87 replies to this topic

[Brain Cancer]

You don't need to cut mapsize.

You need to use that size to vary drop points on said larger maps, so the shortest points to combat aren't the same on each map every time.

[1453 R]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2017 - 10:50 AM, said:

8v8 gives you more options of play because less fields of fire means more viable approaches. 12v12 actually encourages more static engagements (because again, more fields of fire equals fewer approaches). 4v4 is as you describe 8v8s though because there isn't enough people to cover angles to prevent a murderball from just running over range oriented teams.

8v8 is honestly the happy medium, enough people to still play ranged just fine while still having mid-short still be reasonable to use.

Thanks, QSK.

Yeah - 12v12 makes it effectively impossible for single 'Mechs, or a pair of coordinated buddies, to pull off maneuver games, try and find an unusual angle on the fight, or otherwise do Flankenstein shenanery because there's just too many 'Mechs in the field. Any flanking force smaller than three guys just gets eaten by a concentrated twelve-man murderball, and any force three or up weakens the main unit enough that it's destined to lose the inevitable Clash of Wrecking Balls in the middle.

Things were a lot more freewheeling and mobile in the 8v8 days, because single individual 'Mechs mattered more and finding a murderball with your face didn't always spell instantaneous demise - BUT< there's still enough metal in an eight-man team to make disciplined unit tactics, firing lines, and all that other Big Guy stuff still very effective for people who enjoy those tactics.

Think of it like this - 8v8 these days has equivalent firepower to the original introduction of 12v12, before the Clans dropped and we got a ton of powercreepy chasses. Twelve 'Mechs these days feels like more than double the firepower available to a team of 8, back when 8v8 was the thing. Reducing the 'Mech count on the field reduces a team's given firepower and helps that oh-so-short TTK figure people keep throwing out grow longer naturally, because there's less junk flying at the faceholes of everyone on the field. 50% less ATMs, 50% less MRMs, 50% less laser spam, 50% less rotary trolls.

Sounds like a fantastic idea to me. I'm hoping they go through with the test period, at least. That might honestly be the change that gets me back to considering MWO as part of my regular gaming rotation again and not just an occasional fling with buddies these days.

[InspectorG]

No need to shrink maps, that would be wasted effort.

Reposition Spawns and cap points.

You could get more utility out of each map doing this. Find the desired space between spawns and that can be randomized towards different areas of the map.

Also, drop decks for Solo. 3 mechs. Coordinate with your Pugmates.

[SFC174]

I don't think 8v8 works in PUG QP without a matchmaker fix. Fewer players means each one has a larger impact if they are substantially better or worse than the average. Stomps are already too common in PUG QP. Without a MM fix, 8v8 will create more visible disparities between teams and discourage play.

I would suggest increasing number of players per team, at least in PUG QP. Or, better yet, fix the MM. I have no desire to be forced into 8v8 matches.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

Fewer players means each one has a larger impact if they are substantially better or worse than the average. Stomps are already too common in PUG QP.

Stomps and a single player carrying rarely go hand-in-hand so not really sure what you are talking about.

[1453 R]

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 12:00 PM, said:

I don't think 8v8 works in PUG QP without a matchmaker fix. Fewer players means each one has a larger impact if they are substantially better or worse than the average. Stomps are already too common in PUG QP. Without a MM fix, 8v8 will create more visible disparities between teams and discourage play.

I would suggest increasing number of players per team, at least in PUG QP. Or, better yet, fix the MM. I have no desire to be forced into 8v8 matches.

8v8 reduces load on the matchmaker - the system only needs to find sixteen evenly-matched players on the spur of the moment, not 24. A vastly simpler task. And as QSK pointed out, giving individually strong players more proportionate carrying power does not equate to stomps - carrying is what you do to block stomps.

8v8 theoretically makes deadweight teammates a bigger burden, since that dead weight is now 33% more of your team's effective make-up than it used to be, but again, your Carryhards are now free of 33% of their carry burden as well. The end result should be higher overall match quality, since the MM gets better results for the same amount of effort and the carry/deadweight proportions shouldn't change at all.

Combined with the Division system Piranha's talking about (and under the pretty major and likely unfounded assumption that they do a better job of classifying the meta power of 'Mechs this time than they did the last time they tried...) we should ideally have a significantly better system with 8v8 Division matchmaking in place than in 12v12 Slop Bucket Sorta-Weightmatching.

If you didn't play the old 8v8 days, it's hard to really imagine just how much better it was, but I can vouch for it - 8v8 was da shizz, and while 12v12 is more lore-appropriate and had its interesting moments...well, there's a reason the comp tournaments are all 8v8. It's just a better overall head count.

[SFC174]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2017 - 12:41 PM, said:

Stomps and a single player carrying rarely go hand-in-hand so not really sure what you are talking about.

