Jump to content

12V12 And The Consequences Of It.


56 replies to this topic

#1 SolVali

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 73 posts

Posted 23 April 2016 - 07:49 PM

So we see in 4v4 scout mode, that individual skill matters more than 12v12 (leaving aside the 'skillcrow debate'), this is pretty much a given as we see this in many games.

The larger the amount of people in the team, the more the game changes, tactically, and long range happy slapping becomes the norm. We see this in games like eve online, when people prefer like smaller group battles, because the fights last longer, and individual skill can then matter more. Increase the numbers and then the game changes from longer lasting fights, and therefore more time to show your 'skill', to 'See this, target this, next target, Because of concentrated firepower.

This means that 'pokers' in this game, generally those who can go out in the open, and fire, and then hide, become the norm, trench warfare can then set in, and Assaults/Brawlers lose a bit of their potency.

Leaving aside the issues like the time to find a match and so on, If for example you have a 4v4 mode, 1/1/1/1, would the mechs/pilot skill matter more?

Edited by SolVali, 23 April 2016 - 07:50 PM.


#2 wanderer

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Civil Servant
  • Civil Servant
  • 11,152 posts
  • LocationStomping around in a giant robot, of course.

Posted 23 April 2016 - 08:40 PM

We who were around when it was 8v8 can tell you: Yes.

It's easier to carry 8 than 12, and while we're at it you're more likely to survive being out of position a bit longer if there isn't 12 potential people shooting you in the face. Larger numbers allow for more cases of focus fire, which means lower survival times.

Heck, there were cases in beta where you'd literally kill everyone. I had an 8-7 win at one point where by dumb luck, everyone in my team went down before actually killing anything, leaving me to clean up the mostly battered remnants of the opposing side by dint of somehow never being shot at the entire time.

#3 Karamarka

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 809 posts

Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:14 PM

8 is better. less potential for bads on your team

#4 Champion of Khorne Lord of Blood

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Shredder
  • Shredder
  • 4,806 posts

Posted 23 April 2016 - 09:16 PM

Eight was great.

#5 SolVali

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Defiant
  • The Defiant
  • 73 posts

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:05 AM

Do you think that there could be support to change to 8v8 mode? So we will have 4v4 scouting, 8v8 QP, and 12v12 invasion.

#6 jozkhan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Wrath
  • Wrath
  • 384 posts

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:19 AM

8 v 8 was definitely the 'sweet spot' and I think alot of people would come back to this game if it was reintroduced rather than just check in every 6 months or so and go 'nahh' like we are doing now.

#7 Cy Mitchell

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Privateer
  • The Privateer
  • 2,688 posts

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:28 AM

I personally like the big battles generated by the 12v12 format. True, if you get out of position or make a mistake you will die quicker to focus fire but that is as much a problem with the "Alpha all day without negative repercussion" game play as it is the number of players on a team. 4v4 has added another dimension to the game and is the best thing to come out of the FW3 patch. If they add some variation that is fought in 8v8 it would be good but I would hate to see 12v12 go away.

#8 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 24 April 2016 - 04:30 AM

You know, I was really looking forward to 4v4. I thought it would be everything MWO needed to rejuvenate my love for the game. Not that I ever stopped loving MWO, but our marriage has been difficult at times.

I thought 4v4 would be very slow-paced and I imagined it would be a lot easier to carry and that I would be less vulnerable to teams with crappy teamwork. I was partially right.
  • In 4v4, most of the matches end up as relatively quick brawls at short range, so the only teamwork necessary is calling targets. If you have one guy calling targets over VOIP, that's basically everything you need. And maybe a macro of someone screaming "LEGS! LEGS! HIT THE LEGS!"
  • In 4v4, if everyone is in meta-builds, the best players will be able to carry harder. On the flipside, if you have 1 AFK or one joker in his LRM Commando, your team is extremely handicapped, and it is much harder to carry. 1 AFK mech in 4v4 is almost like 3 AFK mechs in 12v12.
  • In 4v4, matches aren't really any longer than 12v12, despite less potential for focus firing and snowballing. Matches are short and vicious if teams are playing correctly, because TTK is relatively low in MWO, and it doesn't take 4 mechs too long to kill a light / medium.
So I've come to the conclusion that 8v8 is probably the best compromise for MWO right now, given our lack of dynamic game modes and the relatively low TTK. Because the 4v4 game mode offers no real incentive to do anything but "stay together and brawl, bro".

I wish Quick Play was 8v8, and they left 4v4 and 12v12 for Faction Play, personally.

