70 replies to this topic

[Mcchuggernaut]

I make this statement because I was here for 8v8, and enjoyed it more, so I feel I have room to talk. I couldn't put it into words WHY before, but I feel I can now. My reason is pretty simple: I like to feel as though what I do is directly controlling the outcome of the game. Like my bad play helps result in our loss, or really good play either helps us achieve victory, or at the very least avoids a roflstomp. Right now in 12v12, you are insignificant. I feel like I could go stand in a corner and power down at the start of a match, and only effect the outcome of games by an un-noticeable statistical margin. I can be having a stellar game and have racked up good damage and a few kills, and then my team gets killed off due to bad positioning or shoddy play, and next thing I know I am swarmed and rolled under by the enemy since my backup has all been killed. Likewise, I can literally not fire a single shot the whole game, and my team will win in a landslide. I have seen both of these situations an awful lot. I have a great K/D (for a mostly pure PUG player), yet feel like I am not truly turning the tide of battle one way or another except in small groups at the end of the game when it's a close match.

I wonder if I am the only one who feels like this. I would love to see an option to select 8V8, or even a mode for 4v4 combat between single lances. Sure, there were still plenty of one-sided matches in 8v8 play, but at least I felt a bit more responsible for it and in control. Currently, I have the feeling that my actions are arbitrary, and depend on the luck of how well my teammates play and where our metal death blob ends up positioned on the map more than how well I aim, torso twist, use cover, kill or disable enemies, ect...

So anyway...I don't think the option for smaller groups will "fix the game" or anything, but I will at least feel more connected to the effects of my actions and like they impact my game experience more.

Thanks for reading and I want to hear people's responses!

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 29 January 2014 - 04:04 AM.

[Bhael Fire]

I would like to see other match sizes too, but I personally like 12 v 12 because when I get matches like this it feels f#@% awesome.



But yeah, I'd love to see 4v4 and even 1v1 introduced just because I think it would add interesting variety.

[Mechteric]

Yet when we were at 8v8 everyone was all "I WANT 12v12!"

But whatever, in my opinion I think there should be both 8v8 and 12v12, perhaps based on which game mode is being played. Conquest could be 12v12, where Skirmish and Assault could be 8v8.

Or maybe it would depend on the map, since some of the smaller maps weren't made big enough for 12's.

Edited by CapperDeluxe, 28 January 2014 - 01:02 PM.

[Mcchuggernaut]

Bhael Fire, on 28 January 2014 - 12:47 PM, said:

I would like to see other match sizes too, but I personally like 12 v 12 because when I get matches like this it feels f#@% awesome.

True, that does happen and feels pretty cool when it does. But realistically, those games are far more rare than games where your team dies and you go down being swarmed by a gang of mechs. I see it coming and think, " *sigh* here we go again...well, maybe I can take one with me...". I would prefer it just to feel like I had more control in your average game, and I think smaller team sizes would bring back that feeling.

[Mcchuggernaut]

CapperDeluxe, on 28 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Yet when we were at 8v8 everyone was all "I WANT 12v12!"

I wasn't one of them. I was that strange person the facepalmed when 12v12 launched because I could just see what I feel now was coming. I gave it time and a try though for all these months, and still feel the same way. Now days you feel more like part of an unruly mob than a mebmer of a lance.

[Skyfaller]

I agree with the OP.

The problem though is not exactly the team size but the team size AND the map size.

A 12vs12 in a small map is idiotic. You cant maneuver or do anything other than participate in the face to face fragfest.

Small maps should be 4vs4 (eg, Frozen City)
Medium maps be 8vs8 (eg, canyon network)
Large maps 12vs12. (eg, HPG)

[DaZur]

While I appreciate your premise... It's inaccurate.

While it is true your contribution was felt "faster" in the 8v8 scenario... The reason is because you force strength being only 8 players, the combat force attrition point (the point where it's almost impossible to avoid a stomp) occurs sooner.. i.e. roughly 2 to 3 players down.

With 12v12 there is slightly more wiggle room in the tipping point occurs around 4 to 5... Thus, your impact good or bad is the same... it just doesn't manifest physically as quickly.

Edited by DaZur, 28 January 2014 - 01:13 PM.

[Ngamok]

CapperDeluxe, on 28 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Yet when we were at 8v8 everyone was all "I WANT 12v12!"

But whatever, in my opinion I think there should be both 8v8 and 12v12, perhaps based on which game mode is being played. Conquest could be 12v12, where Skirmish and Assault could be 8v8.

Or maybe it would depend on the map, since some of the smaller maps weren't made big enough for 12's.

Alpine Peaks and Terra Therma with 8v8 will seem dead, lol. And I like bigger maps.

Skyfaller, on 28 January 2014 - 01:07 PM, said:

I agree with the OP.

The problem though is not exactly the team size but the team size AND the map size.

A 12vs12 in a small map is idiotic. You cant maneuver or do anything other than participate in the face to face fragfest.

