60 replies to this topic

[cSand]

Don't poison my solo queue with carebear-itis


thanks!!!

Bring on the heavy TTK, and as many players as the game can handle

[Mystere]

Meh! I want canon engagements.

Also, it's Community Warfare or bust!

And finally:

**** eSports!

(with 24+ Solaris furballs being the only exception )

Edited by Mystere, 14 November 2014 - 10:04 AM.

[Glythe]

Gallowglas, on 14 November 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

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

You're wrong on so many levels.

With 8 vs 8 we had smaller engagements way more often. You were taking a huge risk with alpha builds as there were less people to hide behind. There was less swing when you lose 1 person because there were less guns on the field overall. Most matches seemed to end with a 2 vs 2/3/4 players. With 12 vs 12 we usually end with 2 vs 6/8/10 by comparison.

More players means more chances for Elo to go wrong. Lets remember that 8 vs 8 was the time of no Elo and the when most people were happy with the game.

There was no nascar because that meta didn't really work with 8 players.


Given the choice between this game and Battlefield 5 (or whatever) why would you strive to make this game closer to everything else? Can't we have one game where TTK isn't near instantaneous? If that is what you want then go play those games but please stop asking for that in this one.

Tons of people liked mechassault (1) because the TTK was pretty long actually. I would wager it is far longer than the average MWO engagement these days. Everyone hated mechassault 2...... one of the reasons for that was the noob alpha strike which killed an enemy instantly.

Edited by Glythe, 14 November 2014 - 10:09 AM.

[MoshPitKosh]

Jason Parker, on 14 November 2014 - 05:12 AM, said:

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

i agree!. however i have this desire to see larger mech battles. perhaps the maps need some new blood?

[RockmachinE]

I'm up for 8v8. I think its more tactical and brawls are more fun with less players, it makes decision making more important and relies more on twitch skill. Less of a clusterf*ck.

Edited by Louis Brofist, 14 November 2014 - 10:20 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

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

Well, hit reg was pretty good til about 2-3 patches ago, so I don't think the numbers really matter for that. Just Got to find where they broke the code.

Would love solo queue to be 8v8 though, it is far easier to carry the day in a 8v8 than 12 v 12, with the odds not piling up so fast into stomps.

[InspectorG]

DREAM MATCH

144 vs 144

A guy can dream, right???

[cSand]

InspectorG, on 14 November 2014 - 10:47 AM, said:

DREAM MATCH

144 vs 144

A guy can dream, right???

Oh man

THAT would be awesome

[Gallowglas]

Glythe, on 14 November 2014 - 10:06 AM, said:

You're wrong on so many levels.

With 8 vs 8 we had smaller engagements way more often. You were taking a huge risk with alpha builds as there were less people to hide behind. There was less swing when you lose 1 person because there were less guns on the field overall. Most matches seemed to end with a 2 vs 2/3/4 players. With 12 vs 12 we usually end with 2 vs 6/8/10 by comparison.

I'm not "wrong", but clearly our anecdotal experiences may have differed. In nearly every match I can recall for the entire length we had 8v8 (and I was there for thousands of matches from the beginning), it was nothing more than a giant death ball. I rarely ever saw single lances or individual mechs breaking off to do other things. No flanking, less scouting, a lot less subterfuge.

Moreover, losing a single mech was a HUGE deal because you were losing a larger percentage of your team's firepower potential. Yes, TTK was higher, but the swing in momentum was more substantial, too.

All that aside though, the core issue for me is that 12v12 seems a lot more "epic" than 8v8.

Edited by Gallowglas, 14 November 2014 - 11:35 AM.

[El Bandito]

Siegegun, on 14 November 2014 - 07:51 AM, said:

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.

On the other hand, match discos will happen with 33% less frequency with 8v8 than 12v12.

Gallowglas, on 14 November 2014 - 08:55 AM, said:

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

That is true in some ways. Especially rushing towards the enemy Assault lance and murdering them in River City.

Gallowglas, on 14 November 2014 - 11:31 AM, said:

I'm not "wrong", but clearly our anecdotal experiences may have differed. In nearly every match I can recall for the entire length we had 8v8 (and I was there for thousands of matches from the beginning), it was nothing more than a giant death ball. I rarely ever saw single lances or individual mechs breaking off to do other things. No flanking, less scouting, a lot less subterfuge.

In pugs at least, most individual mechs or even lances who split off to do their own thing died and made us lose the game. Really wish PGI implements more effective pug herding tools, cause death ball is still in effect in 12 mans.

Edited by El Bandito, 14 November 2014 - 05:39 PM.

[Chrithu]

MoshPitKosh, on 14 November 2014 - 10:10 AM, said:

i agree!. however i have this desire to see larger mech battles. perhaps the maps need some new blood?

In another thread I made a comparison with Tactical First Person Shooters and came to the conclusion that with the combination of the current gamemode mechanics and mapsizes MWO is much closer to Counter Strike than to Battlefield. And Counter Strike works best and is played competitively with 5vs5 for a list of very good reasons.

I fear bigger maps alone won't help much. We have two already - Alpine and Terra Therma are fairly huge - but we see that on those it still is best to stick together regardless of gamemode. The Problem is that the risk of splitting and flanking is too high, while the reward is very low against halfway decent teams. What needs to change are foremost the gamemodes if we want 12v12 to become more dynamic let alone want to go to 16v16 in the future.

[Krivvan]

Going back to 8-mans for some of the smaller maps (Forest Colony, River City, etc.) would indeed help, and has been brought up multiple times and acknowledged. The answer was that PGI simply didn't have the manpower to work on that at the moment.

[Elizander]

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.

They can implement buffs depending on the group size. 8v8 no buff, 12v12 +armor+internal across the board to account for wtfbbqpwnzorsffleggedcollectpts.

[JT Black]

Greetings.

Guys part of the evolution is to focus on CW.

Let us give our Devs time to focus on the primary road map.

Once it gets introduced we can review this option.


Regards.

JT

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

Livewyr, on 14 November 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

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)

Also if you go 8v8 and have random maps what happens to the other four if you hit a smaller group map as a 12 ,man?

Krivvan, on 15 November 2014 - 02:32 AM, said:

Going back to 8-mans for some of the smaller maps (Forest Colony, River City, etc.) would indeed help, and has been brought up multiple times and acknowledged. The answer was that PGI simply didn't have the manpower to work on that at the moment.

Becauaw CW is the new bottleneck like ui 2.0 was before it

[RePlayBoy101]

8v8 will kill nascar ... no

[Imperius]

8 v 8 will make the game more fun yes

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

necro power

[Variant1]

This topic has been brought up many times before infact Imperus just posted a similar topic not long ago about 8v8.

Should we revert to 8v8? the whole majority comunity decided already no

Should 8v8 be an option like 4v4? yes everyone is willing to see what its going to be like

1. For MM is wont make a difference, if the player base is very small though then mm will be much faster.

2. TTK will be the same, the problem with ttk being low is due to quirks reducing cooldowns/heat/increasing range thats why ttk is low.

3. Hit reg might be improved but if we need to revert to 8v8 to do that then thats no fixing the problem thats just ignoring it. PGI needs to dedicate resources to fix hit reg. As for fps issues its not related to amount of player, sure having 8 more mechs will drop it by 1 or 5 frames but this has more to do with optimization and the fact that the cryengine is garbage. PGI should also be working to optimize the game.

as for 8v8 being solo q? no i dont like that no thx

Edited by Variant1, 25 December 2015 - 08:08 AM.

[Imperius]

This was a topic from last year that was linked in the topic I brought back up. Basically saying people have thought about it for a while.