Jump to content

- - - - -

Roadmap For September, October, And Beyond


253 replies to this topic

#201 Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The All Seeing
  • The All Seeing
  • 48 posts

Posted 04 September 2017 - 08:55 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 04 September 2017 - 07:14 AM, said:

So I was playing a few 8v8 matches last night and found a few interesting differences.

1. Space- There was s much more space in which to move around without bumping into allies! It also opened up firing lanes and made for easier analysis of a battlefront and how an individual player could squeeze in between allied firing points or sweep around the edges.

2. Tactics- This one is obviously a bit subjective and relative to the experience of those implementing them, but on a variety of maps, even very large ones, objective based maps became much more interesting. With fewer mechs on the map, mech roles were defined much more clearly and allowed for more interesting set ups and positioning.

3. Forgiveness- this ties into tactics and space, but it is a confirmation of the forgiveness of cornering or having enemies corner on you. Because of the extra space, enemies split into smaller groups which allowed for less devastating initial contacts and help draw the battles out. If you were in a light mech, you actually could utilize your agility to help you get out of bad situations either alive or with more armor than in the usual 12 man (this is a generalization, not an absolute).

4. Death balling- Death balls are a tactic that will recur no matter how many players you have in a game, but it was clear that the efficiency of it was much more reliant on tactical positioning and movement. With space, it works beautifully as an overwhelm tactic. However, the reduced size of the death ball allows the opposing team to utilize counter tactics more efficiently as a result of the points listed above. More space allows better tactical use of positioning while the reduced number of guns on you makes small mistakes much more forgiving on both sides of the equation.

5. Armor- Armor feels more like armor. With fewer guns aimed at you, you could take a volley of fire and still have armor available, which was incredibly refreshing.


This can all be boiled down to: With 8vs8, fewer mechs felt like it lead to bigger game play. Stomps still happened, even with comparable teams, but the option for individual and cooperative tactics were both functional and the all around game play felt better. I think part of it could be the fact that you don't have an excess of mechs on the map which means that fights have a chance to more organically develop.

I want to go into more detail explaining the subtleties I experienced, but I would be rambling for an hour. 12vs12 definitely has a place in this game, but 8vs8 seems much more able to foster interesting game play and allow players to develop more in each match as action and consequence is more a result of choice than luck.


Wow, I was writing it even before 12vs12 appeared. Not here, at foum in my country. Two years ago. That post still exist. However, I wish there is option "Love This" except "Like This".

PGI, why are you waiting? Put 8 vs 8 as soon as possible!

