415 replies to this topic

[Peter2k]

ForceUser, on 04 March 2018 - 10:46 PM, said:

Now tell me why it's OK to upset 25% of the player base permanently because you want 8v8 but when it comes to FP and the much smaller part of the fanbase that will be out of a game mode for only 2-4 weeks (not PERMANENTLY) it's such a huge issue?

well fist off, long tom permanently pissed off more players than that

secondly, once a mode (that has never been going well because its too difficult to get the players steep steep expectations met /s) goes offline, its also easier to just say "we tried, didn't live up to it, not going online again as it doesn't meet players standards and expectations"

like Russ already said in the production update, players have big expectations of FP, and me thinks he said he is not sure if PGI can deliver
that's also an easy way to cancel something that is too bothersome, its already off

then statistics say "players keep on playing anyway" and poof its gone

Edited by Peter2k, 05 March 2018 - 11:11 AM.

[sycocys]

Imperius, on 05 March 2018 - 07:18 AM, said:

Well there is this news.

https://twitter.com/...9151960064?s=21

Its not a factor any more because the active population tanked. Not that Russ would come out and state that as they've been doctoring the population numbers since leaving closed beta.

* Also 8v8 still wouldn't sell mechpacks and Solaris has shown that it has without even even being released.

Edited by sycocys, 05 March 2018 - 11:29 AM.

[Imperius]

sycocys, on 05 March 2018 - 11:27 AM, said:

Its not a factor any more because the active population tanked. Not that Russ would come out and state that as they've been doctoring the population numbers since leaving closed beta.

* Also 8v8 still wouldn't sell mechpacks and Solaris has shown that it has without even even being released.

You’re preaching to the choir man. I’ve tried my best to express what i felt would have “righted the ship” the community did not resonate with what I purpose be done.

Most of MWO’s glairing issues and CW’s downfalls and issues are caused by a unstable and hard to work with foundation. CryEngine! Look at StarCitizen. It will never be complete.

The last MechCon they talked about how easy Unreal is to work with and test things without building it from scratch just to find out it doesn’t work.

Now we’re stuck with CryEngine, the population is at an all time low, and Summer is just around the corner. Solaris for some reason is what is coming next and I personally see it failing. I was right about CW. Of course that’s a 50/50 shot. No one wanted to improve the foundation and now it’s crumbling.

[sycocys]

Imperius, on 05 March 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

snip

I can't even seem to re-download the Star Citizen launcher, it wants me to buy a more expensive starter pack than what I own.
-- that's just an odd side note, I don't think it will ever be "done" either but I do see a point where they will more or less be forced to release it via class action suit if they don't start rolling out stuff into gold or at least a proper beta status in the next year or so.

Seen more than a few developers going the near complete fail route with Unreal as well, not really surprised that PGI wouldn't have the necessary skill-sets to make it work, that's a primary driver in why I have little faith in MW5.

I still think it would be the best course for the balance group to round up a few coders and artists and make at the least a sandbox/mod ready alternative.

[Kalimaster]

Why could the matchmaker not be programed to adjust matches between 8 vs. 8 and 12 vs 12, depending upon the number of available players at the time.

[JohnnyWayne]

Kalimaster, on 05 March 2018 - 03:40 PM, said:

Why could the matchmaker not be programed to adjust matches between 8 vs. 8 and 12 vs 12, depending upon the number of available players at the time.

I'd even take 4v4 on the old maps.

[Solahma]

I support 8v8. I know full-well the argument from both sides, but I still stand 100% with switching to 8v8 for a number of reasons. Here is a list of advantages and disadvantages. Some are good assumptions, others are purely speculation, I will try to separate them as such.

+ Less players in a match instance = better performance (good assumption)
- More match instances per server due to lowering the requirements per match.

• This should be a given, however I doubt it would be night/day. Server performance might not increase tremendously due to potentially more match instances running.
  
• Client-side performance will most definitely benefit the most, with server performance trading between less intensive match data versus more match instances. This becomes more speculative and unknown to me.

+ More space for maneuvering on maps. (100% fact)
- Less mechs on a map, potentially longer "walking time" before fighting (speculation)

• most maps result in choke points and cover-peeking that become very congested. Working around your team mates to find line of sight. Areas where two mechs are attempting to make trades from limited cover. Mechs blocking each other despite best intentions. It results in cluttered areas on most maps that feel bad. Competitive 8v8 matches with coordination show there are many more options with cover usage and positioning compared to 12v12. Less players in a match does not mean it will be more of a walking simulator. In-fact, less players will indirectly buff brawling and a team's ability to close with their opponents because of less maximum returned fire. This is speculation because the matches will play different enough to change how the game flows in some instances, both slower and faster, so it's a neutral trade-off.

