

Add 8V8 And 4V4 To Qp
#21
Posted 23 February 2018 - 05:19 PM
8v8 games are more fun and dynamic. and you have a wider variety of tactics. thats why comp play is 8v8.
12v12 is too dominated by static gunlines and deathballing. its boring.
#22
Posted 24 February 2018 - 01:02 AM
#23
Posted 24 February 2018 - 05:32 AM
Khobai, on 23 February 2018 - 05:19 PM, said:
8v8 games are more fun and dynamic. and you have a wider variety of tactics. thats why comp play is 8v8.
And I say 12v12 is more fun that 8x8.
Therein lies the problem of a developer taking something away that people already find fun. Is the risk worth the rewards -- assuming the latter even materialize.
Khobai, on 23 February 2018 - 05:19 PM, said:
That can be solved by making a significant percentage of all maps highly dense and claustrophobic urban environments.

#24
Posted 24 February 2018 - 07:36 AM
Mystere, on 24 February 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:

Or by reducing match size. Which one is more realistic, huh? Its easy. 12 man teams only for CW, 8 man teams for Comp, 2-4 man teams for group queue. Dynamic match sizes from 4 to 12 players. Done.
This would make it easier for MM to match players btw.
Edited by JohnnyWayne, 24 February 2018 - 07:37 AM.
#25
Posted 24 February 2018 - 08:04 AM
CW scout 4 vs 4
CW invasion 12 vs 12
as we have now.
Solaris
1 vs 1
2 vs 2
16 Free for all with equal distribution of mech weight classes.
This is what I really want to see.
Maybe drop 2 vs 2 in s7 to ease the bucket burden
Edited by Tordin, 24 February 2018 - 08:05 AM.
#26
Posted 24 February 2018 - 08:23 AM
Mystere, on 24 February 2018 - 05:32 AM, said:
Well, they took away 8v8 which I enjoyed more than 12v12. They also took away my nighgyr even before I bought it. #neverforget.
#27
Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:25 PM
Nema Nabojiv, on 24 February 2018 - 08:23 AM, said:
People knew long ago that 8v8 -- along with "quick play" -- was just a stopgap measure until CW arrived.
Given you're a founder, I am surprised you're even complaining about fillers being removed.
JohnnyWayne, on 24 February 2018 - 07:36 AM, said:
This would make it easier for MM to match players btw.
So-called "easy" does not expand the game. Expanding the game actually does that.
As I said earlier:
Mystere, on 23 February 2018 - 05:04 AM, said:
Edited by Mystere, 24 February 2018 - 03:31 PM.
#28
Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:32 PM

#29
Posted 24 February 2018 - 03:40 PM
Since 8 v 8 was a thing the game has evolved dramatically as well. Alpha's have doubled and maps are now larger.
Good lord 8 v 8 would be terrible on polar and alpine.
If anything I would love to see more mechs and larger battles. That would feel less arena like to me.
#33
Posted 24 February 2018 - 04:13 PM
JohnnyWayne, on 24 February 2018 - 04:04 PM, said:
Dynamic match sizes only "fix" matchmaker problems. Those may be great for existing players, but they do appreciably nothing to expand the player base.
Khobai, on 24 February 2018 - 04:09 PM, said:
Oh! You've got an excellent point there.

#34
Posted 24 February 2018 - 04:25 PM
PGI seems to milk their cash cow product Mechwarrior Online, losing more players than gaining. The game is now 6 years old, 5 years officially. It looks more like 8 years old thanks to degeneration of graphics and the slacking on the side of engine development and upgrades. You won't cater to new players with a game like this.
Right now they probably don't even have the means to fix current issues with hit reg. A redesign of the match making process generates no revenue and even if they see the necessity to do so, from an economic point of view it is smarter to just keep mliking the cow.
A dynamic queue, would bring change of tactics into quickplay as this relates to group size. I don't see what your problem is with smaller match sizes to be honest. Smaller teams mean more individual skill is relevant. Perfect if you ask me. The upscaling is only in my explaination to show up advantages for accurate and individual match making.
Anyways, do you want to buy a mech pack?
Edited by JohnnyWayne, 24 February 2018 - 04:26 PM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users