134 replies to this topic

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 09:14 AM, said:

You have better projection of firepower with 12 though, which makes a big difference. It is why 4v4, 8v8, and 12v12 all play differently. 4v4 is almost always brawls. Why? Because you can't adequately project firepower across enough fields of fire to prevent pushes/flanks. 12v12 is the opposite, the size of the teams is partially why Frozen ends up as a standoff, it isn't just because of the map, it is because you can cover more firing lanes to adequately discourage/prevent pushes from other sides.

Where do we see 4v4 or 8v8 other than 'specialty' type matches? 4v4 in scouting, why are those brawls? Because everyone is in fast moving 'mechs with firepower dedicated to up close punching through legs.

8v8? Comp play, and QUICK PLAY will never, ever, Ever, EVER, EVER be like comp play because you have full 8 man teams with specifically designed 'mechs, each team member knowing what their other team members have equipped, all using a predefined and practiced strategy, going against another 8 man team of the same sort.

QUICK PLAY will only in the most EXTREME RANDOM circumstances be like that (two different 8 man teams practicing in the Quick Play queue accidentally being matched against one another by MM being the only reasonable circumstance that would ever happen).

The static-ness experience in a significant number of matches we experience in 12v12 is a result of two things:

1. 12 people either all solo, or some mashup of different sized groups, all being randomly grouped together, not communicating effectively, nor being properly led in any coherent manner. In those moderately rare instances where people ARE communicating and/or being properly led by someone, it's typically a very different experience.

2. Map construction, plus drop placement, plus game mode all affect this.

Maps are constructed such that most have some sort of 'dominating feature' in a somewhat central location that provides some level of tactical advantage. Caustic Valley, Tourmaline Desert, Alpine Peaks (though it doesn't quite affect game play so much any more), Canyon Network, Crimson Strait, etc. etc. etc.

Couple a static dominating map feature with tactical importance with static drop points where players are always spread out thousands of meters and a particular game play is practically forced upon the team and getting 12 random strangers to do anything different results in the 'herding angry cats' syndrome.

Domination? Yeah everyone moves to get close to the 'yellow puddle of failure' in the middle of the map and find a position to fight until one side or the other has lost enough players to make a push. Not unreasonable.

Assault/Incursion? Two sides typically move in the general direction of the enemy's base meeting somewhere in the middle, once contact is made, typically firing positions remain mostly static. Assault should be changed so that ONE side is defending and ONE side is attacking.

Escort? Actually, while most people tend not to like it, I think this one has a lot more 'fluidity' of the battlefield because Trump (the VIP) is always on the move and there's always a small risk of the attackers finding him and killing him off.

I vote for this mode every time it comes up, BECAUSE it makes us play differently.

Most people are afraid of change, and therefore because this mode doesn't cater to their desire to be 'Rambo' and kill off the entire enemy team solo, they don't like it and it's rarely played.

Conquest? This mode too has some fluidity, but only so much as what direction is the enemy going to approach Theta from? Because these points are static and our drop points are static, typically both sides push for the two points closest to their drop points and then move towards Theta.

Depending on how well the team members coordinate will determine how well you do, but typically the game mode is ruined by some heavy/assault pilot playing "'mech valet" doing nothing but moving his armor and weaponry from parking space to parking space, screwing over 11 other people. (I don't see how 8v8 is going to fix that problem at all.)

None of the above is fixed by reducing teams to 8v8.

You can't have "more" options with LESS resources, I believe they call that a non sequitur.

Quote

While solo queue minimizes the difference because of uncoordinated environment they do have minor differences that impact play (harassers and LRMs are more powerful in 8v8 because they can get away with these flanks easier without having to commit to a push).

Disagree. My experience in 8v8 pretty much says that, again, it'll make no REAL difference. As soon as the lone LRM'er is found (and how can he not with a stream of LRMs showing where he's at) he'll get focused and the enemy is down one 'mech. Same with the harasser, as soon as he shoots, he'll be found and killed, only now a significant portion of an 8 man team is now down, PLUS, while 'Mr Flanky' is spending his time 'Rambozoing' around the map, his team is down his firepower, thus when 'Mr Flanky' finally starts attacking, his team is more beat up than the enemy and their ability to take advantage of any momentary confusion is limited.

12v12 is MUCH better.

Quote

Nice strawman.....

Hardly, it's an actual fact.

How is someone who is bad at flanking and getting seen in a 12 man suddenly going to have "more skill" at it in 8v8?

Quote

Obviously it is debatable because you act like no one else played 8v8 for YEARS just like you, moron.

Yeah, because name calling will win the argument, not actual intelligent debate on the actual subject.

Too many people tend to wax nostalgic about the past because time makes most people forget the pains they suffered.

Pretty sure this was the case.

The gaming community argued long and hard for 12v12 because it made more sense lore-wise, would provide more options in battle, and just in general would be more fun.

And it is, there are parts of 12v12 that need to be fixed:

Not starting all three lances spread across 2k of map would be a good start.
Dropping the assault lance BETWEEN the heavy and light lance might help, it'd be interesting to try it anyway.
Add more randomized drop points so that game play match-to-match may have a better chance of varying.
Stop creating maps with centralized tactical points of interest
Change game modes such that there are actual attacker-vs-defender, not these "each side has a base to attack and simultaneously a base to defend.
Spend some money on advertising the game so that the game might have a constant influx of new players, a portion of whom may become not only NEW paying customers, but regular players available for placement in the drop queue.

12v12 is BETTER, just needs some tweaking.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 24 August 2017 - 09:50 AM.

[RussianWolf]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 08:04 AM, said:

I've been a member as long as you.

8v8 was only 'ok' because it was the only available option.

12v12 is ABSOLUTELY better.

The only thing 8v8 had going for it was that the entire team started in one single location, not spread out across 4k of map. That spread is a problem for 12v12 because you typically have 8 'mechs of somewhat similar speed all moving as fast as they can to engage the enemy, and then you have your 4 assaults getting left behind to get strung out as they each move at their best speed possible to try and catch up.

PERHAPS if they dropped the 4 lances only 200 meters apart instead of TWO THOUSAND, and made sure that the assault lance was the "middle" lance and not always at the goddamned far-est end possible, the issue of assaults being left behind MIGHT be a bit mitigated.

But PGI was never one for easy obvious fixes, were they?

I found 8v8 to be more fun. 12v12 is less forgiving if you get focus fired.

My opinion 8v8 was better.

My point was he had never played 8v8 (unless he's done some private matches) so how can he really say how it would be? Those of us with experience in the 8v8 days have a better frame of reference.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

Where do we see 4v4 or 8v8 other than 'specialty' type matches?

