56 replies to this topic

[NRP]

I would guess the main difference with 12v12 versus 8v8 is that there is a higher chance for more enemy fire to be focused your way, so it feels like your armor and/or life expectancy is shorter.

[keith]

NRP, on 01 January 2014 - 02:07 PM, said:

I would guess the main difference with 12v12 versus 8v8 is that there is a higher chance for more enemy fire to be focused your way, so it feels like your armor and/or life expectancy is shorter.

the difference is when u mess up in 8v8 norm there is only 1-2 mechs looking at u. in a pinpoint meta thats 60-80 points of dam coming at ya. in 12v12 u got 3-4 mechs looking at ya.i'm sure most of u can do the math, now assume most ppl can hit the ct 50% of the time. 12v12 was a horrible move. 2 things need to be done, either complete balance of the game. or switch the game back to 8v8 to allow most ppl to live longer.

[Imperius]

keith, on 01 January 2014 - 02:42 PM, said:

the difference is when u mess up in 8v8 norm there is only 1-2 mechs looking at u. in a pinpoint meta thats 60-80 points of dam coming at ya. in 12v12 u got 3-4 mechs looking at ya.i'm sure most of u can do the math, now assume most ppl can hit the ct 50% of the time. 12v12 was a horrible move. 2 things need to be done, either complete balance of the game. or switch the game back to 8v8 to allow most ppl to live longer.

Well said!

[NRP]

It does seem like AC weapons should be hotter, or at least when rapid fired. Either that, or make their recycle times longer. As it is now, enemies boating ACs can just sit there and shred your armor before you can even get out of the way, and they can do it with virtually no heat penalty.

I've been grinding an energy Stalker the past few days, and the absolute superiority of AC weapons has been made frustratingly apparent.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Imperius, on 01 January 2014 - 11:07 AM, said:

WTB you some reading comprehension.



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



Agreed

So no actual attempt to answer my questions, or address the points I make, just insults towards me and another.

So basically if we disagree with you, we are stupid. Yea, that's a mature attitude.

Care to try and actually articulate your position and explain where I went wrong? I did start off by saying I didn't see where you were coming from, so it opened the door for you. Yet you chose to go full on emotional BS rather than engage in an actual discussion.

[Davers]

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.

I honestly have to ask, why did they last so long? Was it just simply the map size?

[keith]

Davers, on 01 January 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I honestly have to ask, why did they last so long? Was it just simply the map size?

hit and run tactics. u could engage do some dam, and retreat. unknown to these small maps. that lead to some mechs have certain spot critical hurt. u had to remember where they where hurt for next engagement. MWO is lacking alot of combat that MW4 had

[Jaguar Prime]

keith, on 01 January 2014 - 06:17 PM, said:

hit and run tactics. u could engage do some dam, and retreat. unknown to these small maps. that lead to some mechs have certain spot critical hurt. u had to remember where they where hurt for next engagement. MWO is lacking alot of combat that MW4 had

That is so freaking true.

[mekabuser]

no. Survive the initial battle and you have 8 v8. THen you can do your magic and feel like you did something.
12 v 12 is far better than 8v8 ..
I understand the 12 man pain, but going back to 8v8 isnt the answer

also if ammo... is preventing you from making kills... then... um more ammo

Edited by mekabuser, 01 January 2014 - 07:02 PM.

[Imperius]

Nick Makiaveli, on 01 January 2014 - 05:44 PM, said:

So no actual attempt to answer my questions, or address the points I make, just insults towards me and another.

So basically if we disagree with you, we are stupid. Yea, that's a mature attitude.

Care to try and actually articulate your position and explain where I went wrong? I did start off by saying I didn't see where you were coming from, so it opened the door for you. Yet you chose to go full on emotional BS rather than engage in an actual discussion.

Read my post carefully then your response. No where did I say I know 12 mans are dead, but people who play 12 mans have said wait times are hours apart, and there is very few posts from pleople that play 12 mans on these forums anymore. Therefore I assume something is wrong, but really have no concrete evidence to back it up. So basied of that knowledge 12 mans need to go, and they need to add a 8v8 playlist or drop the number to 8v8.

As for defending the mouth breather that told me to go play call of duty, really do I need to explain? He's obviously just here to troll and failed with the cliché go play call of duty response that has the same insult level of the kindergarten your momma joke.

I shouldn't have to take the time to explain to people who skim a post and reply like a reflex only comprehending half of the material they skimmed over and formulating a half assed opinion basied on half assed reading.

