103 replies to this topic

[MustrumRidcully]

Khobai, on 10 July 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

civil war era often had IS and clans fighting on the same team like ghost bear and rasalhague for example.

so I see no reason teams cant be mixed in CW too

Mixing along the Clan/IS lines would probably be a big boon to the game.
If they add a semblance of a match-maker that ensures that both sides have an equal number of IS and Clan Drop Decks, they could even drop the different drop deck weights. It would still be a concern of envy when Clan Tech remains superior, but at least you know that your team is not screwed for someone running an IS drop deck.

[Prof RJ Gumby]

OP:
It seems that CLan-IS numbers have reversed. Went FP yesterday (the day you posted this) on the clan side, 2 games, 2 instadrops, with different enemies while some of the clan pugs were in both games.. May be just not enough clanners for the IS dropping.

(EDIT: reversed in comp. to last event, where there was a surplus of clanners)

Edited by Prof RJ Gumby, 11 July 2017 - 12:44 AM.

[Wintersdark]

DGTLDaemon, on 10 July 2017 - 11:44 PM, said:

Well, I don't know about you, but I would never play a mech that's even remotely dependent on the team (like a slow assault or a support build) in 8v8. 12v12 at least provides some sort of "safety in numbers" for mechs that are not suited to operate on their own. 8v8 just won't provide a big enough pack to stick with.

It does. Played full 8v8 for a long time before PGI added 12v12, and you're MORE survivable in 8v8 than 12v12. Lots of people ran highly specialized Mechs just fine.

Again, we're not theorizing here, those of us who been around a while have hundreds to thousands of 8v8 matches.

8v8 does emphasize individual performance - each player is more of their team. A disconnect hurts more, but on the other hand you're less likely to have a disconnect on your team. This makes it easier to carry too, though, and less likely to get drowned by potatoes on your own team.

8v8 vastly increases time to kill, as firing lines have just 2/3rds of the firepower at max. There's way less "oops, I rounded the wrong corner and was obliterated outright" - this was one of the worst parts of 12v12. You rarely have a whole team arrayed in a firing line in pugs, but typically you've got a few Mechs on overwatch at any given time early in a match.

It's just MORE Mechs at any given time in 12v12, so an errant peek results in a player eating much more damage before they can do anything.

[DGTLDaemon]

Wintersdark, on 11 July 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

It does. Played full 8v8 for a long time before PGI added 12v12, and you're MORE survivable in 8v8 than 12v12. Lots of people ran highly specialized Mechs just fine.

Again, we're not theorizing here, those of us who been around a while have hundreds to thousands of 8v8 matches.

We've already wandered way off topic, but out of curiosity: are you referring to the group queue, or solo queue? Because I was talking about the pug queue where everyone's out for themselves, and the only kind of teamwork that you can rely on is "safety in numbers", i.e. bunching up with as many friendly mechs as you can.

[jss78]

It's hard to disagree with OP.

IMO the bottom line is the population cannot sustain two game modes with viable match-making. With solos and groups in a single queue FW was always a non-starter, and never had chance of attracting a significant % of player base.

If you can somehow integrate QP into FW I'm all for it.

[Bud Crue]

InspectorG, on 10 July 2017 - 05:48 PM, said:

Easier for PGI to just port MWO to the Nintendo Switch than fix CW.

IMO: scrap CW. Make 'CW' a sandbox that Units can customize for their own Leagues. Units make their own settings/rules. IS vs IS only. Quirk or Quirkless. Customizable planets... etc.

PGI can release Modules with new rules options, tech, and maps.

They can't scrap it. Even if it does have only a minimally viable population, or whatever, go look at the "game" link up top:
https://mwomercs.com/game

Yeah, this is a tactical shooter "set in the rich battletech universe". As pathetic as it is, the only whiff of that "rich battletech universe" that this game even has a pretense of smelling like is in CW. PGI is not going to scrap that. I'd be willing to bet that under the terms of their license with microsoft, that they can't even if they wanted to.

