6 replies to this topic

[Crimsonwolf911]

12 on 12 works nicely for a quick game, but why not games with 16v16, or possibly even more, maybe as many as 24v24 for larger games, played out on bigger maps, for those looking for a more fleshed out fight?

Hell while we're at it why not have something like this in community warfare, pitting larger teams of clan players against one another, or perhaps giving both sides the option to pick how many bodies they bring to the fight eg. two modes, 12v12, 4 mech standard games, and 24v24, 2 mech games, same overall number of mechs, but puts more of them on the field at once.

god my imagination just runs riot when i think about the possibilities and potential clan wars has.

[MechWarrior849305]

I would love to see 50vs50 matches, these would be hillarios Esp when there are 20 discos each side 'cause PGI servers' issues, 20 more discos 'cause terribad coding of the game made their games crash, and all those "luckers" left in the game have awful fps drops below playable

[Tehone]

200vs200 river city!!!! O_o

[Omi_]

I cannot possibly imagine why we don't just play games with 1,000 vs 1,000 during NA and EU prime times.

[Hotthedd]

More players per side =/= longer matches. As long as MW:O has perfect precision Alpha Strikes more mechs = quicker deaths.

I could be wrong but it seemed to me that on average 8 v8 games actually lasted longer than 12 v 12.

[Heartless Saint]

128 vs 128. MAG style!(PS3 for those of you that don't know the game that Sony ended) Having a CW match with different types of objectives to achieve the same goal.

[Kalimaster]

From a military perspective.
4 Mechs = 1 Lance
12 Mechs = 1 Company
36 Mechs = 1 Battalion