4v4 is the standard for the PTS. Same issue there, it is super easy to get close because between lack of coordination and lack of projection you really can't stop people from just face-rushing.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

8v8? Comp play, and QUICK PLAY will never, ever, Ever, EVER, EVER be like comp play because you have full 8 man teams with specifically designed 'mechs, each team member knowing what their other team members have equipped, all using a predefined and practiced strategy, going against another 8 man team of the same sort.

Where did I Ever, EVER, EVER say they were the exact same? Again with strawmen. That said, there are some commonalities between the environments as well and this is one of them. What is strong changes because of the number of people on the field, period. That is independent of skill level and coordination level do help to minimize the differences in solo queue, but there are still differences.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

You can't have "more" options with LESS resources, I believe they call that a non sequitur.

Don't conflate having more options with more VIABLE options. 12 v 12 offers more raw number of options but is limited in the number of those that are viable. That's like saying adding new weapon will make the meta diverse, it's an asinine statement.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

As soon as the lone LRM'er is found (and how can he not with a stream of LRMs showing where he's at) he'll get focused and the enemy is down one 'mech.

If we are talking solo queue, no he won't. Again LRMs are stronger in solo queue than in group or comp because people aren't as coordinated which means they are more likely to be passive and not just push in that LRM boats face and demolish them. That's the whole reason new players think LRMs are OP while experienced players shrug them off (well shrug them off as best they can, you can only do so much sometimes in solo queue).

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 09:40 AM, said:

PLUS, while 'Mr Flanky' is spending his time 'Rambozoing' around the map, his team is down his firepower, thus when 'Mr Flanky' finally starts attacking, his team is more beat up than the enemy and their ability to take advantage of any momentary confusion is limited.

Dude, what are you even talking about? How is flanking being Rambo? Flanking, harassing, etc isn't about killing the entire enemy team by yourself. It is about attacking an enemy from an angle to both relieve pressure from your main body while also applying pressure on the enemy to deal with an accounted for angle. Even backstabbers aren't "rambo"ing because all it takes is somehow to actually be able to aim or a streak boat to ruin your day. Again, you are making over-generalizations and strawmen.

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 24 August 2017 - 10:02 AM.

[Dimento Graven]

RussianWolf, on 24 August 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

I found 8v8 to be more fun. 12v12 is less forgiving if you get focus fired.

My opinion 8v8 was better.

My point was he had never played 8v8 (unless he's done some private matches) so how can he really say how it would be? Those of us with experience in the 8v8 days have a better frame of reference.

Unfortunately I've found a lot of the people advocating 8v8 are/have been comp players where the matches tend mostly towards 8v8 (probably because it's easier to manage than 12v12 and easier to assemble teams). The comp players prefer the format and probably due to their experience with the somewhat randomness of MM in quick play matches, aren't enjoying 12v12 as much as they do 8v8 so naturally they assume 12v12 is not the problem.

12v12 isn't the problem.

The problems are actually ultimately small issues in map design, game mode design, drop placement, and a lack of population, that cumulatively create a frustrating experience for a small, but significant, portion of the player base.

8v8 isn't the solution as the problems with map design, game mode design will still be there. I'm not sure what will happen to drop placement... Will all 8 'mechs be dropped in closer groups (or one large group) again, well gee, why can't we do that with 12v12, FIRST? 8v8 only ameliorates the population problem by hiding from it and it only works until the population declines enough to where we're back to the same situation. Advertise the goddamned game already, geeezus Christ on a broken pogo stick, how goddamned stupid must you be to NOT be trying to get NEW customers for your product? You GROW or die, that's the mantra of business since, forever...

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 10:01 AM, said:

4v4 is the standard for the PTS. Same issue there, it is super easy to get close because between lack of coordination and lack of projection you really can't stop people from just face-rushing.

PTS = Player Test Server? I'm assuming that's what you mean, I'm not sure of any other definition for that TLA.

Anyway, again, as I stated, specialty circumstance and not applicable to live production game play.

Quote

Where did I Ever, EVER, EVER say they were the exact same? Again with strawmen. That said, there are some commonalities between the environments as well and this is one of them. What is strong changes because of the number of people on the field, period. That is independent of skill level and coordination level do help to minimize the differences in solo queue, but there are still differences.

Maybe YOU didn't make the argument but it's been stated that somehow flanking works better in 8v8. It doesn't, for the reason stated.

If you're being seen while flanking in 12v12, you're more than likely going to be seen in 8v8. Fewer resources available to watch you ALSO means fewer resources the enemy has to be watching themselves.

Difference - none.

It's not a valid excuse to inflict 8v8 on the game.

Quote

Don't conflate having more options with more VIABLE options. 12 v 12 offers more raw number of options but is limited in the number of those that are viable. That's like saying adding new weapon will make the meta diverse, it's an asinine statement.

AND YES, THERE ARE MORE VIABLE OPTIONS WITH 12v12.

In quick play are they always utilized, no of course not. Lack of variation of game play is NOT the fault of 24 'mechs on the field, and decreasing the number of 'mechs on the field won't make people suddenly start using MORE diverse strategies.

Maybe for a while "new" strategies will be tried, and then, due to the static nature of the maps, map placement, game modes, etc., things will settle down to the same sort of 'every once in while something different happens' gaming experience.

That is NOT the fault of having 24 'mechs on the field, and reducing the number to 16 WILL NOT change that.

Quote

If we are talking solo queue, no he won't. Again LRMs are stronger in solo queue than in group or comp because people aren't as coordinated which means they are more likely to be passive and not just push in that LRM boats face and demolish them. That's the whole reason new players think LRMs are OP while experienced players shrug them off (well shrug them off as best they can, you can only do so much sometimes in solo queue).

Yeah in any situation where the team was coordinated before even dropping (comp and some FW) this is true, LRMs can easily be effectively countered by organized teams. In any non-pre-created teams situation LRMs are more effective because coordination of teams is a problem and leadership is typically not present, and players tend to be more selfish ('I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't know, and I can't count on anyone else having my back, so I'm happy to sit right here and not die...')

That's not the fault of 12v12, and 8v8 doesn't fix that.

Quote

Dude, what are you even talking about? How is flanking being Rambo? Flanking, harassing, etc isn't about killing the entire enemy team by yourself. It is about attacking an enemy from an angle to both relieve pressure from your main body while also applying pressure on the enemy to deal with an accounted for angle. Even backstabbers aren't "Rambo"ing because all it takes is somehow to actually be able to aim or a streak boat to ruin your day. Again, you are making over-generalizations and strawmen.

