5 replies to this topic

[Threat Doc]

Good morning.

Now that I've had my first and second opportunities to play in a pair of 12-man games, I have some preliminary things to say about it. Let me explain, however, before I move into my suggestions for PGI about MWO, that I'm certain over time and practice, getting the 12-man's down would make us a fearsome force, perhaps stronger in PUGs, as well. However, there are issues with the 12-man...

1) Before my friends and I would even attempt a 12-man, we knew for a fact there was going to have to be absolute battlefield discipline, 12-man specific builds, and the level of savagery in 12-man's is extraordinary,

2) It took more than a half-hour each for us to organize how we were going to do our 12-man's, being that though we did not have specific 'Mechs, we did organize what we were able to bring into three Lance's that, in tabletop, I would have called absolute perfect,

3) While we were organizing, between then and launch, we sort of all knew we were going in to get our ***** absolutely kicked, but I don't think any of us expected the absolute level of brutality involved,

4) After our five minutes of survival in the first game, and around three minutes in the second game, we were unhappy with the first loss, and absolutely devastated by the second. In fact, two people had shut down the game and TeamSpeak -C3 sucks, in case you don't know, PGI, and NO ONE uses it- before I was even able to get back to my "lobby", and the rest of us disconnected, with few words, afterward. If anyone else was like me, I was thoroughly exhausted, and mystified, after we were done,

5) We had fun, but that fun came from the thrill of the absolute brutal speed with which we were dispatched.

What this brings me to, as I listen to NGNG 101, is the idea of what NEEDS to be done concerning 12-man drops, mainly being able to circumvent them.

You're going to have teams that are fully objective-based, especially if in-game contracts make these teams O-based, and if they are forced to fight in 12-man's to succeed, you're going to see the evaporation of a lot of the community. The brutality, the single-minded ignorance behind how 12-man's operate, and the fact you CAN NOT coordinate the way a military unit should, in order to win, will turn off the players who believe BattleTech should be a game of strategy, tactics, and skill, and that MWO should emulate that.

Keep the 12-man's for competitive game-play, it's perfect for that, as they are, now. However, you need to develop games where mercenary's can be hired to accomplish objectives, and win the game when that happens, rather than everyone savaging everyone else ALL the time. We've now had two years of this, and it's amazingly old, and you're not even into CW Phase One, yet.

Put in objectives, put in the ability of the defender to lay out their forces across the planet as they wish, put in the ability of the attacker to drop where they want and to plan which objectives they're going to take, when they want to take them, and set up games with their opponent. It might be difficult to do, but I've GIVEN you my Compiled Mission Types Catalog at least three times, and I have to tell you that having objectives will make CW playable. However, if you intend to keep only the game modes you have, or even expanding one or two more modes, I will likely have had my fill of this beautiful game.

Finally, personally, I have about zero interest in participating in 12-man's, and I am trying to re-boot a mercenary unit for this game. I want to give you my money, I want to have a game I can play, and I do not believe performing 12-man's all the time, as they exist, now, are going to continue to be conducive to planetary game-play.

[Ryokens leap]

I personally couldnt agree with you more. I excused myself from dropping 12 mans with the group i recently joined for many of the reasons you listed in your post. Cookie cutter clone teams engaging in Napoleonic style, pinpoint alpha, poptarting/ torso twisting, arty spamming lameness. Not the Mechwarrior I want to play. People so focussed on winning that all the fun and emotion is leached away. The rich content and history of BT with hundreds of chassis's and thousands of variants, historic battles and iconic characters are all but lost to the upper tier 12 man leagues. Until PGI gets a better handle on balance issues (nerfing everything to try balance PPC's) ect, I will happily continue to drop 4's and enjoy a game that brings an elevated heart rate, shaking hands, a smile and an actual emotional response.

[Threat Doc]

I could help them with their balancing math, and from everything I'm seeing on the battlefield, it wouldn't actually take all that much, except going back to the drawing board. It's pretty obvious the KISS principle is not being used here, when it really should be.