I actually think Russ for one would like nothing better than to scrap it so we could finally play the game he wants us to play: "Russ Bullocks Mech O' The Month Arena E-Sport!" Could save a bundle on license fees.

[Khobai]

yep quickplay needs go to back to 8v8

invasion is fine at 12v12 though

[Savage Wolf]

I just wished I could play the gamemodes that I really like in CW, but with a matchmaker and pug queue. I love the respawns and the deck list. But I hate the seal clubbing so much.

So salvage what you can of CW and turn it into the objective mode. Then you can reduce QP to the Skirmish queue that it is.

The concept of CW was always a fool's errand that would never work safe for building it like Eve Online but with mechs which would be a collosal effort for a team like PGI. Not going to happen. So might as well get the best out of it.

[Wintersdark]

DGTLDaemon, on 11 July 2017 - 01:34 AM, said:

We've already wandered way off topic, but out of curiosity: are you referring to the group queue, or solo queue? Because I was talking about the pug queue where everyone's out for themselves, and the only kind of teamwork that you can rely on is "safety in numbers", i.e. bunching up with as many friendly mechs as you can.

Solo queue. 99% of my play, since 2012, has been solo. The same applies, though, you want numbers as always. Having fewer Mechs isn't really a problem, because the opfor has fewer Mechs too.

But if you do get caught out alone, unless.you foolishly stumbled into the whole enemy team, is typically against fewer Mechs, making it a lot more survivable. It's hard to overstate just how much faster you die when you make a mistake in 12v12 vs. 8v8. Mistakes are so much more survivable in 8v8.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

It does. Played full 8v8 for a long time before PGI added 12v12, and you're MORE survivable in 8v8 than 12v12. Lots of people ran highly specialized Mechs just fine.

Again, we're not theorizing here, those of us who been around a while have hundreds to thousands of 8v8 matches.

8v8 does emphasize individual performance - each player is more of their team. A disconnect hurts more, but on the other hand you're less likely to have a disconnect on your team. This makes it easier to carry too, though, and less likely to get drowned by potatoes on your own team.

Review the MECHs we had then for 8vs8 vs what we have now though. And the PGI competition runs w/8vs8. 8vs8 with one said primarily Clans vs one side with primarily IS mechs, it would likely be one sided.

Different atmosphere and how much more lethal mechs have become. And 12vs12 was introduced in 2013, long before Clan mechs arrived.

Edit. I would not be against PGI injecting code that would allow them to set match size without making it permanent.

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 July 2017 - 03:34 AM.

[MustrumRidcully]

Wintersdark, on 11 July 2017 - 01:22 AM, said:

It does. Played full 8v8 for a long time before PGI added 12v12, and you're MORE survivable in 8v8 than 12v12. Lots of people ran highly specialized Mechs just fine.

Again, we're not theorizing here, those of us who been around a while have hundreds to thousands of 8v8 matches.

8v8 does emphasize individual performance - each player is more of their team. A disconnect hurts more, but on the other hand you're less likely to have a disconnect on your team. This makes it easier to carry too, though, and less likely to get drowned by potatoes on your own team.

8v8 vastly increases time to kill, as firing lines have just 2/3rds of the firepower at max. There's way less "oops, I rounded the wrong corner and was obliterated outright" - this was one of the worst parts of 12v12. You rarely have a whole team arrayed in a firing line in pugs, but typically you've got a few Mechs on overwatch at any given time early in a match.

It's just MORE Mechs at any given time in 12v12, so an errant peek results in a player eating much more damage before they can do anything.

I have good memories of 8v8, and always thought that this desire to need even more players was misguided.

12v12 is unforgiving to even small mistakes and leads to a stronger focus on long range combat so that you don't have to do risky moves and just wait for the enemy to do one.

