klaster, on 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:
As topic suggests two lances must be enough.
I know noone will heare this but I was playing this game since beta. I even remember when you could knock the atlass over with a raven
And 8 players per team was much better IMHO.
Now I pesonaly don`t feel like a 100 tonn war god but like a cannon fodder. Maybe you can pick around a corner, shoot ppc and go back to the hole you came from... But that is not why I play mechwarrior games.
So I think 8 players per team should be enough. Roman army had 8 man squads (
https://en.wikipedia...ki/Contubernium)
klaster, first off, I respect your opinion, but for Mechwarrior Online there is a literal
sweet spot for the amount of mechs within a match to keep the match moving forward with consistent action and finality
WITH the appropriate balance with its' current design iteration within Quick Play. Right now it is at that point where there is a balance toward a moderate level of difficulty in strategy and mech design.
When you reduce the amount of mechs from 12v12 (or 24 players) to 8v8, in the 15 minute period on the size of maps we have, you leverage toward ammunition based mechs being the dominant mechs. That's just a historical fact that we both witnessed in closed beta. Heat metrics being altered from back then still doesn't negate that fact, and I highly doubt anyone here wants to experience the whole heat debacle again when it controversially could have just been solved in numerous ways, with one of them being an increase in player count.
Back to the main topic;
Going larger than 12v12 (24 players), to let's say 16v16 (by adding 4 players per side as an example - 32 players) would skew mechs over-time toward laser builds with the current size maps that we have.
Anyone reading this might be wondering 'what does size of the map have to do with anything?'.
Well when you deal with a time crunch and ranged firing with ammo, you can miss, and missing means one less shot. That precision means absolutely nothing on small maps like we used to have in closed beta with less mechs, like 8v8 (16 players).
So if I was in your position and wanted to make a simple request to PGI, like you are doing now, a logical request could be:
- maps increase in size by 20% in every direction (x,y,z)
- the timer remains as it is so it can possibly time-out with the new size/dimension change (which is extremely rare)
- the player count be reduced by 20% to 10v10 (or 20 players according to your title)
The points listed above are the only reasoning I can think of, along with specifics, that would make sense in a reduction. Ammunition based weapons can be leveraged against beam based weapons accordingly and the engagements won't be limited by weapon type like they would be in an 8v8 scenario or a 16v16 scenario. Also, having less mechs active in the map itself would also allow the map designers to put more environmental effects within the maps that won't stress the servers (20% reduction in constant player stress animation would increase the map animation by, at the minimum, 20% to an unknown variable because the animations won't be constant).
But since I enjoy difficulty in games (8v8 is just easy and will be boring on current sized maps..just a fact that I think you haven't considered), I personally would request:- a map size increase by 20% in every direction
- increase the timer by 1 minute
- ask for a mode similar to a blackhawk down scenario
- leave the player count as it is (24 players) but start off with 12v4
- after 1 minute fly in the remaining 8 players to a random spot as reinforcements
3