+ Improved Match Making Quality (speculation)
- Increased burden on top players (speculation)

• With less players needed to fill a match, there is a greater chance that matches will be more even on every front. I would expect less extremes overall in terms of team versus team comparisons (PSR, weight classes, etc).
  
• Top players potentially have a greater impact on a match outcome. This is more of an issue with PSR itself and not something you can solve with players in a match. It's ultimately a separate issue that should be addressed. This issue has been brought up a lot and It could very well prove to be true. However, Top players are already required to carry many worse players on their team. I believe this an immediate offset. With less *bad* players on each team, the match becomes more balanced around an average player-skill. Even with our existing matchmaking, I think matches will be more balanced overall (less wipes). This is a point that we can dance around all-day, but we really won't know unless it's added (like many of these points). We can't even rely on previous 8v8 data by any means because maps were different, balance was different, mechs were different, etc.

+ Gameplay and Mech-building shake-up (100% fact)
- Metagame shift, requiring new balance changes (good assumption)

• reducing the amount of mechs in a match could result in new builds. Missile and Ballistic builds will require less ammo. This will spur minor tweaks to existing builds which is fun for many and a burden for others. Overall, I think stagnation hurts a game a lot more than shake ups. Stagnation in gameplay becomes repetitive and boring. This inevitably leads to burn-out and boredom. The combination of new build opportunities and changes to gameplay will remove some of the existing stagnation in the game which will add excitement for some. This is the same reason I think Solaris will be successful.
  
• This change will be a setback in balance potentially. The changes to builds and gameplay will inevitably cause a shift in stat balance. To what degree will be unknown until data can be collected as the meta settles. It could be a big issue, or a minor one. I'm leaning toward a minor issue because the 8v8 competitive scene is already providing some idea of balance, which seems fine. It's not terribly different overall. With QP being 8v8, the game could be balanced with 8v8 in-mind, which would benefit the competitive scene, so even this potential "issue" would benefit the game overall if the players-per-match was consistent.

- Less rewards from matches (100% fact)

• Rewards from each match would be lower with less damage potential, components, kills, assists, etc on the table. Simply adjust rewards to match what PGI currently thinks is a "good place"

- Some players who don't want 8v8 will leave (100% fact)
+ Some players would come back for 8v8 (100% fact)

• Both of these things WILL happen. It's a pretty moot point IMO. Some players will HATE the idea of 8v8 so much that they would actually quit. Some players will LOVE the idea of 8v8 and return to the game. It's just a given. However, I HIGHLY doubt that 25% of the player-base will stop playing the game or find marginally less enjoyment if it switched from 12v12 to 8v8. Just because a person votes to not want a feature, doesn't mean they are going to quit because of that feature. A change like team size doesn't fundamentally change the game. So some will leave, some will return, some will grit their teeth and remain, and the majority will get what they want. The majority won't be happy because they got what they want, but because they genuinely believe this will result in a better state for the game. They realize the advantages offset or outweigh the disadvantages. We'd be gaining more than we'd lose.

There is obviously a lot more that could be said about this, and I'll try to keep up-to-date with this thread and the topic in general.

[Imperius]

Well written. Thanks for your contribution!

[Spare Parts Bin]

Why not based on conditions 4x4,8x8,or 12x12. Conditions being pool of players,maps used,missions selected( we still need more game modes).

[valrond]

Belkor, on 02 March 2018 - 10:13 PM, said:

As opposed to 8-0 stomps? Not sure I see the point here. Remember, each bad teammate would have a much greater impact in an 8v8 match. Just 1 more bad teammate can result in a loss under the 8v8 system assuming everyone else is equally skilled. There will be as many 8-0 stomps in an 8v8 as there are 12-0 stomps in a 12v12 system. I guarantee it. We already had these lame / boring 8v8s during MWO beta.

The thing is, we already have way too many stomps with 12v12. I noticed the huge amount of them, so I started tracking them on a spreadsheet. It is even worse than I thought, nearing 70% of my games on solo queue. No, I don't mean all stomps are 12-0. They usually end up with 1-3 kills in the other team, but sometimes it reaches 4, but the match was decided from the beginning. Once you get 3-4 mech advantage, it's unstoppable. A 0-3 is not only a loss, it's s stomp. The snowball effect with 12 players is a lot bigger. You get the early advantage, the winning team gets encouraged, takes the offensive, attacks and focus on defending mechs that just run for their lives, ending in those unfun stomps.