Not all, in ORGANIZED teams, flanking is known quantity. Can be counted on, you know the skill level of the person doing it and EVERYONE ELSE on the team knows what he's doing, when he's doing it and knows to get ready to take advantage of that.

Most times 'flanking' occurs in any MM assembled team, it's some random twit thinking he's gonna sneak in and get some quick ganks in while the rest of the team unwittingly covers for him. THAT guy is 'rambozing' because it's uncoordinated and his expectation is he's going to be able to use 11 other people as a distraction while he goes and gets all the glory.

VERY RARELY in random groups are flanking maneuvers actually purposely coordinated.

In either situation, organized play, or random grouping, 8v8 doesn't make flanking any more viable or effective, period.

[InspectorG]

Bud Crue, on 23 August 2017 - 02:02 PM, said:

Seriously? Murder ball with the normal 1 disco, 1 guy running off on his own, and the 1 ever helpful narc/scout mech dropping narcs and uavs while you are still at 1500m, over and over is "inovative and experienceful"?

Can't have impressive rabbit runs or big camp sites with only 8 v 8.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Anyway, again, as I stated, specialty circumstance and not applicable to live production game play.

The only "special" circumstance about it is the population is lower. People trying out new stuff is typical gameplay even in live production so you can't really just hand-wave it away. Sure some of the PTS you could hand-wave away like the ED one since it had a mechanic that changed gameplay but not all PTS have been that way (Civil War tech PTS is a great example actually).

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Maybe YOU didn't make the argument but it's been stated that somehow flanking works better in 8v8. It doesn't, for the reason stated.

Except you are wrong, for the reason stated refuting your statement. You have yet to explain away the fact that projection of firepower is key in determining the strength of a flank. You half-assed tried to explain it away by saying the fact that solo queue being uncoordinated changes that (which is somewhat correct, it minimizes the impact but the difference is still there).

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

If you're being seen while flanking in 12v12, you're more than likely going to be seen in 8v8. Fewer resources available to watch you ALSO means fewer resources the enemy has to be watching themselves.

Except that's not how it works because there are fewer resources to reliably cover that angle as well. Again, projection of firepower and something you are completely ignoring. Using your logic, 2v2 and 4v4 would play no different than 12v12 and that is absolutely wrong.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

AND YES, THERE ARE MORE VIABLE OPTIONS WITH 12v12.

NO, THERE ARE NOT MORE VIABLE OPTIONS WITH 12v12.

See, I can do it too.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

Yeah in any situation where the team was coordinated before even dropping (comp and some FW) this is true, LRMs can easily be effectively countered by organized teams. In any non-pre-created teams situation LRMs are more effective because coordination of teams is a problem and leadership is typically not present, and players tend to be more selfish ('I'm not going to stick my neck out for someone I don't know, and I can't count on anyone else having my back, so I'm happy to sit right here and not die...')

That's not the fault of 12v12, and 8v8 doesn't fix that.

Where did I say 8v8 fixed that.....pretty sure I've said multiple times that LRMs are stronger in 8v8 not weaker.....

Not all, in ORGANIZED teams, flanking is known quantity. Can be counted on, you know the skill level of the person doing it and EVERYONE ELSE on the team knows what he's doing, when he's doing it and knows to get ready to take advantage of that.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 10:18 AM, said:

THAT guy is 'rambozing' because it's uncoordinated and his expectation is he's going to be able to use 11 other people as a distraction while he goes and gets all the glory.

In either situation, organized play, or random grouping, 8v8 doesn't make flanking any more viable or effective, period.

Lolwut, I don't know about you but the easiest mech to "rambo" in is assaults and heavies and you won't flank with them. Isolating yourself directly goes against using the other 11 people as distractions because should the enemy squirrel (which is more common in solo queue) you are basically screwed. PUG stars use their friendlies as meatshields, not distractions and they play in mechs that you DEFINITELY don't want to be caught isolated in.

Your whole argument is a red herring.

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 10:31 AM, said:

The only "special" circumstance about it is the population is lower. People trying out new stuff is typical gameplay even in live production so you can't really just hand-wave it away. Sure some of the PTS you could hand-wave away like the ED one since it had a mechanic that changed gameplay but not all PTS have been that way (Civil War tech PTS is a great example actually).

Actually I can with absolute validity "hand-wave it way" SPECIFICALLY BECAUSE of the reasons you've just given me:

1. EXTREMELY LIMITED POPULATION ON PTS. This is but NO CHOICE other than to reduce the number of players required for drops.
2. New things being introduced and requiring people to play differently in order to test those things properly. Things changing in PTS requiring retesting to see how they work and so on.

It's a circumstance that's FORCED onto the PTS specifically because of its uniqueness and just because it's "different" it's, at that moment, more fun than standard play.

That DOES NOT mean we should have reduced team sizes on the LIVE server.

Far from it.

Quote

Except you are wrong, for the reason stated refuting your statement. You have yet to explain away the fact that projection of firepower is key in determining the strength of a flank. You half-assed tried to explain it away by saying the fact that solo queue being uncoordinated changes that (which is somewhat correct, it minimizes the impact but the difference is still there).

Except that flanking in 12v12 and flanking in 8v8 is the same darn thing. Reduced numbers of players on the field DOES NOT MEAN flanking becomes more effective. It's the SAME projection of fire power in 8v8 as in 12v12, ONLY in 8v8 there's a bit less of it.

It will not, nor ever be, the KEY tactic for EVERY battle in MWO. It's barely notable now in most commonly played circumstances, it'll be so even if the team sizes are reduced by 4.

Quote

Except that's not how it works because there are fewer resources to reliably cover that angle as well. Again, projection of firepower and something you are completely ignoring. Using your logic, 2v2 and 4v4 would play no different than 12v12 and that is absolutely wrong.

Except that in your 8v8 scenario you don't have THE SAME amount of fire power, you have FOUR LESS MECHS. So the 'projection of firepower' is LESS.

You're apparently suffering from the delusion that somehow, a flank in 8v8 means that the 8 man team with the flanker will be projecting the SAME firepower of 12 'mechs. WRONG.

(capitalizing here for emphasis, not shouting) LESS IS LESS. LESS CANNOT BE MORE OR SAME.

Quote

NO, THERE ARE NOT MORE VIABLE OPTIONS WITH 12v12.

See, I can do it too.

Yes, but YOU are wrong.

Quote

Where did I say 8v8 fixed that.....pretty sure I've said multiple times that LRMs are stronger in 8v8 not weaker.....