Small maps should be 4vs4 (eg, Frozen City)
Medium maps be 8vs8 (eg, canyon network)
Large maps 12vs12. (eg, HPG)

Frozen City is ok with 8. I see more of River City being the smaller one.

[Mcchuggernaut]

DaZur, on 28 January 2014 - 01:11 PM, said:

While I appreciate your premise... It's inaccurate.

While it is true your contribution was felt "faster" in the 8v8 scenario... The reason is because you force strength being only 8 players, the combat force attrition point (the point where it's almost impossible to avoid a stomp) occurs sooner.. i.e. roughly 2 to 3 players down.

With 12v12 there is slightly more wiggle room in the tipping point occurs around 4 to 5... Thus, your impact good or bad is the same... it just doesn't manifest physically as quickly.

I agree with part of this, but the tipping point being a bit different wasn't what I was talking about at all, it was how the game feels, as in how much it feels like your individual performance effects the outcome. The larger the group, the less an individual actually matters. It's like the vote system, where people in small groups feel their vote has a large impact, and in huge groups it's individual impact is basically nothing.

[wanderer]

It's more that the snowball takes a bit more to roll downhill.

Take a match I was in earlier today. Rest of team went off towards the docks on Crimson, I saw something on zoom and trotted my Battlemaster to the island. Lo and behold, a lance was setting up to shoot up the team.

Zoom module. AC's start barking, the Stalker stops lobbing LRMs in to back behind cover. Dakka. Dakka. The Catapult follows suit. A Highlander hopping along the hill. Back under cover he goes.

I didn't kill one of those four- but I kept them out of the fight till the rest of my team piled 11v8 on the rest, then took out the lance I had bottled up. We won 12-7,but if those four had gone forward and in, odds are it would have rolled the other way.

Bigger fights take more effort to find opportunity, but trust me. It's in there.

[DaZur]

Mcchuggernaut, on 28 January 2014 - 01:23 PM, said:

I agree with part of this, but the tipping point being a bit different wasn't what I was talking about at all, it was how the game feels, as in how much it feels like your individual performance effects the outcome. The larger the group, the less an individual actually matters. It's like the vote system, where people in small groups feel their vote has a large impact, and in huge groups it's individual impact is basically nothing.

There is no discounting your personal subjective feel of this mechanic... For you, you immediately felt the ebb & flow your actions or inactions and how they influenced the 8-man match.

It's still there but the "wiggle room" four more players per side induce is effectively like an insulator... Even though your actions / inactions affect the attrition balance the same way, the repercussions just don't hit you as quickly and decisively which obviously leaves you feeling a little detached.

[Mcchuggernaut]

wanderer, on 28 January 2014 - 01:31 PM, said:

Bigger fights take more effort to find opportunity, but trust me. It's in there.

Well yeah, in some situations you can do that. They are few and far between. I once held half an enemy team at a choke point because they were afraid to be the first one to come through and get chewed up by my Atlas, and I ended up killing two of them that tried on top of that. This stuff CAN happen. But we're talking about the most likely scenarios, and right now the most likely one is your team rolls the other or you get rolled, and your individual contribution feels like it matters little, good OR bad. In a huge team the effect of a disconnect or poor performance by one or two individuals hurts the team overall less, but a great individual performance also has less impact. That's why you feel so irritated when your team gets stomped and mobbed, because you feel no matter how well you played, you couldn't have stopped it. In a small team, I feel if I play amazing I can make up for a mech or two lost, pick up the slack and take down two at once and maybe pull off a victory. Any more than that though, and you just get taken apart, which is the norm for the big matches near the end.

[cSand]

I love 12v12 but I also wouldn't mind a 8v8 queue, especially if that meant I could have more than 3 friends in my group!

It'd be cool to see 8v8v8 as well Although I might be dreaming at this point

[DaZur]

While completely antidotal and contrary to your experience... I have to confess since the MM adjustment I've actually felt a stronger connection to the match results...

Granted, I think I'm riding the wave of my Elo "sweet spot"... But it's been a rarity if my matches end in anything less than a 12-8 or 8/12 result and I've had several assault and skirmish matches timeout while still actively engaged in battle as well as several conquest matches come right down to the wire with less-than 5 point differentials.

Maybe I'm just being myopic but I think this is why I'm having such a hard time swallowing all the gloom and doom floating around this forum when my own personal experience is quite the contrary.

Truly mileage does vary I guess...