#9 QuantumButler

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 4,534 posts
  • LocationTaiwan, One True China

Posted 24 April 2016 - 06:08 AM

12v12 was a mistake.

#10 Pariah Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clan Cat
  • The Clan Cat
  • 7,655 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAboard the NCS True Path

Posted 24 April 2016 - 06:37 AM

Given a map of a fixed size, if the number of people that populate that map is decreased than the ability to use more of the map freely without premature detection or interruption by the enemy increases. Basically, the fewer people in a game, the more of the map that can be easily utilized due to the reduction of risk. Also, the fewer the people you need to face at once, the lower the likelihood of being focus fired down into paste instantly when breaching any sort of cover. Therefore, TTK increases.

Combine the first two points and something magical happens: people are free to scout. Not only because you need to in order to quickly locate the enemy, but because it isn't a damned near guaranteed suicide action on behalf of the scout. A bit of role based play starts to get generated.

Further, as a side branch of being able to use more of the map, previously clunky or ineffective movement patterns open up as more viable options. You can take attack approaches through a map that previously would have been a bad idea. Entire sections of maps open up to more effective and varied use. ESPECIALLY if there are additional incentives to wander the map, such as the intelligence nodes in Scout Mode.

However, the fewer the people in the match, the more restrictive the mech configuration options become. We've seen brawling taking over 4v4 because there is no real front line. Without a front line, it is almost impossible to effectively run a long range oriented design, outside of very specific situations. For example, in 4v4, I wouldn't take a Gauss Rifle, because it's far too fragile in a brawl and I'd be up against SRMs and AC20 anyways, so there's no reason to make the trade of range for durability and damage output.

This is why I loved 8v8. You had a team that was small enough to make better use of the map, you had fewer numbers vs now which made it harder to instantly obliterate anyone, and there was a front line, mid line, and rear line present in the games. The fault with the old 8v8 setting was that at the time the maps were too small, or too focused on large central features. It undermined the flexibility that mid-sized team size provided. Not enough maps that were large enough to wander around in, and certainly not enough maps that had enough variety of terrain features to break up the firing angles of teams who were fanned out a little to try and locate one another. Also, 8v8 still let one good pilot partially make up for one or two bad teammates. In 12v12, any early loss of mech is punishing, and with 12 man teams can domino very rapidly, often beyond the point a good pilot can forcibly recover the match.

More mechs sounds like more fun, but there's a saying: you can have too much of a good thing.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 24 April 2016 - 06:38 AM.


#11 Pariah Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clan Cat
  • The Clan Cat
  • 7,655 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAboard the NCS True Path

Posted 24 April 2016 - 06:40 AM

View PostAlistair Winter, on 24 April 2016 - 04:30 AM, said:

  • In 4v4, matches aren't really any longer than 12v12, despite less potential for focus firing and snowballing. Matches are short and vicious if teams are playing correctly, because TTK is relatively low in MWO, and it doesn't take 4 mechs too long to kill a light / medium.



I want to note that in my video editing, I noticed the actual total engagement times once teams impacted was about the same in a 12v12 or 4v4 situation. However, fewer mechs dying over the same period of time is a serious INCREASE in the Time To Kill.

Edited by Pariah Devalis, 24 April 2016 - 06:40 AM.


#12 Johnny Z

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Knight Errant
  • 9,942 posts
  • LocationDueling on Solaris

Posted 24 April 2016 - 07:00 AM

I like 4 v 4 and 12 v 12 and see nothing wrong with 8 v 8. I think 16 vrs 16 would be epic or 12 v 12 with support roles.

#13 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 24 April 2016 - 07:12 AM

View PostPariah Devalis, on 24 April 2016 - 06:40 AM, said:

I want to note that in my video editing, I noticed the actual total engagement times once teams impacted was about the same in a 12v12 or 4v4 situation. However, fewer mechs dying over the same period of time is a serious INCREASE in the Time To Kill.

You have to look at the numbers relatively. Relatively speaking, x % of the team gets wiped out in approximately the same amount in 12v12 as 4v4. A 1:1 comparison isn't really that relevant in this context, I think.

#14 FupDup

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 26,888 posts
  • LocationThe Keeper of Memes

Posted 24 April 2016 - 07:17 AM

If we ignore everything else, 8v8 was still better because it had higher XP and C-Bill income...PGI nerfed both when 12v12 landed.

Edited by FupDup, 24 April 2016 - 07:17 AM.