And we disagree. LRMs have the same power in 8v8, and because you'll have 4 less 'mechs per team in 8v8, chances are, you'll have even less 'mechs carrying them.

Quote

Not all, in ORGANIZED teams, flanking is known quantity. Can be counted on, you know the skill level of the person doing it and EVERYONE ELSE on the team knows what he's doing, when he's doing it and knows to get ready to take advantage of that.

Did you mean to quote this for some point?

Quote

Lolwut, I don't know about you but the easiest mech to "Rambo" in is assaults and heavies and you won't flank with them. Isolating yourself directly goes against using the other 11 people as distractions because should the enemy squirrel (which is more common in solo queue) you are basically screwed. PUG stars use their friendlies as meatshields, not distractions and they play in mechs that you DEFINITELY don't want to be caught isolated in.

Your whole argument is a red herring.

Yes and in PUG groups you have people trying to flank with heavies and assaults all the time, even back when MM was keeping the T4's and T5's away from the heist Tier players, you'd still catch a T2 or T3 player trying to 'flank' with his Atlas or Stalker. Most flanking is done with mediums and smalls (or the occasional 'really fast' heavy), but again it's typically not done in any planned or organized fashion in PUG groups so its effectiveness is extremely limited.

I do not see how 8v8 suddenly makes it any more of an actual tool.

Organized groups, or well led communicative PUG groups, it's a great tool and absolutely can be effective, for 12 man OR 8 man groups, but it is NOT suddenly more effective in 8 man groups than it is in 12 man.

The effect DOES scale DOWN with group size.

Feel like I'm arguing with a Clan-tard...

"I'm a better pilot because I'm in a Clan 'mech."
"No, you have better and more powerful tech in your 'mech."
"NO I'M A BETTER PILOT!!!"

Only now it's:

"Flanking is better in 8v8."
"No, it's the same, nothing will really change, just the number of 'mechs on the field.
"NO, FLANKING IS BETTER IN 8v8!!!"
<sigh>

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

1. EXTREMELY LIMITED POPULATION ON PTS. This is but NO CHOICE other than to reduce the number of players required for drops.

Irrelevant, the reason WHY it is 4v4 does not have ANY impact on how it plays.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

2. New things being introduced and requiring people to play differently in order to test those things properly. Things changing in PTS requiring retesting to see how they work and so on.

Their impact and difference between production gameplay and test gameplay can be minimal though and you can't hand wave that away. The difference between live and the last PTS for example had a minimal impact on the difference of gameplay.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

It's a circumstance that's FORCED onto the PTS specifically because of its uniqueness and just because it's "different" it's, at that moment, more fun than standard play.

Dude, you are clearly ignoring what I'm arguing about or just stupid because no where did I make that argument. This argument is specifically about the impact of number of players on how the game plays in that environment. If you can't make a coherent argument then clearly I'm wasting time (which honestly I already knew I was doing given who you are, you are like a slightly better version of Johnny Z).

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Except that flanking in 12v12 and flanking in 8v8 is the same darn thing. Reduced numbers of players on the field DOES NOT MEAN flanking becomes more effective. It's the SAME projection of fire power in 8v8 as in 12v12, ONLY in 8v8 there's a bit less of it.

No it's not, if I need 4 people to adequately cover an angle, I can only cover 2 angles in 8v8 as opposed to 3 in 12v12. That means the ability to project firepower is very different. Yes, you still need the same number of people to cover an angle in both team size variants because only so many of the enemy can stack up on a side as well without you being able to adequately react to it.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Except that in your 8v8 scenario you don't have THE SAME amount of fire power, you have FOUR LESS MECHS. So the 'projection of firepower' is LESS.

This is you not understanding what projection of firepower is about.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

LESS IS LESS. LESS CANNOT BE MORE OR SAME. UNLESS I DON'T UNDERSTAND THE CONTEXT OF IT IN WHICH CASE THEN I'M MAKING OVERSIMPLIFICATIONS OF A MORE COMPLEX SCENARIO

FTFY

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yes and in PUG groups you have people trying to flank with heavies and assaults all the time, even back when MM was keeping the T4's and T5's away from the heist Tier players, you'd still catch a T2 or T3 player trying to 'flank' with his Atlas or Stalker.

Good thing I wasn't talking about heavies and assaults flanking since that isn't really a valid option in either 12v12 or 8v8, that is just bad play.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Most flanking is done with mediums and smalls (or the occasional 'really fast' heavy), but again it's typically not done in any planned or organized fashion in PUG groups so its effectiveness is extremely limited.

Except you know anyone that plays a fast medium or light is trying to do exactly that, whether it be a long range verison (Shadow Cat, Raven), mid range (Ice Ferret, iERML IS lights), or short range (Javelins, Vipers, etc). These mechs become more powerful the less people there are on the battlefield because they abuse their mobility. The less people on the field the more chances I have of not getting cornered on an escape route and the more potent a quick backstab or taking an assault offline from the main engagement to squirrel me is.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 11:03 AM, said:

Organized groups, or well led communicative PUG groups, it's a great tool and absolutely can be effective, for 12 man OR 8 man groups, but it is NOT suddenly more effective in 8 man groups than it is in 12 man.

No, this is actually false, it is less effective because these mechs thrive on uncoordinated environments because coordinated and/or skilled opponents know how to isolate your flank and ruin your day quickly. The only exception is for split pushes which work because they can cause confusion with the enemy on what to focus but that also requires apt timing as well.

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

Irrelevant, the reason WHY it is 4v4 does not have ANY impact on how it plays.

Their impact and difference between production gameplay and test gameplay can be minimal though and you can't hand wave that away. The difference between live and the last PTS for example had a minimal impact on the difference of gameplay.

Wait, what?

Didn't you just get through saying:

Quote

It is why 4v4, 8v8, and 12v12 all play differently.

Quote

4v4 is the standard for the PTS. Same issue there, it is super easy to get close because between lack of coordination and lack of projection you really can't stop people from just face-rushing.

It's not going to make a difference (or only minimal difference) in game play, but you want it because suddenly flanking is somehow supposed to be a big deal?!?!

4v4 is on the PTS because without 4v4 before you were sitting there waiting typically until the MM timed out several tries in a row before you got a match (I know this from personal experience).

Test play on PTS IS actually very different gameplay because initially people are testing out the game, and mostly not really trying to win, just figure out the differences what's working, how it's working and so on.

My goal on PTS is NOT the same as when I play on the live server.

It is kind of unreasonable to expect 'competitive level' play on the PTS, but it sure seems like you're advocating because it works on PTS it'll be good for the live server, and that's just silly.