I did not say they go hand-in-hand so that is a non-starter. Its simply that a disparity between player skill becomes magnified when fewer players are in the match. One disco, or troll build carries a much larger negative impact in an 8v8 match than in 12v12 or 16v16. And when we start talking about skill level, we all know that the difference between a top level Tier1 player and someone who has simply ground their way into Tier1 over several years of playing may be larger than the difference between that same grinder and someone at a much lower tier with some aptitude for the game.

The matchmaker as constituted does a pretty poor job. Part of that is the tier system (it took me 3000 matches to reach Tier 1 starting from never having played the game - Yet I do not feel like I belong in Tier 1 when I make an honest assessment of my skillset vs. other players). Part of that is not including mech strength/build strength/player skill in a given mech class in the matchups.

Regardless, when you have a poor quality matchmaker (for whatever reason) reducing the number of players in a match means that matchmaker flaws will become amplified. The reasoning that fewer players makes it easier to match up similar skillsets is sound, but only if the matchmaker is solid. I assert it is not solid enough.

[KursedVixen]

SmoothCriminal, on 21 August 2017 - 12:56 PM, said:

Great idea! No sooner has PGI finally finished resizing and redoing the maps (which took about 3 years) then you demand they resize them again (which will probably take another 3 years)!

Any other ideas? Perhaps removing double heat sinks and then re-introducing them?

how does that effect Clan mechs though?

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

One disco, or troll build carries a much larger negative impact in an 8v8 match than in 12v12 or 16v16.

The opposite is also true, one good player can carry a much larger positive impact in an 8v8 match.

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 01:14 PM, said:

Regardless, when you have a poor quality matchmaker (for whatever reason) reducing the number of players in a match means that matchmaker flaws will become amplified.

Not necessarily, you are making the assumption that there aren't release valves in place that reduce the potential quality of a match because of low population for given tiers and such. The flaws in the matchmaker do not magically become amplified because of a reduction of players, if anything it should be improved because it needs less players per match meaning release valves should not open near as much (if I only have 14 Tier 1 players, I only need 2 other players for a top end match as opposed to 10 in the current system).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 22 August 2017 - 02:40 PM.

[Ruar]

KursedVixen, on 22 August 2017 - 01:16 PM, said:

how does that effect Clan mechs though?

It wouldn't. See Canyon and Mining Colony as to why it won't hurt clan mechs.

[SFC174]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

The opposite is also true, one good player can carry a much larger positive impact in an 8v8 match.


Not necessarily, you are making the assumption that there aren't release valves in place that reduce the potential quality of a match because of low population for given tiers and such. The flaws in the matchmaker do not magically become amplified because of a reduction of players, if anything it should be improved because it needs less players per match meaning release valves should not open near as much (if I only have 14 Tier 1 players, I only need 2 other players for a top end match as opposed to 10 in the current system).

The problem with your rationale there is the assumption that Tier actually means something useful. You and I are both Tier 1. I would wager based upon your stats that you'd clean my clock in any engagement. Yet the current matchmaker would treat us as.....equal?

Thus, reducing the # of players required for a match doesn't help until you fix the matchmaker/tier system/whatever. I don't know that I would advocate going back to an elo system. But there has to be a better way than what we have right now. Until then, diluting the misranked potatoes or highly skilled unicorns with more players per match would be a better solution IMO. Not the _best_ solution, nor an _ideal_ solution, but better than going to 8v8

[MischiefSC]

Needs a new matchmaker too. Need a ranking for the player (like an Elo) and one for the mech/loadout (even weapon by weapon modifiers to the mechs Elo score) and then weighted together so that a bad player in a bad mech is even less useful than a bad player in a good mech, etc.

No MM is ever going to be perfect but fitting matches with 8 v 8 will be easier than 12 v 12, it's time to properly fix the weighting of team values too. This way top tier players don't always have to play top tier mechs to avoid hugely sandbagging their teams.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

The problem with your rationale there is the assumption that Tier actually means something useful. You and I are both Tier 1. I would wager based upon your stats that you'd clean my clock in any engagement. Yet the current matchmaker would treat us as.....equal?

Thus, reducing the # of players required for a match doesn't help until you fix the matchmaker/tier system/whatever.

While true that is still assuming two things

• You get a match that is composed solely of Tier 1s often, while we like to joke about how easy it is to be tier 1 and how it is an experience bar, I still see plenty not tier 1 so I think it is bad to assume that this happens often or that an all tier 1 match is equivalent in disparity to that of a match with all tiers representing.
  
• Diluting matches equates to better matches which is not the case especially since the number of people on the field actually impacts balance (less fields of fire translates to more ways to close distances). While disparities are more showing, these go both ways (trolls vs good players). Really though I think this will end up with the same number of stomps in the end, but with bigger swings in the match as to who is leading (due to mistakes being costly, snowballs can more easily be swung and stopped) which in the end is good because it makes matches more exciting.

SFC174, on 22 August 2017 - 03:07 PM, said:

I don't know that I would advocate going back to an elo system.