As for what you had to say about 12-man's, I think you managed to readily cut out all the flowery BS I put into mine, and got it down to brass tacks. Bully for you . I, unfortunately, have always been wordy, and I annoy my friends with it all the time. I get a giggle, but I often have to go back and explain what I mean, hehe.

[slide]

Having faced off against a couple of very professional teams I completely understand what you are saying. Getting your heads handed to you in a few minutes without hardly firing a shot is totally demoralizing. I would argue that it's actually worse than pugging because there is no excuse you can use to account for the loss. When pugging you can always blame the match maker, or tonnage difference or something else. In 12v12 you all chose to be there so it's all on you. Some people can't handle that making 12 mans a very short lived experience.

Now we have the philosophy that you can learn more from a loss than you can a win. Unfortunately when you lose to a team that uses the current meta to it's best advantage, right down to telling it's pilots how to distribute armour down to it's last point, the only thing you learn is that you need to do he same to keep up. Thus the fun sucking cycle continues if that is not your thing.

Now please don't get me wrong 12v12 is absolutely the most fun you can have in this game when it is between 2 teams of equally skilled players and matched teams. ARMD either internally or against some of the other oceanic teams have stomped, been stomped and had some absolute nail biters (749 to 750 points in conquest matches for example, or 3 mechs left with 1 medium laser between them, with the lone armed Atlas trying to stop a base cap).

Pre-organised match ups with rules, tonnage limits or specific drop decks (3,3,3,3 or 2,4,4,2) make a huge difference whilst still giving people the option to bring what they want. Going up against teams you know are around the same level also helps.

I have great respect for the uber competitive players, their skills are a joy to watch, but unfortunately I do not want to play that meta based game. I want to play MechWarrior.

In Battletech terms the meta warriors need to be on Solaris whilst the rest of us mere mortals fight over the IS.

In real world terms it's like being a racing driver everyone is good in their own right, but the teams with the best equipment usually win. Formula 1 drivers are in a class of their own and for good reason too.

The US Australia timezone difference could be an issue but if we can organise a match sometime it will likely be a different experience.

[Roland]

Not sure what you want to hear here.

You played as a full team, and got stomped by teams which were much better than you.

You need to practice and get better. There really isn't any other solution here. If you could just jump in and play against another better team and make it a close fight, that would mean that there was no skill involved with the game.

I think that a lot of folks whose only experience is playing in PUGs really don't know what to make of an actual organized game.. because its often more than just "run to the center". But since that's generally all you see in PUG play, you have little way to prepare for it until you get together as a group.

For me, the only problem with 12 mans is how freaking hard it is to get exactly 12 people together.

[Threat Doc]

Roland, on 03 February 2014 - 05:51 PM, said:

Not sure what you want to hear here.

You played as a full team, and got stomped by teams which were much better than you.

You need to practice and get better. There really isn't any other solution here. If you could just jump in and play against another better team and make it a close fight, that would mean that there was no skill involved with the game.

I think that a lot of folks whose only experience is playing in PUGs really don't know what to make of an actual organized game.. because its often more than just "run to the center". But since that's generally all you see in PUG play, you have little way to prepare for it until you get together as a group.

For me, the only problem with 12 mans is how freaking hard it is to get exactly 12 people together.

I can't disagree with you, here, Roland. However, I can say you missed the point of my OP. It's not about fighting in 12-man's, especially as they exist, now, it's about having a game that is more broad than just 12-man-v-12-man. The sort of 12-man's my friends and I participated in the other night was, as Slide explained, best for Solaris competitive play, while a MechWarrior 12-man-v-12-man should consist of something much more broad than just playing a BattleTech board game on the computer. The sorts of objectives I'm talking about require strategy, tactics, and skill, not just rush one-another and, whomever has the best weapons setup -the fun-sucking type of setup-, wins. Take a look at my Compiled Mission Types Catalog, and I think you'll see what I mean. This is a PDF file, so please download with care?

Having PUGs and 12-man's, as they exist, now, is fine... for those who don't want more. To the best of my knowledge, the larger portion of this community, including those presently in absentia, want more.