Quote

Dude, you are clearly ignoring what I'm arguing about or just stupid because no where did I make that argument. This argument is specifically about the impact of number of players on how the game plays in that environment. If you can't make a coherent argument then clearly I'm wasting time (which honestly I already knew I was doing given who you are, you are like a slightly better version of Johnny Z).

Back to name calling are we?

And again, you're NOW stating that the number of players somehow changes how people play the game yet your very first sentence of your reply was:

Quote

Irrelevant, the reason WHY it is 4v4 does not have ANY impact on how it plays.

I can see why you've decided you need to resort to name calling...

Quote

No it's not, if I need 4 people to adequately cover an angle, I can only cover 2 angles in 8v8 as opposed to 3 in 12v12. That means the ability to project firepower is very different. Yes, you still need the same number of people to cover an angle in both team size variants because only so many of the enemy can stack up on a side as well without you being able to adequately react to it.

This is you not understanding what projection of firepower is about.

FTFY

Except that "same number" you're BS'ing about needing to cover an angle doesn't account for the fact that the enemy team ALSO is missing 4 'mechs.

So why is it necessary to have the same number covering that angle when one can cover it, and if the team is a well led, communicative PUG, or better yet, a well practiced pre-made, can easily and quick move to counter?

It's the forest and trees with you, you refuse to acknowledge that if you have less enemies to worry about, you need less coverage. A single 'mech is now MORE than capable of watching an angle and calling to the rest of the team to blunt the push, flank, or what have you.

Quote

Good thing I wasn't talking about heavies and assaults flanking since that isn't really a valid option in either 12v12 or 8v8, that is just bad play.

Agreed, and 8v8 doesn't fix bad play, BUT, 8v8 sure makes bad play hurt more because now there's less of a chance of it being accounted for by rest of the team.

Quote

Except you know anyone that plays a fast medium or light is trying to do exactly that, whether it be a long range verison (Shadow Cat, Raven), mid range (Ice Ferret, iERML IS lights), or short range (Javelins, Vipers, etc). These mechs become more powerful the less people there are on the battlefield because they abuse their mobility. The less people on the field the more chances I have of not getting cornered on an escape route and the more potent a quick backstab or taking an assault offline from the main engagement to squirrel me is.

No, this is actually false, it is less effective because these mechs thrive on uncoordinated environments because coordinated and/or skilled opponents know how to isolate your flank and ruin your day quickly. The only exception is for split pushes which work because they can cause confusion with the enemy on what to focus but that also requires apt timing as well.

LOL, I really do think we're arguing from two different perspectives. Someone who believes the game should be more like competitive play and one who understands the majority of game play occurs in PUG quick play/FW matches.

In PUG groups, those singular pilots who 'flank' with their long range 'mechs will go snipe from a long distance aren't really doing it for the benefit of the team or in any sort of real effort to coordinate, otherwise they'd be more apt to report enemy positions, carry TAGs, or god forbid, locking a target for LRMs.

Nah, pretty much they're just working for the easy KS.

The other style of 'flanking', taking advantage of speed to and stacked MG's/SRMs/lasers the 'mechs will be going after the slow 'mechs/disco/afk's for easy kills, and engage so early in the match, well before the rest of their team can even get effectively grouped that taking advantage of any confusion of the enemy is almost impossible. This "might" thrive more in 8v8, but ONLY if PGI continues the idiocy of dropping lances 1000k (or more) meters apart from another. If they go BACK to 8v8, it stands to reason that all 8 'mechs will be dropped in a single group or two groups close together (as it previously was in 8v8 originally) and groups being able to coordinate and stay grouped becomes THAT MUCH EASIER, mitigating this type of 'flanking'.

>>IF<< they don't die, maybe at best they've taken out a slow moving 'mech, or maybe at least slowed it down and weakened it a bit, otherwise all they've done, again at best, is kill off 'mechs that weren't actually active in the first place. Big whoop.

Then there's the last style of 'flanker' who proceeds to run ALL the way around the map, wasting quite a bit of time, only to come running in after the battle has been running for a while in an attempt to mop up any already weakened enemies, effectively being a Battlemech janitor.

I do not see this being any different, at all, in an 8v8 situation.

Bad players will still be bad, and the good players, just as good.

All 8v8 does is hide the population problem, and maybe mitigates a possible issue with hit detection.

Of those two problems, I'd really rather have the CAUSE fixed, not the symptom.

[The Lobsters]

Would a return to 3/3/3/3 and a toning down of the amount RAC slugs in the air reduce the imperative for 8v8?

I thought things took a bit of a dive when the 3/3/3/3 was changed. Pretty sure that had more to do with selling Kodiaks that anything else. Now the amount of dps on the field is staggering compared to when I first played. No wonder TTK is so low. All I can imagine with 8v8 is more high deeps slugfests and next to zero requirement for specialist units. I could be maybe get behind 8v8 more if it was 2/2/2/2. 50 tonners are the centre of my mechiverse. I just get the feeling they'd be even less relevant in 8v8.

And really, RAC's could shoot fewer slugs with higher damage and still give everyone a satisfying minigun nerdboner.

[Dimento Graven]

The Lobsters, on 24 August 2017 - 01:45 PM, said:

Would a return to 3/3/3/3 and a toning down of the amount RAC slugs in the air reduce the imperative for 8v8?

...

And really, RAC's could shoot fewer slugs with higher damage and still give everyone a satisfying minigun nerdboner.

RAC's, MG's, UAC, fast firing AC/UAC2's and missiles appear to really saturate the hit detection mechanism...

The more of them in the air, the more you start hearing complaints like "WTF, my shot just passed right though him!!!"

[The Lobsters]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 01:56 PM, said:

RAC's, MG's, UAC, fast firing AC/UAC2's and missiles appear to really saturate the hit detection mechanism...

The more of them in the air, the more you start hearing complaints like "WTF, my shot just passed right though him!!!"

And a general increase in fielded mech tonnage so more boating.


I shouldn't be complaining, I'm a massive AC2 Mauler junkie.

Edited by The Lobsters, 24 August 2017 - 02:13 PM.

[Tordin]

8 vs 8, 12 vs 12. Pff, make a compromise, make it 10 vs 10. Or no... lets go full on 24 on 24 or 24 player free for all Solaris. That last one.. gosh, I miss the old MW4 merc free for all, chaotic wrecking machines EVERYWHERE! Survival of the fittest, smartest.

[Skrapha]

Love how this thread tuned into an argument between Quicksilver and Dimento.....Very entertaining read....Well, In before the lockdown!

Edited by Skrapha, 24 August 2017 - 03:29 PM.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Wait, what?

