56 replies to this topic

[Nick Makiaveli]

John MatriX82, on 01 January 2014 - 03:27 AM, said:

I'd like to have the old spawn points back. The new ones are good only if they think about making some kind of squad deathmatch.

Besides this I think 12 vs 12 is what made this game get worse. I mean, smaller maps play worse, bigger ones now have scattered spawn points. In 8vs8 you could carry the match much more than it's possible to do in 12mans, those who want to carry it now have brought us to assaultwarrior online..

12s are more about the team, and less about the individual. So yes, you are not able to rush ahead and play Rambo.....a plus in my book.

[Tehone]

+

[Chemie]

river city is bad for 12 but the new spawn points has made RC terrible. No strategy. Just go to the middle and duke it out. Alll map modes in RC are TDM.

[Klaus]

Chemie, on 01 January 2014 - 06:12 AM, said:

river city is bad for 12 but the new spawn points has made RC terrible. No strategy. Just go to the middle and duke it out. Alll map modes in RC are TDM.

I couldn't agree more.

[Jaguar Prime]

How about they just make the smaller maps like River city, Forest Colony and Frozen City bigger?

(I pointed out in the 12v12 test server to the Devs that those map were entirely to small for 24 players. Of course the White Knights told me in game that I was wrong.)

I will admit that it is harder to carry a team by yourself in 12v12. But What you do in game does matter.Think about when your teams starts out 1 or two down.

[stjobe]

Lupin, on 01 January 2014 - 02:35 AM, said:

Like the idea of random team sizes, but both teams being the same size and more important similar weight.
e.g. 4vs4, 8vs8 or 12vs12.

Might help put back some tactics, which seem to have been lost on 12vs12.

Yep, this suggestion keeps cropping up, and it's a good one. Make match size random between 4, 8, and 12 a side (it needs to be random so 4-man groups don't always end up in 4v4 vs 4 PUGs).

[keith]

certain maps just seem right for 4v4, some look for 8v8. the new ones were made for 12v12. this would make the map team have different size maps they can design for, and let players chose what they can play on. would be an AMAZING option for cw to have. hey we the players know nothing*starts up another game*

[Dirkdaring]

You should get your wish when clans are introduced.

Clan should not be fighting alongside IS, so it will be Clan vs IS. They will have to set the numbers so 4v10 etc will be common.

[Chemie]

Dirkdaring, on 01 January 2014 - 07:30 AM, said:

You should get your wish when clans are introduced.

Clan should not be fighting alongside IS, so it will be Clan vs IS. They will have to set the numbers so 4v10 etc will be common.

What makes you think that?

[Noesis]

12 v 12, selected by PGI for the following reasons:

1) Size of a company in BT lore. Significant to CW?

2) It is commercially more viable in terms of server use to have as many people as technically possible in one game session.

4 v 4 at 1/3 of what we have now for game play would still allocate a similar amount of server use for that game session meaning we need 3 times as much server resource to accommodate that style of play (in theory, wont be an exact translation).

If it were more technically feasible (performance wise) to have game session run for more people then it certainly would from a commercial perspective be in PGI's interest to do so. However with issues like HSR that are latency related and will be impacted by volumes of players you could say that there are definite performance limits in doing this. This assumes that processing permutations are potentially escalated with more player traffic and volume with weapons fire as opposed to it being a pure latency problem.

Which is interesting in itself as it indicates that PGI have made some in roads into gaming performance with HD and HSR to make the move from (8 v 8) to (12 v 12) even if there are still problems with it.

Questionably you could argue whether a return to 8 v 8 would be a wise move atm in order to alleviate any performance problems that are associated with volume as opposed to just latency. This with the idea that PGI could continue to work on 12 v 12 potential use when HSR issues are resolved for them? So maybe the idea of even 8 v 8 might be similarly still problematic? It would be interesting to at least test and compare 8 v 8 on the public test server to see if "player volume" is of significance to HSR issues. Might even provide useful insight? Though I'm more hoping these issues are perhaps understood but it's trying to find the right order of processing to best utilise the smallest packets of information in the unforgiving netcode to do what MWO needs to do than actually knowing what might be causing these problems in the first place.

[Ens]

so, if a single person kills 2-3 mechs in 12v12 it doesn´t make a difference either? xD
come on...

even in 12v12, if one person goes full ******, it can still turn all tides :|
if it just FEELS different, that´s a whole other story

[Broad5ide]

you people keep talking like killing 1 person in 8v8 is like killing 1.5 people in 12v12 but thats not the case. while 1 person is a smaller percentage of the enemy team you are also a smaller percentage of your own team. i.e. in 8v8 a 1v2 fight is 12.5% vs 25% but in 12v12 a 1v2 is 8.3% vs 16.6%. the truth is until tonnage limits are implemented 12v12 only feels hard to win on your own because the matches have a higher chance to be lopsided and a wider range of how far the tonnages are off.

Edited by Broad5ide, 01 January 2014 - 09:43 AM.

[990Dreams]

12v12 should stay until private servers come on (then you can specify how many people can be on each team I think). But 8 max groups would be helpful

[Imperius]

Nick Makiaveli, on 31 December 2013 - 10:51 PM, said:

Not seeing the point here. Yes it's harder to wipe out half the enemy team nowadays, but so? Sounds like your ego is bruised.