Mechs are big. Too big to run in large groups. Big warrior should have impact for events on the battlefield. I almost don't feel it with 11 more big warriors at same side. With 8 guys - I felt it.

~~~

Today someone wrote in game as answer to me, when I wrote about coming lucky days (8vs8):

"With 8 guys the chance you will receive one or two good players which leads your team to victory is even smaller", or something like that.
Hell yea! That was after I played 5 or 6 lost stomps in a raw. So I don't think that chances will have any matter, if with 12 ppl I haven't get any proper guy several times in a row. Sure, you can wrote "math says that!". Sure. But read the topic, some wise players, which opted for 8vs8, had explained it already, why it's not true.

If you want to use math, use it properly. Take into account all factors, or that factors which provide to results that have something to do with reality. If you count that chances to get skilled player will decrease, consider: it works for both sides, it also means that chances to get weak player/troll/potatoe decreases... Ehh, everything has been wrote already, that thread should be consistent now. Consistent and closed.


PGI, please! Bring back 8 vs 8... I've got tired of writing it. All has been written already. We have to wait for that improvement patiently now...

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 04 September 2017 - 09:02 AM.


#202 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Marshal
  • Marshal
  • 3,426 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...

#203 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 866 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM

View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.

#204 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Marshal
  • Marshal
  • 3,426 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 05 September 2017 - 08:19 AM

View PostSuperFunkTron, on 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.


That might be the case, I just figured it'd be 2/2/2/2 instead of 3/3/3/3 with the same re-balancing when some weight class is over/under represented...

Edited by MovinTarget, 05 September 2017 - 03:24 PM.


#205 50 50

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,434 posts
  • LocationSydney

Posted 05 September 2017 - 07:24 PM

View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 05:38 AM, said:

Again, if they are working in the ability to change team size, why not develop a "switch" that allows the team size to be determined by the number of players queuing on a server?

If there are *tons* playing during NA prime time, then let the NA server switch to 12v12 while Euro and Oceanic may be much quieter during the same time period and be running 8v8.

You could then have notifications of what is currently running so group queue can build accordingly *or* just never allow more than 8 in a group so you can never have a 12 man stomp (8 + 4 or 8 + 2 + 2)...

I'm not saying I have this fully fleshed out in my head but just a thought...


View PostSuperFunkTron, on 05 September 2017 - 05:55 AM, said:


It sounds nice, but I think it'd make more sense to just build 2 separate cues than to have a variable launcher based on population. 8vs8 plays like a different animal and it would be akin to telling players dropping in scouting that they may drop in an 8vs8 if there are lots of scouting missions.

I can only imagine how many people would excrete a brick if they found out they couldn't play exactly what they wanted when they wanted because it is offensive to them to acclimate to a game.


View PostMovinTarget, on 05 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:


That might be the case, I just figured it'd be 2/2/2/2 instead of 3/3/3/3 with the same re-balancing when some weight class is over/under represented...


I was thinking along the same lines and posted that same thought elsewhere.

To ensure the quickest possible match making, having a variable team size according to the number of players queuing would give more options and less restrictions.
If there are enough players queued to make 12 v 12 then that's what happens.
But having a short timer where if there are not enough for 12 v 12 it could drop to 8 v 8.
There is also no reason why it couldn't also drop to 4 v 4 should the numbers be really low.

Not only do we get faster matches, but the different numbers in the battles creates a different style of conflict and we get a different experience as a result which will give us more variety each time we play in addition to the map and mode.

I would like to point out that given the 'full teams yes/no' functionality we already have available in the private lobby, it doesn't seem impossible to think that we could have a variable limit to work with the active population at any given moment.

The solo quick play queue still uses the 3/3/3/3 but group quick play has the tonnage limit so there might be some considerations around how it puts things together.
We may need to consider going back to the 3/3/3/3 format for group play, but we may also need to consider restricting group size in quick play to a single lance with a 1/1/1/1 setup.
Do we also need to consider merging solo and group queues for quick play?
In which case, is the 1/1/1/1 limit the best option or would a merged queue work better with a tonnage limit?
Do we need an alternative option of perhaps using lance classifications based on average tonnage?
Whether or not that is worth worrying about at this stage, not sure, but something that might need to be reviewed.

#206 MovinTarget

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • Marshal
  • Marshal
  • 3,426 posts
  • LocationGreen Acres

Posted 06 September 2017 - 07:44 AM

not bad points 50 50, but we have to be careful about making it too restricting since some people want to specifically play certain mechs and pushing the idea too far may rub them the wrong way...

As far as group queue, it may be as simple as giving people information before dropping... so they can see "Currently 8v8 mode" or "Currently 12v12 mode" or simply warn them that going over 8 players may result in unusually long wait times.