Didn't you just get through saying:

I'm pretty sure context is getting lost in your rush to prove me contradicting myself.

I said 4v4, 8v8, and 12v12 play differently BUT the difference between the last PTS and how a live version of 4v4 would not differ that much because the difference in numbers of new tech between the last iteration of the PTS and the Live release of that patch was negligible. In other words, the Civil War PTS was pretty much spot on with how 4v4 would've been in the live client were it actually a thing. Your idea that the PTS is completely invalid as a basis for judgement is ignorant of the fact that some of these PTS have had fairly minimal changes between the last iteration of them and the live client.
That's a long way of saying stop being intentionally obtuse.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

It's not going to make a difference (or only minimal difference) in game play, but you want it because suddenly flanking is somehow supposed to be a big deal?!?!

Again strawmen, flanking will be more powerful, nowhere did I say by how much. That said that is part of the minimal difference. The 2 things that will be different between 8v8 and 12v12 for solo queue:

• Flanking will be a bit stronger
  
• The average range of engagements will be a bit shorter

That's the main differences, these will be starker the more coordination and the higher the skill levels.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

4v4 is on the PTS because without 4v4 before you were sitting there waiting typically until the MM timed out several tries in a row before you got a match (I know this from personal experience).

Are you deliberately stupid? WHY the PTS is 4v4 is irrelevant to the discussion, nowhere recently have I brought up buckets or anything like that.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Test play on PTS IS actually very different gameplay because initially people are testing out the game

How is that any different from the first couple of weeks after a patch? Sounds pretty much like production gameplay to me, only on a smaller scale.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

My goal on PTS is NOT the same as when I play on the live server.

Cool, but you aren't everyone that plays on the PTS, believe it or not comp players are involved in the PTS as well. I'm trying things out to try and make them work much like I do in live client when I experiment new builds.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

It is kind of unreasonable to expect 'competitive level' play on the PTS

Just like it is on the live server, expecting 'competitive level' play in Quick Play is a recipe for disappointment. So your point is exactly?

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Back to name calling are we?

You realize you did that in the post I quoted right? There is a reason I didn't call you out on it, but since you did, just going to call you out on being a hypocrite.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

And again, you're NOW stating that the number of players somehow changes how people play the game yet your very first sentence of your reply was:

Learn reading comprehension.
The reason why the PTS is 4v4 is due to population reasons which have NOTHING to do with the implications of TEAM SIZES on gameplay.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Except that "same number" you're BS'ing about needing to cover an angle doesn't account for the fact that the enemy team ALSO is missing 4 'mechs.

Pretty sure I covered that:

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 11:44 AM, said:

Yes, you still need the same number of people to cover an angle in both team size variants because only so many of the enemy can stack up on a side as well without you being able to adequately react to it.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Agreed, and 8v8 doesn't fix bad play, BUT, 8v8 sure makes bad play hurt more because now there's less of a chance of it being accounted for by rest of the team.

No disagreements there, and honestly I'm ok with that fact.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

In PUG groups, those singular pilots who 'flank' with their long range 'mechs will go snipe from a long distance aren't really doing it for the benefit of the team or in any sort of real effort to coordinate, otherwise they'd be more apt to report enemy positions, carry TAGs, or god forbid, locking a target for LRMs.

Maybe to you they aren't, but causing an assault to squirrel is helping the team, the difference is whether his friendlies are able to capitalize on it is what makes the difference. In that case that team would probably lose regardless of whether that person had taken a bigger mech. That said I can only assume that long range harassment is the reason why the Shadow Cat got nerfed because it overperformed in the lower tiers given that those matches probably last long enough for it to actually do stuff, 8v8 would've amplified its capability (again, provided it has the time to do its job).

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

The other style of 'flanking', taking advantage of speed to and stacked MG's/SRMs/lasers the 'mechs will be going after the slow 'mechs/disco/afk's for easy kills, and engage so early in the match, well before the rest of their team can even get effectively grouped that taking advantage of any confusion of the enemy is almost impossible.

Except it will be easier to isolate targets outside of discos/afks because again, not as many targets on the field. That makes the job of these mechs easier since there is less of a chance of getting double teamed. Not even in group queue currently (12v12) do teams get effectively grouped so they don't ever get picked off by packs of these mechs, and you think solo queue in 8v8 will be magically better, nah.

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 12:30 PM, said:

Then there's the last style of 'flanker' who proceeds to run ALL the way around the map, wasting quite a bit of time, only to come running in after the battle has been running for a while in an attempt to mop up any already weakened enemies, effectively being a Battlemech janitor.

Not that potlicking is a bad thing (finishing kills is important when a player knows how to rotate out), this type of flanker I don't care about and is pretty much unaffected by this. That's pretty much a troll or spud, either way I don't really care to consider them a true flanker.

[MischiefSC]

In 8 v 8 your odds of flanking SUCCESSFULLY increase because there's less people likely to catch you.

The point of a flank is that it's not the whole team facing you.

Also in 8 v 8, because losing 2 mechs is a most significant swing in firepower, a flank is more useful because if 3 of you go kill 2 mechs in 3 v 1 x 2 (which is what a flank usually entails) then your team pushes and it's a win. In 12 v 12 that's less useful.

The only thing 12 v 12 does is make LRMs and camping in the back sniping more useful and being just flat out bad at the game in a bad mech more sustainable because you've got more pug armor to pad yourself with.

8 v 8 is less forgiving to bad players in bad mechs and more rewarding to good players in good mechs. That's got its own advantages and disadvantages. However 8 v 8 should allow (with a good matchmaker) for tighter bands on teams to let you keep a closer range of players skill on each team.

If the MM has the tools to do that.

[Dimento Graven]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 24 August 2017 - 03:59 PM, said:

I'm pretty sure context is getting lost in your rush to prove me contradicting myself.

I said 4v4, 8v8, and 12v12 play differently BUT the difference between the last PTS and how a live version of 4v4 would not differ that much because the difference in numbers of new tech between the last iteration of the PTS and the Live release of that patch was negligible. In other words, the Civil War PTS was pretty much spot on with how 4v4 would've been in the live client were it actually a thing. Your idea that the PTS is completely invalid as a basis for judgement is ignorant of the fact that some of these PTS have had fairly minimal changes between the last iteration of them and the live client.
That's a long way of saying stop being intentionally obtuse.

Then what the heck are you advocating then? You want LIVE to go 8v8 or 4v4? There's already a 4v4, scouting, so wish granted. If you want 8v8, private matches. Wish granted.