I would (since players who tend to contribute more a going to have a tendency to win more), but it doesn't have to be ELO, it just has to be a zero-sum system to appropriately segregate the player-base.

[MischiefSC]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 22 August 2017 - 02:40 PM, said:

The opposite is also true, one good player can carry a much larger positive impact in an 8v8 match.


Not necessarily, you are making the assumption that there aren't release valves in place that reduce the potential quality of a match because of low population for given tiers and such. The flaws in the matchmaker do not magically become amplified because of a reduction of players, if anything it should be improved because it needs less players per match meaning release valves should not open near as much (if I only have 14 Tier 1 players, I only need 2 other players for a top end match as opposed to 10 in the current system).

Tiers are iffy even in 12 v 12. You reduce to 8 v 8 you've increased each players value to 12.5% (from 8.33%) and suddenly your need to carry in 'high/low mixed teams' is way heavier. To put it in context, you need to carry 33% harder than you did in 12 v 12. So if you needed to do 1k damage in 12 v 12 you functionally still need to do 1k damage in 8 v 8 - even with 4 less targets to shoot. Why?

Because while the population on both sides dropped by 1/3rd the matchmakers ability to effectively value each teammates contribution is not better. So instead of you being matched with 2 goods, 6 mediocres and 3 bads you get 1 good, 4 mediocres and 2 bads to carry. You need to carry 33% harder than you used to because really you just lost 1 bad, 2 people who were not useless and 1 person who was a serious help.

In fact since good players are less common than bads what's statistically more likely is you lost 2 goods and 2 mediocres, leaving you 4 mediocres and 3 bads.

Since everyone, even bads, can get to T1, the tier system is worthless.

Also as you're well aware from comp play mech choice starts to get significantly more valuable as total mechs on the field goes down. 2 LRM boats on your team on any map but Polar? You're screwed. 2 people on your team trying out new tech that they don't know how to play (Imma run MRMs and RACs and ER Smalls!) and, again, you're screwed.

20% of the top 20 players on the leaderboard have a sub 1.0 w/l right now. The way the Tier system works those people are probably T1 or T2 just based on total matches played.

We need a new MM, it needs to go back to more of an Elo style and you need a score both based off your personal win/loss and then they need to keep an Elo for each chassis and weapon system. Not by player but by total game stats. They have that data; we know, we can see it for ourselves in our own stats. So the mech gets a base Elo-type score and that gets a modifier for each weapon on the mech based on the relative value of the weapons. So LRM 10s are a +2, CERMLs are a +5, or whatever. So you get a modified Elo for the mech based on the chassis and the loadout. That then gets weighted (averaged? Dunno what is most relevant, could figure it out with the right telemetry) against the players Elo to get a good, reasonably clean indication of the players ability to help win a match in that mech.

THAT would get you way better matchmaking.

[Brain Cancer]

For me, it's pretty simple.

I can (and do) kill one robot before dropping, I've at least kept things even, Two? Three? Four? Five?

Versus eight opponents, I'm doing more of a carry than versus 12. Even if my team can't count to eight without me, they might not be as bad off versus five. Or perhaps 3. It's easier to mitigate a bad player with smaller numbers of kills-to-carry required, and this cuts that by a third.

It's an improvement.

[Bigbacon]

Im telling you 8v8 will greatly limit the gameplay to two murberballs thag meet at a single grid. Lights will have no place, mediums will barely have a place.

No more flanking in groups, no more light rushes to catch lone mechs. You leave the murderball you gimp your team immediately. You take a non perfect build meta mech you will gimp your team. No more fooling around with builds.

When old 8v8 was around the game wslas way different than it is now. It may have seemed awesome then but with current tech and fast ttk, forget it.

But keep thinking it will make it all better because it wont.

Sad thing is they will do this...and kill it even more. Maybe that is what they want.

This back and forth cause we cant make up our damn mind is pathetic.

Edited by Bigbacon, 22 August 2017 - 05:04 PM.

[HammerMaster]

8v8?! Yeah it will be fine. How many years was it? Now 10v12. That's what needs to happen.

[Connor Davion]

Maybe PGI will chase another squirrel instead of 8v8.... One can hope. Or better yet make FP and group 8v8 and leave pug landia alone.

[Johnny Z]

Make it 16 v 16 and add npc gunships and tanks. Thanks.



Topic closed.

Edited by Johnny Z, 22 August 2017 - 08:49 PM.

[SOL Ranger]

Johnny Z, on 22 August 2017 - 08:44 PM, said:

Make it 16 v 16 and add npc gunships and tanks. Thanks.



Topic closed.

*Wipes tears* What happened, why isn't this a thing already? I need answers!

PGI, we need exactly what it says, "Experience Massive Mech Combat", "The Ultimate Vision of War", "The Kind Of Massive Mech Combat We've Been Waiting Years For".

8v8 certainly doesn't exactly match that description or vision very well.

So can we please get serious now and drop this 8v8 nonsense and get back on track.