Perhaps even a tooltip for "There are X groups the same size or larger in queue/playing at this time" so you could get a feel for the competitive landscape...

#207 ShadowHimself

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 296 posts
  • LocationNolan

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on

#208 ShadowHimself

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 296 posts
  • LocationNolan

Posted 13 September 2017 - 01:17 PM

Tldr:
Reeeeee 8v8

#209 Sleepyboy14

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • Big Brother
  • Big Brother
  • 105 posts
  • LocationChicago, Terra

Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:18 PM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on


That is something I would like to see in MechWarrior Online.

#210 ShadowHimself

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 296 posts
  • LocationNolan

Posted 13 September 2017 - 03:29 PM

All the reeeees^ I mean win

#211 WarmasterRaptor

    Member

  • PipPipPip
  • The Fallen
  • The Fallen
  • 84 posts
  • LocationQuébec - Canada

Posted 13 September 2017 - 04:23 PM

Could be even simpler : they do like they do with the server selection

Check the box of the type of team sizes you want to fight : 4v4, 8v8 and 12v12
Select them all and have access to everything, remove one, get the other two... and select only one, then wait for a proper match up.

Another thing I think would help matchmaking IMHO, and at the same time "train" new players setting a drop deck is setting a quick play deck of two/three mechs. I'm not sure the 1/1/1/1 rule should apply here, but it could help?

You'd select your "main" drop ie. a heavy, and the MM will prioritize that selection when you search for a match.
Although, if the heavy queue is saturated, it'll look at your next mech to find you a match and so on...

My 2 cents :) Thoughts ? improvements on the idea ? or simple pure rejection? XD

Cheers,

#212 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • Pip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 17 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 03:58 AM

Ok I skimmed the replies and didn't see anyone mention this so I gotta:

NO NEW EVENTS TILL NEXT TUESDAYS PATCH?!?

What gives? I'm sure your user base spikes when an event is on and plummets in the interim. Last event ended on the 5th and now the next isn't till Tuesday coming?

Maybe I missed something

Zyro

#213 ShadowHimself

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 296 posts
  • LocationNolan

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:02 AM

There's a thread for that already^, their idea of an "event" was the alpha strike sale, just before a nerf hammer/loyalty reveal, which litterally smells like burning wallets :3

#214 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • Pip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 17 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:13 AM

Sry double posts.... net is glitching.... or these forums.... navigation is sketchy at best and posts seem to vanish....but like the last one....then appear

#215 ShadowHimself

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The 1 Percent
  • The 1 Percent
  • 296 posts
  • LocationNolan

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:14 AM

Also I will say some of the later arguments were semi well thought out, however, if they 8v8 solo play only ffs please.

#216 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • Pip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 17 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:16 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 14 September 2017 - 04:13 AM, said:

Lol reeeeeeee, just delete one or the other or "report" yourself and have a mod do it for you if your lazy



Right thanks. done

#217 Zyrocenus

    Member

  • Pip
  • Kapten
  • Kapten
  • 17 posts
  • LocationOntario Canada

Posted 14 September 2017 - 04:22 AM

ShadowHimself....

U mention the Alpha strike sale as an event.... I too saw them classify this BS no worth SALE as an EVENT

Weak.....weak sauce

Zyro

Edited by Zyrocenus, 14 September 2017 - 04:23 AM.


#218 SuperFunkTron

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Slayer
  • The Slayer
  • 866 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted 14 September 2017 - 05:54 AM

View PostShadowHimself, on 14 September 2017 - 04:14 AM, said:

Also I will say some of the later arguments were semi well thought out, however, if they 8v8 solo play only ffs please.

You know, supporting you statements would go a long way to help remove the "joke" association you've been so ardently building for yourself. I'm still waiting for you to provide some sound reasoning behind your unsupported claims and complaints.

#219 Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses

    Member

  • PipPip
  • The All Seeing
  • The All Seeing
  • 48 posts

Posted 15 September 2017 - 01:19 PM

View PostShadowHimself, on 13 September 2017 - 01:03 PM, said:

Why do people keep referring to 8v8 as an "improvement"?, it's going backwards......which is a downgrade. Improvement would be 16/16, 20/20, 24/24, 28 32 36 and so on


Let me use your own logic to show you how senseless is what you've wrote up here (or: I want to hit yourself with your own logic, but people like you have two ways of thinking: one for them and one for the rest of the world; if you are inteligent only a bit, maybe you will realise, how stupid is what you've wrote):

Improvement would be 10/10, 8/8, 6/6. Downgrade is 12/12, 16/16, 20/20.

Going backwards is a way of wisdom, when you've realised you made a bad decision but you can repair it. Going towards no matter what... that's the way of Hittler's (Stalin's, Mussolini's etc.) thinking.

Edited by Cherry Garden full of Blue Roses, 16 September 2017 - 05:55 AM.


#220 Nightbird

    Member

  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • The Formidable
  • The Formidable
  • 1,167 posts

Posted 25 September 2017 - 08:38 AM

Time to show what the new FP event system can do!





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users