But it really seemed(seems) you're trying to argue because 4v4 somehow worked on PTS and some differences were subjectively minimal after going from PTS to LIVE, that it's going to be great for LIVE to have 8v8 Quick Play matches.

Perhaps we should leave PTS the heck out of this discussion because it muddles your point.

Quote

Again strawmen, flanking will be more powerful, nowhere did I say by how much. That said that is part of the minimal difference. The 2 things that will be different between 8v8 and 12v12 for solo queue:

• Flanking will be a bit stronger
  
• The average range of engagements will be a bit shorter

That's the main differences, these will be starker the more coordination and the higher the skill levels.

Stop calling my arguments disparaging names. You're the one making the argument that somehow flanking gets stronger via 8v8. You're the one apparently assuming no one will attack from maximum range of weapons but somehow instead, apparently, cross a lot of open fields (on maps where there is lots of open field to do so), get much closer before firing.

That's BS, my own past experience with 8v8, pretty much all engagements started at maximum range of the weapons available, and at the maximum range the map allowed (I remember dropping in old Forest Colony and being able to immediately gauss the other team as soon as the match started, because that map was so frickin' small), as the match progressed, slowly most players worked their way closer and closer in range until, brawl. Exactly like 12v12.

The fact that we'd now have 8v8 on the huge maps we have, I am absolutely certain that unless other SIGNIFICANT changes are made (drop distances between enemies and allies, first and foremost) that 8v8 in the general queues will ALSO begin at the longest ranges allowable via the map and available equipment, and slowly most players will work their way closer and closer in range until, brawl.

If the ONLY thing that changes is we have 8 less 'mechs on the field WHY would that change? The public queues are still going to have, primarily the random assortment of pilots using random builds.

The only REAL reason the engagements will end up being "shorter" duration is that there'll be 1/3 less 'mechs on the field and NOT because suddenly people play differently or because flanking magically becomes 'stronger'.

Again: LESS IS LESS, IT IS NOT MORE, NOR IS IT SAME.

Quote

Are you deliberately stupid? WHY the PTS is 4v4 is irrelevant to the discussion, nowhere recently have I brought up buckets or anything like that.

You brought up the apparent successes of 4v4 on PTS as an apparent justification of smaller groups on the public server.

Let's leave PTS out, it doesn't apply.

Quote

How is that any different from the first couple of weeks after a patch? Sounds pretty much like production gameplay to me, only on a smaller scale.

The vast majority of players are actually trying to win their matches. No one is going out in the public queues on the live server asking to have missiles shot at him because he wants to test some change in AMS. The primary goal is to play the game, not test the equipment. If your goal is to test, PTS was where you should have been.

Quote

Cool, but you aren't everyone that plays on the PTS, believe it or not comp players are involved in the PTS as well. I'm trying things out to try and make them work much like I do in live client when I experiment new builds.

Yeah, but if you die you don't really care as much on PTS unless it was the result of some bug, or misplaced decimal point in an XML file somewhere.

Quote

Just like it is on the live server, expecting 'competitive level' play in Quick Play is a recipe for disappointment. So your point is exactly?

My point is and has been that the 8v8 competitive play model isn't right for the public queues on the LIVE server.

Because, as we both agree, COMP level play is never a reasonable expectation on the LIVE servers and enforcing an 8v8 limit on the public queues won't make it happen.

Quote

You realize you did that in the post I quoted right? There is a reason I didn't call you out on it, but since you did, just going to call you out on being a hypocrite.

I did? Where? I don't believe I ever called you any names. Maybe I disparaged your arguments as you have been doing to mine, but that's the limit.

If I did, quote it directly, and I'll apologize.

Quote

Learn reading comprehension.
The reason why the PTS is 4v4 is due to population reasons which have NOTHING to do with the implications of TEAM SIZES on gameplay.

Except again, you're the one that claims 4v4 forced everyone to get really close and brawl. When I asked where we had 4v4 other than Scouting game mode which enforces a 'mech size of small to medium 'mechs, that more or less REQUIRES the lights to brawl to succeed, YOU were the one that brought up the PTS as an apparent success story of smaller team sizes.

I agree PTS isn't really germane to this discussion, so let's leave it out from now on.

Quote

Pretty sure I covered that:

And I countered it with:

"Except that "same number" you're BS'ing about needing to cover an angle doesn't account for the fact that the enemy team ALSO is missing 4 'mechs.

So why is it necessary to have the same number covering that angle when one can cover it, and if the team is a well led, communicative PUG, or better yet, a well practiced pre-made, can easily and quick move to counter?

It's the forest and trees with you, you refuse to acknowledge that if you have less enemies to worry about, you need less coverage. A single 'mech is now MORE than capable of watching an angle and calling to the rest of the team to blunt the push, flank, or what have you."

Quote

No disagreements there, and honestly I'm ok with that fact.

Only now the NPE is that much worse. A noob's mistakes can't more easily be recovered from with less players on the team.

If we had a functional MM ranking players appropriately and keeping the skill levels properly segmented, there'd be merit to this level of thinking.

In a game where an ever shrinking population has to be hidden behind an artificially small grouping size, THIS AIN'T any sort of long term fix and will in fact end up exacerbating the population problem, long term.

Quote

Maybe to you they aren't, but causing an assault to squirrel is helping the team, the difference is whether his friendlies are able to capitalize on it is what makes the difference. In that case that team would probably lose regardless of whether that person had taken a bigger mech. That said I can only assume that long range harassment is the reason why the Shadow Cat got nerfed because it overperformed in the lower tiers given that those matches probably last long enough for it to actually do stuff, 8v8 would've amplified its capability (again, provided it has the time to do its job).

I won't speculate on the nerfing of the Shadow Cat, and I question the value of 'attempting' to squirrel assaults. That's really only effective on the lower tier potatoes, an experienced player will just do enough to keep the 'sniping flanker's' head down and continue on his way, which eventually will draw out that flanker to be more readily handled.

Quote

Except it will be easier to isolate targets outside of discos/afks because again, not as many targets on the field. That makes the job of these mechs easier since there is less of a chance of getting double teamed. Not even in group queue currently (12v12) do teams get effectively grouped so they don't ever get picked off by packs of these mechs, and you think solo queue in 8v8 will be magically better, nah.

Again, that's only assuming PGI doesn't ALSO reset the drop locations in an 8v8 world. If assaults continue to be dropped WAY off the flank (instead of the center, as I think would be standard military procedure, strongest units to the center of your line), maybe, MAYBE there'd be some truth to this, but it's a big assumption that PGI is only going to reduce the group sizes and not also change how the two groups are dropped.