[Mcchuggernaut]

DaZur, on 28 January 2014 - 01:39 PM, said:

Even though your actions / inactions affect the attrition balance the same way

But they don't. An individual's personal impact on any situation decreases exponentially the more other people there are involved (provided they are relatively equal). I don't see how you can claim otherwise. This is a pretty established fact of life, not just a mechanic of MWO. Yes, a crappy teammate can hurt you more in a small group, but if the group is small enough a really good player can still survive the odds. I can sometimes take two enemy mechs of similar size with superior aim and piloting. But never 3 or more provided they aren't completely armor-stripped or something. In a 4 man, if one of my teammates is clinically brain-dead, and the other two are competent, I can have a great game and make up for it because the stomp has less potential to get totally out of control to the point that NOBODY can handle it, no matter how good they are. Even with 3 on 1, I have a shot to take someone with me through very good piloting. But these hugely lopsided stomps don't even allow for that, or ANY feeling of control. This is just how I feel after ages playing this game. I just think we need at least the OPTION of smaller matches, and if you prefer 12v12 I wouldn't want that taken away from you. I just want a choice that will allow me to feel like my actions matter in a PUG game or small premade lance.

[Bront]

I don't agree entirely, but well said Huggernaught.

A few comments though. First of all, technically, you are less significant. 33% in fact, You went from being 1/8th of your team to 1/12th of your team. However, it's not all one sided regarding that, as the fact now is that there are also 33% more people who can take advantage of your mistakes, and you are 33% more likely to encounter someone who can counter your mech. The net result is that you're it's more likely you'll have a bad game.

Wait, but aren't you also 33% more likely to be on the other side of this? On theory yes, but you're also competing with 33% more people on your team looking to do the same thing, so in general it feels like you're more likely to recieve the wrong end of a 12v12 match.

You also have things turn into a landslide faster. So, a few teammates fall early, it can spiral out of control regardless of how good you are. Again, this does apply to both sides, but is more frustrating when you're on the wrong end of it.

CapperDeluxe, on 28 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

Or maybe it would depend on the map, since some of the smaller maps weren't made big enough for 12's.

I 100% agree with this. 8 mans on River City and Forrest Colony would be better, and there are a few maps that I think would fit well with both 8 and 12 man drops (Caustic, Frozen City).

My guess is that once we get private matches, we'll be able to drop in 8v8s, and CW might have some different from 12v12 pairings for some missions.

[LastPaladin]

CapperDeluxe, on 28 January 2014 - 01:01 PM, said:

But whatever, in my opinion I think there should be both 8v8 and 12v12, perhaps based on which game mode is being played. Conquest could be 12v12, where Skirmish and Assault could be 8v8.

Or maybe it would depend on the map, since some of the smaller maps weren't made big enough for 12's.

It could also key off how many players are online looking for matches in an Elo bracket. I'd rather get an 8v8 than get told "Failed to Find a Match" again.

[Mcchuggernaut]

DaZur, on 28 January 2014 - 01:58 PM, said:

While completely antidotal and contrary to your experience... I have to confess since the MM adjustment I've actually felt a stronger connection to the match results...

Granted, I think I'm riding the wave of my Elo "sweet spot"... But it's been a rarity if my matches end in anything less than a 12-8 or 8/12 result and I've had several assault and skirmish matches timeout while still actively engaged in battle as well as several conquest matches come right down to the wire with less-than 5 point differentials.

Maybe I'm just being myopic but I think this is why I'm having such a hard time swallowing all the gloom and doom floating around this forum when my own personal experience is quite the contrary.

Truly mileage does vary I guess...

Well, if you are experiencing it differently then I guess to each his own. I'm not saying do away with 12v12, because I know some people like it and there would be a lot of upset over removing it. But my experience has been different, and so I would want the option of choosing a smaller battle size. We already have 3 game modes, so why not?

Edited by Mcchuggernaut, 28 January 2014 - 02:06 PM.

[DaZur]

Mcchuggernaut, on 28 January 2014 - 01:59 PM, said:

It's a force multiplier thing... Kind'a like in football when a team is down a score. It takes two scores by that team to counter / cancel the momentum of the opposing team.

Obviously in a 8v8 match your singular or double kill can turn that matches momentum... in 12v12, the closer your team is to that stomp tipping point, the more directly you feel the impact of those same 1 or 2 kills. Obviously if you already down 4+ players your 1-2 kills does not swing that inertia as impactful... So in a sense I think I do appreciate your point.

Thanks for talking this one through...

[wanderer]

Quote

But we're talking about the most likely scenarios, and right now the most likely one is your team rolls the other or you get rolled, and your individual contribution feels like it matters little, good OR bad

Rolls happened just the same in 8v8...they just tipped faster and the margin of error plunged.

Frequently, I could tell a game was over by 2-0 in 8v8. That's all it took to break teams. Two down. One AFKer and you were already bleeding, one LEEEEROOOOY and it was GG, g'bye.

12v12, it's about one 'Mech further down- basically, most PUGs hit CLG and start dissolving if they drop to 75% force size (that is, 3 down) instead of 2. I find that if you want to have momentum, have firepower you can toss down the lane without pause. I want to hurt someone badly? I'll put both PPC's into them. Keep people busy? One PPC, other one is looking for another target down the lane. Or even just some quick bursts of AC fire into cover to keep the ridge humpers down.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of pinning opponents, especially in PUGs to swing a fight.