[Imperius]

Why was this moved to feature suggestions? This is a game balance issue 12 v 12 has too much damage, not enough ammo, and is overpopulated on most maps.

[Nutlink]

Davers, on 01 January 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I honestly have to ask, why did they last so long? Was it just simply the map size?

Keith pretty much nailed it. There was a lot more hit and run going on until later in the match. The first 20 minutes would be testing the waters, seeing who has what mech and finding out (hopefully) in what configuration. From there it was a little probing, trying to herd the other team to a better location. Once they get heavily damaged, then it was balls to walls run in and kill them all. Most of the maps could be crossed in under a couple minutes with the faster mechs. That may seem like a long time, but you honestly didn't always know where the enemy would come from. Instead of one or two choke points, you had dozens.

[Glenfiddich15Yr]

I don't understand the obsession with kills. Kills in this game are vastly overrated since this is not Call of Duty where most kills are obtained on one or two shots. I've had matches where I've had two or three kills on around 100 damage and I've had a match where I had no kills on 450 damage. Personally, I care far more about damage when I play a match than I do kills. Though, damage needs to be taken with a grain of salt too, because if all your shots are spread out to different body parts, then you haven't really contributed a ton either.

As for map size. I personally believe in bigger is better. I don't like quick games. I guess if C-bills and XP are all you care about, then small matches are fine. But I enjoy large matches. if it were up to me, there would be 20 vs 20 matches or even larger. Some of you say the small maps are too cluttered. I disagree. In warfare, there isn't going to be a bunch of lone wolves running around. In reality, whether you think of the past, present, or future, there will always be large groups of units bunched together.

By the way, your kill count will go up if instead of shooting at the group and randomly at mechs, you instead focus on just one in the group. I know that seems like common sense, but I see a lot of people (when spectating) who constantly switch which mech they are shooting at. Sometimes that is a necessity, but other times it is illogical.

I really think too many people are just focused on Modern Warfare running and gunning rather than actually using strategy to win matches.

[quote name='Imperius]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' date=' good flank spots, good snipe spots, all around better tactic map.[/quote']

Ummm.. Why exactly? So you can see your opponent a long ways out,but cannot do anything. Big deal. That is how war often is. It's not like you and your opponent just stand there staring at each other. You do move towards one another and engagement does occur..

Edited by Glenfiddich15Yr, 02 January 2014 - 03:54 PM.

[Imperius]

Kills mater because it's the only thing that really wins the game and gives C-Bills. Since there is nothing else that matters other than C-Bills and the win incentive isn't that big Kills matter. Blame the devs not the people like me that realize kills matter. 12 v 12 is too many players for this thinking game.

[Glenfiddich15Yr]

Imperius, on 02 January 2014 - 03:58 PM, said:

Kills mater because it's the only thing that really wins the game and gives C-Bills. Since there is nothing else that matters other than C-Bills and the win incentive isn't that big Kills matter. Blame the devs not the people like me that realize kills matter. 12 v 12 is too many players for this thinking game.

The variance in C-bills is not that much. I've noticed little difference in matches I've won with three kills and light damage and matches I've won with no kills but heavy damage. And I think you missed my point. Kills are about luck. There are times I have taken an enemy mech down to a red, unarmored torso only to have someone else, who just arrived to the skirmish, get the killshot. There have also been times I've fired one laser at a mech and brought it down, ultimately stealing a kill from someone else. it happens and likely balances out in the long run. If your concern is C-Bills, then you should welcome larger matches because it means more mechs that you can potentially kill in one game. 2-3 kills now is still 2-3 kills of what it was. The main difference is that the amount of C-bills and experience payed may have changed per kill (as a newer player to this, I cannot answer if that is what happened), but if that is the case, then chances are, they were going to do that regardless of whether or not it was 8 vs 8 or 12 vs 12. And you were the one in the beginning who said your problem with it was that you don't feel like you contribute as much as you used to. Multiplayer games shouldn't be all about one person stealing all the glory. Ideally, they would be about teamwork and team experience. Hence why I don't care if I miss out on a kill that for all intensive purposes should have been mine.

[Boyka]

After one year only 12vs12.. i'm really bored to hell.. same tactics, same chaos in small maps ever and ever and ever..

An option for 4vs4, 8vs8 and 12vs12 to improve variety and strategy.. Yes sir i want it!

You dont like it? Check only 12vs12 and continue to play your monotony..

[Imperius]