Quote

Not that potlicking is a bad thing (finishing kills is important when a player knows how to rotate out), this type of flanker I don't care about and is pretty much unaffected by this. That's pretty much a troll or spud, either way I don't really care to consider them a true flanker.

It might be 'important' near the end of the battle, but if you're not there sharing armor and adding your DPS to the fray, while YOU might get some easy kills, more than probably your team is going to lose overall. In other words people doing this are typically f'ing over their team for epeen kill counts.

Those aren't good players, I don't like having them on my team.

[Dimento Graven]

MischiefSC, on 24 August 2017 - 04:46 PM, said:

In 8 v 8 your odds of flanking SUCCESSFULLY increase because there's less people likely to catch you.

Unproven. In 8v8 there's also less people for the enemy to watch for meaning people can increase the range of their focus.

Quote

The point of a flank is that it's not the whole team facing you.

Also in 8 v 8, because losing 2 mechs is a most significant swing in firepower, a flank is more useful because if 3 of you go kill 2 mechs in 3 v 1 x 2 (which is what a flank usually entails) then your team pushes and it's a win. In 12 v 12 that's less useful.

Unfortunately what happens more often than not, while the 1 or 2 flankers are on their way to flank, the enemy has engaged your team who is now down two 'mechs, because they're "flanking"...

It rarely ever goes down as smoothly as you claim.

Quote

The only thing 12 v 12 does is make LRMs and camping in the back sniping more useful and being just flat out bad at the game in a bad mech more sustainable because you've got more pug armor to pad yourself with.

LRMs can be more powerful in 12v12 because there are 4 more 'mechs potentially carrying them. Sniping is not affected by this in the least. Most of my nearly 700 headshots occurred when the server was limited to 8v8. I realized that isn't true, the system only started keeping track of headshots after we went 12v12. But I do know that my sniping wasn't the least bit "more" effective with more targets, I simply had 4 more 'mechs to try and headshot.

Quote

8 v 8 is less forgiving to bad players in bad mechs and more rewarding to good players in good mechs. That's got its own advantages and disadvantages. However 8 v 8 should allow (with a good matchmaker) for tighter bands on teams to let you keep a closer range of players skill on each team.

If the MM has the tools to do that.

I agree with the fact that 8v8 is less forgiving of mistakes. It's my argument against it as it will adversely affect the NPE which is supposedly pretty bad.

I also agree that given a properly working ranking system, properly working MM, and large enough population base the game could limit potato exposure, smoothing out the 1 person f's it all up for everyone experience.

HOWEVER, THIS is true of either 8v8 OR 12v12.

The reason that 12v12 doesn't work the way we want, right now, is because we lack a properly working ranking system, a properly working MM, and a large enough population.

Fix the first two and finally invest in some goddamned advertising and maybe we can get the last addressed.

Edited by Dimento Graven, 24 August 2017 - 05:04 PM.

[MischiefSC]

Dimento Graven, on 24 August 2017 - 05:02 PM, said:

Unproven. In 8v8 there's also less people for the enemy to watch for meaning people can increase the range of their focus.

Unfortunately what happens more often than not, while the 1 or 2 flankers are on their way to flank, the enemy has engaged your team who is now down two 'mechs, because they're "flanking"...

It rarely ever goes down as smoothly as you claim.

LRMs can be more powerful in 12v12 because there are 4 more 'mechs potentially carrying them. Sniping is not affected by this in the least. Most of my nearly 700 headshots occurred when the server was limited to 8v8. I realized that isn't true, the system only started keeping track of headshots after we went 12v12. But I do know that my sniping wasn't the least bit "more" effective with more targets, I simply had 4 more 'mechs to try and headshot.

I agree with the fact that 8v8 is less forgiving of mistakes. It's my argument against it as it will adversely affect the NPE which is supposedly pretty bad.

I also agree that given a properly working ranking system, properly working MM, and large enough population base the game could limit potato exposure, smoothing out the 1 person f's it all up for everyone experience.

HOWEVER, THIS is true of either 8v8 OR 12v12.

The reason that 12v12 doesn't work the way we want, right now, is because we lack a properly working ranking system, a properly working MM, and a large enough population.

Fix the first two and finally invest in some goddamned advertising and maybe we can get the last addressed.

Matchmaking with 8 v 8 is easier because it's got to stretch 33% less to fill each match. No question at all, it'll be a better NPE in the context of tighter bands for matchmaking.

IF the matchmaker has accurate enough info to make use of it. Currently it doesn't matter because the need to build a match quickly out of 24 available people roughly matched for tonnage gives it few options. Cutting that by a third will, without question, give it more ability to be selective in who it puts together.

As to tactics and strategy we have both comp and the historical 8 v 8 play (though prior 8 v 8 didn't really have a matchmaker for most of it and mixed teams with pugs).

I can tell you from experience that 3 v 1 is a delete button if everyone involved is any good. 2 v 1 is not; you can survive that most the time just fine. Even in 1 trade though 3 v 1 is enough to all but ensure, even on a push, that the 1 guy is getting deleted. The more 3 v 1 opportunities you have the more you've got 1 guy getting deleted in 1 second of exchanged fire.

That's where 8 v 8 is more tactical. You've got, at most, 2 sets of 3 v 1 instead of 4. If you've got a firing line 12 v 12 makes 3 sets of 3 v 1 in any given push or flank not hard to arrange, in 8 v 8 it's barely 1.

Think of it like critical mass. It's about how easy it is to arrange 3 mechs on 1 firing lane that the enemy comes into. With 8 people you must spread a bit more thin. What you have more of is 1 v 1 and 2 v 1, which is viable trades on both sides (depending on mech, position and skill).

The only 'strategy' that 12 v 12 allows is for 2 or 3 guys to wander off from the deathball to die. That's not a flank.

8 v 8 will increase reward for smart play and punish bad play because your individual performance both in terms of doing and taking damage is more important, you are a bigger percentage of your teams armor and firepower. Weapons and play styles that require your teammates to tank for you (sniping and LRMs) will suffer the most.

Not hard to predict and we've got plenty of testing for it.

You also seem to mistake 'comp play' for Div A finals. MRBC goes down to Div E and includes a very wide range of player skills. You'd probably have a ton of fun in Div D-E, it's not a whole ton different from QP and you'll see LRMs there often enough.

https://mrbcleague.com/

Go watch recordings of matches. There's both 4 v 4 and 8 v 8 stuff there to see. 78 teams signed up for last season. The skill curve there is actually very wide and it's an excellent view of what pretty much T4-T1 8 v 8 would look like. Because of how MRBC breaks divisions up those matches are a better matchup than 90% of QP/group queue matches.