more than 12 or 14 per side if there were respawn game modes. That would simulate multiple lances or battalions reinforcing or counterattacking.

Exactly.

It also opens the available game modes that is possible.

[xCico]

8V8!!!!!!!! We need 8V8 back!!!

[Anastasius]

Private lobbies are needed. Then you can have all the 8 v 8, 4 v 4 you want etc. Private lobbies, more maps, campaign, and revamped UI = profit.

[CyclonerM]

Anastasius, on 29 September 2013 - 07:52 AM, said:

Private lobbies are needed. Then you can have all the 8 v 8, 4 v 4 you want etc. Private lobbies, more maps, campaign, and revamped UI = profit.

Damn right.
And if we had 24 'Mechs.. No one would be able to play with a decent framerate.

[Avatara]

Wispsy, on 29 September 2013 - 03:36 AM, said:

I agree, 24mans would be best.

No thanks. I would like to make more then 1000 c-bills per match.

[MadPanda]

CyclonerM, on 29 September 2013 - 08:02 AM, said:

Damn right.
And if we had 24 'Mechs.. No one would be able to play with a decent framerate.

It's not the 90s anymore. We can handle dozens of mechs.

[stjobe]

MadPanda, on 29 September 2013 - 08:32 AM, said:

It's not the 90s anymore. We can handle dozens of mechs.

With all the trouble it was for the to go from 8v8 to 12v12, I wouldn't be so sure...

[MadPanda]

stjobe, on 29 September 2013 - 09:37 AM, said:

With all the trouble it was for the to go from 8v8 to 12v12, I wouldn't be so sure...

I was talking about my computer handling them on screen, but you mean pgi's ability to make it work technically? Yes I agree, not possible .

[Wolfways]

MadPanda, on 29 September 2013 - 03:24 AM, said:

Less is worse. I want 16 man or 24 man.

On huge maps

[PEEFsmash]

12 mans are the only venue that you can properly flex your e-peen.

[Alistair Winter]

The more people in the game, the less ability for the individual to make a difference. More emphasis is put on tactics, i.e. the decisions made by the people in charge (or in the case of a pug, animalistic herd behavior)

"But what about teamwork?" Well, if you enjoy cooperating with other players, then you have to consider that there's a point of diminishing returns. Playing with two teammates is very different from playing with one teammates, as the group dynamic completely changes. And playing with three teammates is very different from playing with two. But there's not a significant difference between playing with 19 or 20 teammates. I doubt that, as a grunt, you'd notice the difference between playing with 100 or 1000 players, except for the feeling of being part of something big. You wouldn't actually be cooperating directly with the guy 15 kilometers away - you would probably not be even aware of him.

For PGI, it's more realistic to give players a sense of being a part of something huge by linking several small battles. Ideally, there should be some opportunity for both sides to make some kind of overall strategical choices, like the ability to choose where the battles take place (what map) and what kind of battle it's going to be (game mode)

[keith]

each map should have its own team sizes. forest/alts should be lance. then make more lance size maps. u have a decent number of 8 man maps. then can pusdo be used for company. when and if CW comes each map will have a purpose. pgi will just have to come up with new ques. i don't see this being too hard. more work for mapers then anything. worst comes to worst then can jerry rig it and use current maps and cut parts off and give us smaller/ bigger parts to play with. this would bring more ppl back to the game i think. ;lance on lance combat. let see whos got the best lance now:P

[ICEFANG13]

I want 100,000,000 mechs to a side. Only then!