#15 Vashramire

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Pharaoh
  • The Pharaoh
  • 419 posts

Posted 24 April 2016 - 08:01 AM

8 v 8 was the good old days. TTK was pretty good even without quirks, though there were no clans back then to be fair. 12 v 12 is just who can deathball harder. If Russ wants his "buckets" balanced give us back 8 v 8 and let us opt in to game modes like we use to. It would be nice to not have half my team feeling defeated on a voting screen because 2 people dropped massive votes to troll.

#16 Kuritaclan

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 1,838 posts
  • LocationGermany

Posted 24 April 2016 - 08:20 AM

View PostKaramarka, on 23 April 2016 - 09:14 PM, said:

8 is better. less potential for bads on your team

NOt by chance. When you may get one 8vs8 with zero "bads" you then get another with two. However if those two are evenly distributed they are on both sides in the 12 vs 12 rather often. And eleven others could potentially compensate better for one baddy than seven can.

#17 Pariah Devalis

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Clan Cat
  • The Clan Cat
  • 7,655 posts
  • Google+: Link
  • Twitter: Link
  • LocationAboard the NCS True Path

Posted 24 April 2016 - 08:25 AM

View PostAlistair Winter, on 24 April 2016 - 07:12 AM, said:

You have to look at the numbers relatively. Relatively speaking, x % of the team gets wiped out in approximately the same amount in 12v12 as 4v4. A 1:1 comparison isn't really that relevant in this context, I think.


Can't look at it as a percentage, though. TTK is based on time to kill per target, not time for the team to be wiped out. If in a 4 minute fight 4 mechs die on one team, that is 1 mech per minute. If in that same 4 minute fight 12 mechs die, that's 3 mechs per minute. Three times lower TTK.

#18 Coolant

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Ace Of Spades
  • Ace Of Spades
  • 3,079 posts
  • Facebook: Link
  • LocationCalifornia

Posted 24 April 2016 - 09:19 AM

Unless it was 100 v 100 and there was no room to move, it doesn't matter how many are playing because you can still hide and snipe. What makes you think 4v4 is any different in the ability to snipe and hide? 12v12 was a great change and I wish there was even more mechs on the battlefield to make the war feel more like war.

Edited by Coolant, 24 April 2016 - 09:20 AM.


#19 Alistair Winter

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Storm
  • Storm
  • 10,823 posts
  • LocationBergen, Norway, FRR

Posted 24 April 2016 - 09:34 AM

View PostPariah Devalis, on 24 April 2016 - 08:25 AM, said:

Can't look at it as a percentage, though. TTK is based on time to kill per target, not time for the team to be wiped out. If in a 4 minute fight 4 mechs die on one team, that is 1 mech per minute. If in that same 4 minute fight 12 mechs die, that's 3 mechs per minute. Three times lower TTK.

That's not a useful way of looking at it. If PGI started using a new game engine that allowed 10,000 vs 10,000 mechs to engage each other on huge map, then you can be certain that once the fighting reaches its climax, you're going to see more than 1000 mechs dying per minute. That means TTK is suddenly... 250 times lower? It's not a useful way of measuring it. In such huge battles, mech #3290 and mech #8701 may not be within 10 kilometers of each other, so why would you take their simultaneous deaths as indication that they both died too fast?

Does it make sense to say "We need to increase TTK by 25,000%"? If the massive teams (or armies) are spread out in a certain manner, the duration of the match and the average life expectancy of a mech may not be that different in a 10,000 v 10,000 match than a 12v12 match. Because the individual engagements may be almost as small in 10,000v10,000 as 12v12, depending on the map and the organization of the forces. Just like the individual engagements in 12v12 may not be that different from 4v4,

What matters is how fast mechs are dying when the fighting starts. One way of looking at it is how long it takes from the shooting starts until the last mech dies. Another way of looking at it is how long it takes to kill each other in a 1v1 engagement, which is the smallest possible engagement. Another way of looking at it is how many mechs are involved in a typical engagement, and then see how long it takes before the first mech dies and the last mech dies. Matches are very fluent, so it's hard to find good direct comparisons beyond the time of the match.

But just counting how many mechs die per minute isn't really very useful at all, in my mind.

#20 Tordin

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Wolf
  • The Wolf
  • 2,937 posts
  • LocationNordic Union

Posted 24 April 2016 - 09:36 AM

View PostJohnny Z, on 24 April 2016 - 07:00 AM, said:

I like 4 v 4 and 12 v 12 and see nothing wrong with 8 v 8. I think 16 vrs 16 would be epic or 12 v 12 with support roles.


Imagine Solaris 24 free for all. Thats my sweet dream of metallic chaos and fun!
No, I dont mind 8 vs 8, the could find some mode for it in both Puglandia and FW.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users