Yes, an AFKer might hurt more, but the chance of getting one is lower, and also, your individual skill will actually matter more - without a smal mistake ruining the rest of the match for you by sending you to the spectator seat.

[Wintersdark]

Tarl Cabot, on 11 July 2017 - 03:31 AM, said:

Review the MECHs we had then for 8vs8 vs what we have now though. And the PGI competition runs w/8vs8. 8vs8 with one said primarily Clans vs one side with primarily IS mechs, it would likely be one sided.

Different atmosphere and how much more lethal mechs have become. And 12vs12 was introduced in 2013, long before Clan mechs arrived.

Edit. I would not be against PGI injecting code that would allow them to set match size without making it permanent.

How one sided the match is is unaffected by match size. If a faction is more powerful in 12v12, it's more powerful in 8v8.

As to more dangerous Mechs, yes they are. Substantially so. However, that's a point in favour of 8v8, as you live longer in 8v8 than you do 12v12, simply because you have less enemy Mechs firing.

The drop in TTK going from 8v8 to 12v12 was start and immediate, pushing the game heavily into long range peek and poke fights with cowardice becoming the norm in pug play - leading a push in a pug is much more likely to be a death sentence in 12's after all.


Yes, I realize that modern MWO in 8's will have shorter ttk than we did back in the day, but it WILL be longer overall than we have now in 12's.

[Roadbuster]

MustrumRidcully, on 10 July 2017 - 01:24 AM, said:

As an added feature to motivate the whole Faction Warfare thing:

• Players select a Faction they work for (be it as Mercenary, Freelancer, or Loyalist) (with the usual 1 week before you can change loyalit)
  
• Players select a planet they are fighting for. (You can change this once a week, too) (from a small list of available planets.)
  
• The results of the matches a player has counts against the success of his faction on the chosen planet.

If a faction "wins" a planet, the player of the faction that fought for that planet get a one-time bonus (C-Bills, GXP, and maybe some consumables) .The bonus is higher the smaller the group of winning players is compared to their competitors.


The selections of the player doesn't matter for the sake of the match-maker, however. (So theoretically two Steiner Loyalists could play on opposing teams.) Not realistic, but simplifies things.

That's a good idea. I like.

I think there are very few players who care about faction play. It takes longer than a normal quickplay match and wait times are way longer.
And people in quickplay don't care if they fight against people from the same faction, Clan, IS or chicken.

"Not realistic, but simplifies things."
Who cares about realism in a game?
All we want is play with big stompy robots... and shoot other big stompy robots!

[Admiral-Dan]

Prof RJ Gumby, on 11 July 2017 - 12:37 AM, said:

(EDIT: reversed in comp. to last event, where there was a surplus of clanners)

That’s not correct, in fact there were a little more IS player.

The player count in each faction was nearly identical.
IS: 8,689
Clan: 8,568
https://mwomercs.com...ats-final-post/

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Well, I don't know about you, but I would never play a mech that's even remotely dependent on the team (like a slow assault or a support build) in 8v8. 12v12 at least provides some sort of "safety in numbers" for mechs that are not suited to operate on their own. 8v8 just won't provide a big enough pack to stick with.

This was not even close to the case in 8v8. Support builds and Atlases were both common and useful sights at that point. The odds of you being focused down decreased, simply because having enough guns pointed the right way at the right time also did.

[Bigbacon]

Cw has been a wasteland since it launched.

Takes way to long to play and unless you play in an organized group it never be any fun.

Id rather wait a few mintues to get stomped in qp than wait 15 to get stomped incw. And dont get started on scouting...dumbed game mode by far, ever.

Withiut a massive player base, cw can never ork.

[Tarl Cabot]

Quote

How one sided the match is is unaffected by match size. If a faction is more powerful in 12v12, it's more powerful in 8v8.

As to more dangerous Mechs, yes they are. Substantially so. However, that's a point in favour of 8v8, as you live longer in 8v8 than you do 12v12, simply because you have less enemy Mechs firing.

