24 Players Are Too Much
#1
Posted 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM
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)
#2
Posted 15 September 2017 - 05:53 AM
One thought struck me: on really big matches like Polar or Alpine, depending on the mode two lances might spend a long, long time to find the enemies. That could be resolved by using varying map borders. So for each of those giant maps we get a set of possible borders and don't know which "version" of the map we get until we drop.
For example, Polar Highlands could be cut into four quadrants or even into long but narrow maps. We already have some maps with open borders, so players should be used to Betty bitchin about the mech having left the playground.
This way we would use parts of the maps that are now rarely used, and we would discover tactical features of those maps a lot of players might not even know are there.
#3
Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:20 AM
klaster, on 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:
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)
Well klaster... Here's the issue/problem with your idea... MWO is a Mech Warrior based game.. Which was a Fasa Battletech game... which MWO is based and taken from in the "world" and assets we use to kill each other in games...
In Battletech, Unit structure works as such... For the IS, a Lance is 4 Mechs and is the smallest mech unit other then a scout lance which is 3 mechs... The next level in Unit size is a Company.. Which is 3 Lances and supporting units of tanks infantry arty etc...
Next is Battalion which is 3 Companies.. and 3 up to 5 Battalions make a Regiment... MWO does it's best to stick the Lore of Battletech, while still offering and maintaining a game that is "balanced" for all players that play MWO...
Otherwise these FW battles would greatly favor the Clans, as the Clan Unit structure is much different then how IS does it.. They use a what is called a Star Unit Structure system, which broken down by the weight of the 5 mechs combined... which gives the Clans 5 mechs to the IS 4 they have in a Lance..
#4
Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:29 AM
24 is not enough,
Union class drop ship's
*actually already landed You spawn inside it and the team exits the dropship
64 player maps...... and much larger maps
#5
Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:39 AM
#6
Posted 15 September 2017 - 07:44 AM
Burning2nd, on 15 September 2017 - 07:29 AM, said:
24 is not enough,
Union class drop ship's
*actually already landed You spawn inside it and the team exits the dropship
64 player maps...... and much larger maps
..don't forget the Overlord Class Dropship.
#7
Posted 15 September 2017 - 10:58 AM
Burning2nd, on 15 September 2017 - 07:29 AM, said:
24 is not enough,
Union class drop ship's
*actually already landed You spawn inside it and the team exits the dropship
64 player maps...... and much larger maps
Indeed thumbs down... But yeah that could make a good FW objective if things were kept at 12vs12... Have a Union dropship come in and land near an enemy base... Then it unloads the company of mechs it carries to attack the nearby base... Which at the same time, the enemy force (defenders) in the base counter attacks to destroy the dropship which has landed and is acting as a forward base for the attack......
#8
Posted 15 September 2017 - 12:01 PM
dont be hurt when they take Fw away... lol
anyway the idea is, that the game has gone stale
#9
Posted 15 September 2017 - 12:04 PM
klaster, on 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:
Yes, but MechWarriors dropped in Companies of 3 Lances, meaning 12 mechs.
#10
Posted 18 September 2017 - 01:49 PM
#11
Posted 20 September 2017 - 08:22 PM
klaster, on 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:
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)
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
#12
Posted 11 October 2017 - 04:29 AM
klaster, on 13 September 2017 - 08:19 AM, said:
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)
OP/klaster could you put a poll on this thread so we can gauge the player-base because I have been hearing a lot of this lately. I don't necessarily agree with what I hear but nonetheless I wouldn't mind seeing what people think.
#13
Posted 11 October 2017 - 04:35 AM
m, on 11 October 2017 - 04:29 AM, said:
Thing is, a lot of people who mainly patrol the forums want to go back to the "glory days" while a good majority of people in match would give the idea a thumbs down. Which is why we need something like this; https://mwomercs.com...40-poll-system/
#14
Posted 11 October 2017 - 05:44 AM
Athom83, on 11 October 2017 - 04:35 AM, said:
An in-game poll system would be more interactive to the majority and reach a wider audience, quite literally on-demand. But then you could have idiots with multiple accounts try and skew a poll, either against the benefit of the game or not, for whatever reason, which we more than likely already have now.
Either way, if all the points of player numbers that have been brought up could be recognized within a poll, within this thread or in another fashion like you mentioned, it would at least be a start, especially before the anniversary at the end of October:
- 8 vs 8 - 16 Player Matches
- 10 vs 10 - 20 Player Matches
- 12 vs 12 - 24 Player Matches
- 16 vs 16 - 32 Player Matches
- 32 vs 32 - 64 Player Matches
If I were to literally go against what I mentioned in a previous post, if there were 4 teams of 16 players on a planet fighting with a single mech you would have a total of 64 players in a match fighting over a planet. The majority of mechs would obviously run out of ammo, leveraging laser weapons, and the match could possibly be laggy, but it would be something to behold...kind of like 4 way checkers and each team having 16 pieces, but clearly on a much bigger play area or map (at least 5 times the size of what we have now).
or more correctly this image;
Edited by m, 11 October 2017 - 06:23 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users