Jump to content

12V12 Vs. 8V8


23 replies to this topic

#21 Sandpit

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Veteran Founder
  • Veteran Founder
  • 17,419 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationArkansas

Posted 10 March 2014 - 05:29 PM

I'd like to see double to triple the map sizes and 32v32

THAT would increase tactics and strategies seen. You can't "follow the blob" at that point and it forces teams to bring a myriad of different weight classes. The bigger the force you can field and the larger the area you have to attack, defend, cap, etc. the more you have to think about multiple engagements.

1v1 = take the baddest mechs you can
as you scale the size of the battle up the more versatile your force has to be.

if you tripled map sizes and added a LOT more distance to cap points and such you have a much more viable reason to bring fast mechs to scout, cap, skirmish, etc. while the big boys close and provide fire support, flank, etc. When you can effectively pull off flanking, pincer, boxing, manuevers in under 20 seconds, or better yet, be at strategic cap points in the same amount of time things like speed and mobility become less of a factor.

It's the big difference in Black Ops and Battlefield (personal opinions on which game is "better" or how "good" either of them are) BO equates to small maps and small teams. It's very twitchy and doesn't take nearly as much strategy other than knowing key locations on a map.
BF equates to much bigger maps forcing players to split up and coordinate in order to take cap points, use vehicles to move across the map faster and shore up a position that's getting overrun, etc.

#22 fandre

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 218 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 05:01 AM

Maybe more than tripple, so that it takes some minutes to go to a place. Also add changing starting points and dont show the position of cap points/enemy base at the beginning, so that you have to search for them. Makes scouts and proper coordination necessary, even in PUG matches.

This also would provide enough time to take out a badly splitted group before heavier reinforcements arrive.

#23 Jeffrey Wilder

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 506 posts

Posted 11 March 2014 - 05:16 AM

Frankly, I prefer 8x8 simply because of the terrible lag

#24 Joseph Mallan

    ForumWarrior

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • FP Veteran - Beta 1
  • 35,216 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationMallanhold, Furillo

Posted 11 March 2014 - 09:24 AM

View PostJeffrey Wilder, on 11 March 2014 - 05:16 AM, said:

Frankly, I prefer 8x8 simply because of the terrible lag

A good reason to prefer 8s there sir. ;)





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users