60 replies to this topic

[El Bandito]

That got me thinking, would reverting back to 8 mans help alleviate these issues somewhat?

1. Reducing combatant numbers per match from 24 to 16 will mean there will be more matches happening at the same time, and making it easier for MM to find someone who have similar Elo as you.

2. TTK will increase slightly due to less people shooting at a single target, on average.

3. Needless to say, hit-reg and fps performance should be better in a match with less people in it.

Now I am not advocating that we should go back to 8v8 on all maps and modes, since I personally have not experienced severe issues with all of the above, in pugs (also, my computer is awesomesauce). Plus PGI is going to have to re-tune match rewards, yet again (likely cheating us of our earnings). Still, would such change indeed bring benefits to the above issues? Or would they remain the same?

Perhaps 8v8 in solo-q only? Solo queue has the largest amount of player base and has nothing to do with CW, and what not.

Edited by El Bandito, 03 April 2015 - 11:38 PM.

[Kensaisama]

It would be nice to have a 4v4, and 8v8 as options.

[Lily from animove]

It would also help to lower waiting times since now less mechs are required and queue lfuctuation is higher.
Also a single pilots performance now has more influence.

[van Uber]

I would not mind having the size of the map decide the number of combatants, from 4v4 up to 12v12.

[Pjwned]

I would like to see both 8v8 and 12v12 depending on what map it is, e.g River City or Forest Colony should absolutely be 8v8 while maps like Terra Therma and Alpine Peaks are fine for 12v12.

Not too sure how I feel about 4v4 on any current maps.

[Karl Streiger]

8 vs 8 - +100

[Chrithu]

I am all for it. After 2 years with 12v12 I really think 8v8 was a lot better in most regards.

Edited by Jason Parker, 14 November 2014 - 05:14 AM.

[Brizna]

I think that rather than reduce team size to a fixed number, team size should be another variable MM can play with, this solution has several adavantages.

A new non intrusive relief valve for MM when it's hard for it to find a good 12vs12, perhaps it can find an excellent 10vs10?
A way for changin max team size depending on map, some maps are too small for 12vs12 but I also think that some are too large for 8vs8.
Very easy to implement, private lobies prove that the game engine can cope with matches with varying team sizes so it is just a matter of tweaking MM.
And last but not least, it might shed some fresh air to old maps being faced with different team sizes from time to time.

[Kalrithian]

I would love to go back to 8v8 ,or at least have the option.

[Pjwned]

Brizna, on 14 November 2014 - 05:17 AM, said:

I think that rather than reduce team size to a fixed number, team size should be another variable MM can play with, this solution has several adavantages.

A new non intrusive relief valve for MM when it's hard for it to find a good 12vs12, perhaps it can find an excellent 10vs10?
A way for changin max team size depending on map, some maps are too small for 12vs12 but I also think that some are too large for 8vs8.
Very easy to implement, private lobies prove that the game engine can cope with matches with varying team sizes so it is just a matter of tweaking MM.
And last but not least, it might shed some fresh air to old maps being faced with different team sizes from time to time.

It's an interesting idea but there might be some logistics problems that pop up if you have players spawning in lances that are not full.

[Killstorm999999]

How to fix MM issues? Scrap it and let players self organize (something humans are very good at, why waste computer cycles to do that?). Use a lobby system with global chat.

[LordBraxton]

8v8 was better for almost every map IMO.

12v12 requires more objective based gameplay, like multiple bases to attack\defend.

I meant bases, not mining drills ofc.

[Killstorm999999]

LordBraxton, on 14 November 2014 - 05:45 AM, said:

8v8 was better for almost every map IMO.

12v12 requires more objective based gameplay, like multiple bases to attack\defend.

I meant bases, not mining drills ofc.

Objectives would be good. There could easily be objectives even in Skirmish (perhaps each team has 1 or 2 forward bases with a couple of turrets?). They wouldn't decide who wins or who loses, but could provide a cbill bonus if you hold them at the end of the match.

[Viges]

8vs8 is good

BUT not canon

[mogs01gt]

El Bandito, on 14 November 2014 - 04:43 AM, said:

That got me thinking, would reverting back to 8 mans help alleviate these issues somewhat?
1. Reducing combatant numbers per match from 24 to 16 will mean there will be more matches happening at the same time, and making it easier for MM to find someone who have similar Elo as you.
2. TTK will increase ever so slightly due to less people shooting at a single target, on average.
3. Needless to say, hit-reg and fps performance should be better in a match with less people in it.
Now I am not advocating that we should go back to 8v8, since I personally have not experienced severe issues with all of the above, in pugs (also, my computer is awesomesauce). Plus PGI is going to have to re-tune match rewards, yet again. Still, would such change indeed bring benefits to the above issues? Or would they remain the same?
Perhaps 8v8 in solo-q only? Solo queue has the largest amount of player base and has nothing to do with CW, and what not.

24 vs. 16 should be map specific IMO.

[Mechteric]

I would definitely be for 8v8 in solo queue! Map specific could work too (12v12 only in Tourmaline and Alpine?), unless they ever do map voting.

[Livewyr]

I kind of like having 12v12. Larger groups require more situational awareness.

That said, I'd like the maps to be bigger. (Especially Forest Colony and Frozen/River Cities)

[Siegegun]

I personally do not want to go back to 8v8 as standard. I enjoy more mechs. Also with more mechs a disco has less of a affect on the match. 11v12 is a big difference from 7v8. Also a single great player has less of an affect 12v12 than 8v8.

However as an option if they could figure out a way to do it would be cool. More variety is always good for games. And some of the above posters are right, some of the maps do feel too small for 12v12.

Edited by Siegegun, 14 November 2014 - 07:52 AM.

[Dawnstealer]

What would make more sense is to have the map size determine the team size. Although it makes sense that a power might send a company (12 mechs) to take a small location, depending on its importance. But given the relative scarcity, power, and cost of Mechs, it's unlikely any power would commit a company to EVERY battle.

So...yeah, might be nice to have that vary. Back in the 8v8 days, there was no margin for error - if you lost one mech, no matter what it was, it hurt a lot - that was 12.5% of your team gone.

[Gallowglas]

No thanks. 12v12 has been more fun and less static by an order of magnitude.