Ammo counts? Umm pack some energy weapons as back up, be more accurate, or tweak your build to carry more ammo.....

:Lastly, so you don't play 12v12, don't talk to anyone who does, but since you don't see a lot of talk about it, you just assume it's dead? Son, that's what we call a special kind of <Redacted> around here.

I play 12v12 with the DHB. Anytime there is 12 people up for it we run them. Note just because we have 12+ people on doesn't mean everyone likes the 12 mans, and I surely am not up to the competitive standards, but damn it's a great learning experience. Facing off against and with some of the best is a trip!! There is also the competitive guys who run 12s on a regular basis preparing for CW but like I said I am not in that, as I am not that good.



I like the idea of variety, but many people like to plan ahead etc. Personally I think it's better to have an element of randomness, as Military Intelligence (ie who and what you are facing off against) is usually anything but.

So dropping against a 4 man when you expected it to be a normal match would be nice. Simulate your dropship missing the landing zone and you running into a veteran patrol.

WTB you some reading comprehension.

lsp, on 31 December 2013 - 11:31 PM, said:

This isn't COD, it's mechwarrior.( well, a attempt at mechwarrior)

You're such a great contribution to this topic *sarcasm*

5th Fedcom Rat, on 01 January 2014 - 02:46 AM, said:

In retrospect I think this game went rapidly downhill after the introduction of 12 man last spring. That, and the broken ppcs and jump snipers, but especially the 12 man. Matches were never quite as fun since.

Agreed

Edited by Imperius, 01 January 2014 - 11:07 AM.

[Nutlink]

Imperius, on 31 December 2013 - 05:58 PM, said:

Makes sense but at the same time how about not making maps that big? I mean the it feels really stupid when you see a mech 2000 meters out and you know not a weapon you have can do anything. It's just a huge waste of time I think we need more small maps like Forest Colony ( My Favorite map) Good cover spots, good flank spots, good snipe spots, all around better tactic map.

Maybe to you it does. Some of us absolutley love the larger maps. So many fond memories of MW4 custom maps that were insanely huge, allowing teams to move any which way. Some of the best rounds I ever played last well over 30 minutes, and that's with no respawns.

[Imperius]

BOTA49, on 01 January 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe to you it does. Some of us absolutley love the larger maps. So many fond memories of MW4 custom maps that were insanely huge, allowing teams to move any which way. Some of the best rounds I ever played last well over 30 minutes, and that's with no respawns.

Maybe on a attack / defend mode i'd be ok with the huge maps. Just seems quite pointless. I only pug and they just blob and search.

[Skyfaller]

The problem is the map size vs players in it.


Small maps should be 4vs4:
Canyon
Caustic
Forest
River City


Medium Maps should be 8vs8:
Alpine Peaks
Crimson Straight
Tourmaline
Terra Therma

Large maps should be 12vs12:
HPG Manifold

[Corvus Antaka]

I hope we get 1v1-12v12 as options.

[Jaguar Prime]

BOTA49, on 01 January 2014 - 12:14 PM, said:

Maybe to you it does. Some of us absolutley love the larger maps. So many fond memories of MW4 custom maps that were insanely huge, allowing teams to move any which way. Some of the best rounds I ever played last well over 30 minutes, and that's with no respawns.

Agreed.

[Varent]

Noesis, on 01 January 2014 - 08:44 AM, said:

12 v 12, selected by PGI for the following reasons:

1) Size of a company in BT lore. Significant to CW?

2) It is commercially more viable in terms of server use to have as many people as technically possible in one game session.

4 v 4 at 1/3 of what we have now for game play would still allocate a similar amount of server use for that game session meaning we need 3 times as much server resource to accommodate that style of play (in theory, wont be an exact translation).

If it were more technically feasible (performance wise) to have game session run for more people then it certainly would from a commercial perspective be in PGI's interest to do so. However with issues like HSR that are latency related and will be impacted by volumes of players you could say that there are definite performance limits in doing this. This assumes that processing permutations are potentially escalated with more player traffic and volume with weapons fire as opposed to it being a pure latency problem.

Which is interesting in itself as it indicates that PGI have made some in roads into gaming performance with HD and HSR to make the move from (8 v 8) to (12 v 12) even if there are still problems with it.

Questionably you could argue whether a return to 8 v 8 would be a wise move atm in order to alleviate any performance problems that are associated with volume as opposed to just latency. This with the idea that PGI could continue to work on 12 v 12 potential use when HSR issues are resolved for them? So maybe the idea of even 8 v 8 might be similarly still problematic? It would be interesting to at least test and compare 8 v 8 on the public test server to see if "player volume" is of significance to HSR issues. Might even provide useful insight? Though I'm more hoping these issues are perhaps understood but it's trying to find the right order of processing to best utilise the smallest packets of information in the unforgiving netcode to do what MWO needs to do than actually knowing what might be causing these problems in the first place.

I would not say remove 12v12... I would say just add more game mods with less mechs as a possible queing option.

I would love to see the options of 16v16 as well, Obviously that would be if the servers could handle it.