43 replies to this topic

[Inappropriate7402641]

In my experience, any game seems to get more tactical with less players (down to small teams). The larger the number the higher tendency for zerg. I really feel that the game would be much better in most regards if we had the option to queue for 4v4, 8v8, or the 12v12 as it is now.

Right now in 12v12, in any mode, most of the matches end up being zerg vs zerg, with most matches ending in landslide victories (domino effect?). Skirmish right now is pretty horrible as both teams tend to camp in a death ball. Honestly this kind of gameplay is really derp and leaves little room for tactics and maneuvering considering the size of most of the maps, especially without ECM.

This is supposed to be a "thinking man's" game, but right now there seems to be less thinking going on here than even a round of COD.

Edited by Inappropriate7402641, 05 February 2014 - 02:54 PM.

[LastPaladin]

I think you need the game modes to give you a real benefit for splitting up to accomplish multiple objectives, otherwise people tend to stick together, whether it is 8v8 or 12v12. Conquest has multiple objectives, but there is no real benefit to splitting up to get them done, since you can kill most of the other team with your death ball, just going cap to cap together, and still have time to stop their cap win. Plus there is no real monetary or xp reward to motivate you to win by points.

Now, say we had a game mode where you had to capture AND hold two bases for a period of time in order to win, and the bases were on opposite sides of the map. You could win by killing the other team, but winning by a capture would give 50% more money and xp. Then, you would see some tactics, guaranteed, since it would be in the players' best interest.

[Xmith]

There were 8-0 stomps when there were 8 per team. So dropping from 12 per will make no difference at all.

[Roland]

8v8 tends to offer better matches in many cases.

It should definitely be an option, as well as 4v4.

[Deathsani]

I agree with the need for more diverse game sizes and a motivation to split up. Hopefully lobbies will fix this.

[Sandpit]

number of players doesn't normally change anything other than length of game. Just like respawn doesn't stop stomps, just prolongs them.

I'd like to see bigger games actually. 32v32 and huge maps.

[Ialti]

Oh kid. You have no idea how excited most of us were for the introduction of 12v12. Trust me, "tactics" don't happen with smaller groups.

[Inappropriate7402641]

Ialti, on 05 February 2014 - 05:35 PM, said:

Oh kid. You have no idea how excited most of us were for the introduction of 12v12. Trust me, "tactics" don't happen with smaller groups.

Calm down, I'm not saying take the 12v12 away. I know there are people like you that enjoy it and want to play something where they don't have to think much.

But tactics do happen in smaller groups. That's the point of a smaller group. And it's why any popular competitive game is comprised of exactly that, a small group (the extremely popular MOBA genre, FPSs like CS, etc). Even Battlefield 4 is played in small groups on a competitive level. In fact, that's why people, in real life, are usually broken down into relatively small groups, from the military to the corporate world.

[Capt Sternn]

Would LOVE 4x4!!!!

[Ialti]

Inappropriate7402641, on 05 February 2014 - 06:11 PM, said:

Calm down, I'm not saying take the 12v12 away. I know there are people like you that enjoy it and want to play something where they don't have to think much.

But tactics do happen in smaller groups. That's the point of a smaller group. And it's why any popular competitive game is comprised of exactly that, a small group (the extremely popular MOBA genre, FPSs like CS, etc). Even Battlefield 4 is played in small groups on a competitive level. In fact, that's why people, in real life, are usually broken down into relatively small groups, from the military to the corporate world.

Calm down?! CALM DOWN!? I'M CALM!

Anywho... Yes, yes, we get that you play other games. So do I. But I've watched this one from closed beta on, and I'm telling you that smaller groups don't net better teamwork [edit] in this big stompy robot sim. Maybe the actual implimentation of squad-wide c3 would... or maybe objective-based gaming would... but making the groups smaller just returns us to faster pugstomping.

And @ Capt Stern: I would love 4v4's too!

Edited by Ialti, 05 February 2014 - 06:28 PM.

[Sandpit]

They've talked in the past about having a Solaris arena setting, this would be a good spot for those. I'd like to see full-blown Solaris tournaments and seasons with rewards for winners. Akin to what MW4 had.

[Mystere]

Are you serious? I'm wishing for battalion-sized or bigger matches.

[Sandpit]

Mystere, on 05 February 2014 - 07:07 PM, said:

Are you serious? I'm wishing for battalion-sized or bigger matches.

Larger maps would be required but yes, I'd love to get huge matches going. Maybe some day

[Rebas Kradd]

I would love smaller matches. They'd bring out range management, heat management, better aiming, maneuvering, all kinds of stuff that doesn't get a chance to emerge in the open-range 12v12 chaos.

Or you could just reduce the damage output.

[and zero]

Xmith, on 05 February 2014 - 03:25 PM, said:

There were 8-0 stomps when there were 8 per team. So dropping from 12 per will make no difference at all.

That is absolutely false good sir.

Due to the math of distribution of damage and firepower output, 12 man games are vastly more likely to end in a complete stomp than 8 mans due to the significantly great snowball effect.

[AC]

I think you should be able to pick 4,8, or 12 man group like you can pick your game mode.

[Sandpit]

AC, on 05 February 2014 - 07:47 PM, said:

I think you should be able to pick 4,8, or 12 man group like you can pick your game mode.

you'll be able to group up 2-12 soon. (April I think it was? April 15? could be wrong but if memory serves that's it)

I'd still like to see a 32v32 match. THAT would be fun. That would also drastically increase match length just through attrition

[cSand]

Sandpit, on 05 February 2014 - 06:56 PM, said:

They've talked in the past about having a Solaris arena setting, this would be a good spot for those. I'd like to see full-blown Solaris tournaments and seasons with rewards for winners. Akin to what MW4 had.

Also the ability to gamble my CBills on the outcome

[Oriius]

I think more options would be great, 12v12 is alright, i did enjoy 8v8 too, and i can totally see the appeal for a 4v4. With that said I'd also like to see things like 8v8v8, or if ya like 4v4v4v4, Is a lot of possible options to be explored there,

Throw in a player server/lobby system to allow us to pick, and you'd have all sorts of cool leagues and stuff going down.

[Noesis]

Open Universe with drop ships and you can travel freely about the BT universe with affiliations and enemy status being apparent.

No more lobbies no more virtual drop ships, real logistics, real travel (well maybe sped up here), real communication channels, sharing of intel, real free movement on worlds, with varying topography, landmarks, weather, interactive installations and organisations, orders and/or contracts to follow offering incentive to hold a presence anywhere.

Boot up the game each day and arise from the nearest available hanger to you based on where you left things at.

Tag on a real economy with deliveries, limited resources, repair and rearm costs and production facilities all needed to be fought over. And also the chance for the pilot to interact with this world when out of his Mech.

(The only stipulation is never let the player politics actually capable of changing the underlying game rules as to how MWO is played and this is left purely at the discretion of PGI/IGP to control this super sandbox.)

Too much (for more real strategy and tactics)?