You are partially correct. Unless it is a new mech release there would not be 3-5 assaults on a side in an 8vs8. Of course if they are LRM hiding behind a hill expecting their team to get them locks../shakes head...

As noted I would like it if PGI added flexible coding on team sizes AND weight classes, in a POSSIBLE prep for an eventual Solaris. But even if that does not come, throw in some curve balls. General 12vs12 or 8vs8, then 8vs8 light, med, heavy, assaults, or assault/heavy, heavy/med, med/light, with the higher use weight class (mech releases) weighted. If lights are below X percentage they rarely come up.

PGI could set it up so it is running like that all the time. They could run timed events on how long it would run, announcing it so players can be prepared. Concerning how players configure their mechs for the 4vs4 in FP Scouting, how many players would alter their payload if they were were expecting to drop med/light or all mediums or all lights?

Edited by Tarl Cabot, 11 July 2017 - 02:38 PM.

[Phoolan Devi]

Sunstruck, on 10 July 2017 - 12:43 AM, said:

There is only 1, que for faction warfare, yet its STILL takes, 15+ mins to get a game, where you wait another 15 mins for a G H O S T D R O P ? ! ? !

And end up getting 100, loyalty points for waiting a half hour ! ? !

Seriously this game mode is so over, so broken at the core. The feature needs to be completely redone if you STILL can't get a game when theres only 1 que.

Its such a big waste of time.

I don't know how long you have been playing FW for, but, seeing your comment, it seems not to be that long.

The main reason for low pop on FW right now is directly conmected to the loot bag event. Even in the Summer Blast Event, QP made, reward wise, more sense than FW. Thus, most players play QP.

Prior to the events wait times were just fine!

[Phoolan Devi]

Bud Crue, on 10 July 2017 - 01:49 AM, said:

Here, we have a thread about CW being a dead zone.
Over on the CW forums some one proposed a subscription fee...cuz why not CW rocks and we tons of folks want to throw money at it right?
And other threads vary between no one plays, CW is fine, stay the f**k out scrub, and we need to come up with ways to save CW, etc.

Yet, regardless of all of our totally contradictory views about the mode, the best part?
Russ said 2017 was going to be a refocus of PGI's efforts onto CW. They hired a new CW guru. CW was going to have frequent weekend faction specific events! Its f***ing July. Nothing is changed, CW is what it is (regardless of what it really is) because PGI has let it be so and appear to want it to stay that way. Where in all of the various clamor and critiques of CW is anyone from PGI engaging us? There is no one. Not a word. Not a hint. Not even a b***s*** statement of "good things coming soon". Whatever you may think of CW, I can tell you one thing: PGI doesn't appear to think of it at all.

You have to take into consideration though, that they had to introduce the new skill tree (which was made harde due to the big whining crybaby cheapskates!!!!! and thus took way more time than predicted) and new tech. With the new tech there will be a new map and (hopefully) new clans. With beginning of July, those side operations/quarrrls are justyfied.....prior to that not so much.

I believe that with beginning of July patch, the focus will shift towards FW!

[MischiefSC]

FW had a huge population when people thought PGI was going to provide the depth and complexity they'd originally promised.

When that didn't show, people left.

If the game mode has reaspawns it'll have spawn camping and you'll have as many 48-12 pug queue matches as you have 12-3 matches in QP now.

All this is really saying is people want the FW maps/modes and the mech bay rewards in QP. I'd be all for that if the group queue/real FW stuff has even better rewards. Rewards should be commensurate to effort. Someone who's better at the game or puts in the effort to play as a team and with a team should get more rewards for it.

However, to clarify, FW didn't decline because of units vs pugs. It declined due to not having the depth and purpose that was originally promised to draw and keep units playing it. Splitting pug/premade will change pretty much nothing for the experience, just the excuses people make for why matches turn out the same.