So have just 30% of realtively close, fun games is not fun at all.

8 vs 8 on the other hand wasn't as stompy. Why ? Not enough mechs to kill enemy mechs so quickly as now. Now you make a wrong turn, or 4-5 mechs push and they kill a mech in a few seconds. Before it was hard, specially with the only mode of assault, if you went all together, you'd get our base capped and lost, so you had to make two teams, or go all in to cap the enemy cap. Now it's mostly firing the long range game for 5 minutes, and when a team gets that early advantage, it pushes and stomps the enemy team.

So I'm all for a variable 12 and 8 man qeues, 8 only for then the population is low.

[JohnnyWayne]

Solahma, on 05 March 2018 - 04:28 PM, said:

I support 8v8. I know full-well the argument from both sides, but I still stand 100% with switching to 8v8 for a number of reasons. Here is a list of advantages and disadvantages. Some are good assumptions, others are purely speculation, I will try to separate them as such.

+ Less players in a match instance = better performance (good assumption)
- More match instances per server due to lowering the requirements per match.

• This should be a given, however I doubt it would be night/day. Server performance might not increase tremendously due to potentially more match instances running.
  
• Client-side performance will most definitely benefit the most, with server performance trading between less intensive match data versus more match instances. This becomes more speculative and unknown to me.

+ More space for maneuvering on maps. (100% fact)





- Less mechs on a map, potentially longer "walking time" before fighting (speculation)

• most maps result in choke points and cover-peeking that become very congested. Working around your team mates to find line of sight. Areas where two mechs are attempting to make trades from limited cover. Mechs blocking each other despite best intentions. It results in cluttered areas on most maps that feel bad. Competitive 8v8 matches with coordination show there are many more options with cover usage and positioning compared to 12v12. Less players in a match does not mean it will be more of a walking simulator. In-fact, less players will indirectly buff brawling and a team's ability to close with their opponents because of less maximum returned fire. This is speculation because the matches will play different enough to change how the game flows in some instances, both slower and faster, so it's a neutral trade-off.

+ Improved Match Making Quality (speculation)





- Increased burden on top players (speculation)

• With less players needed to fill a match, there is a greater chance that matches will be more even on every front. I would expect less extremes overall in terms of team versus team comparisons (PSR, weight classes, etc).
  
• Top players potentially have a greater impact on a match outcome. This is more of an issue with PSR itself and not something you can solve with players in a match. It's ultimately a separate issue that should be addressed. This issue has been brought up a lot and It could very well prove to be true. However, Top players are already required to carry many worse players on their team. I believe this an immediate offset. With less *bad* players on each team, the match becomes more balanced around an average player-skill. Even with our existing matchmaking, I think matches will be more balanced overall (less wipes). This is a point that we can dance around all-day, but we really won't know unless it's added (like many of these points). We can't even rely on previous 8v8 data by any means because maps were different, balance was different, mechs were different, etc.

+ Gameplay and Mech-building shake-up (100% fact)





- Metagame shift, requiring new balance changes (good assumption)

• reducing the amount of mechs in a match could result in new builds. Missile and Ballistic builds will require less ammo. This will spur minor tweaks to existing builds which is fun for many and a burden for others. Overall, I think stagnation hurts a game a lot more than shake ups. Stagnation in gameplay becomes repetitive and boring. This inevitably leads to burn-out and boredom. The combination of new build opportunities and changes to gameplay will remove some of the existing stagnation in the game which will add excitement for some. This is the same reason I think Solaris will be successful.
  
• This change will be a setback in balance potentially. The changes to builds and gameplay will inevitably cause a shift in stat balance. To what degree will be unknown until data can be collected as the meta settles. It could be a big issue, or a minor one. I'm leaning toward a minor issue because the 8v8 competitive scene is already providing some idea of balance, which seems fine. It's not terribly different overall. With QP being 8v8, the game could be balanced with 8v8 in-mind, which would benefit the competitive scene, so even this potential "issue" would benefit the game overall if the players-per-match was consistent.

- Less rewards from matches (100% fact)

• Rewards from each match would be lower with less damage potential, components, kills, assists, etc on the table. Simply adjust rewards to match what PGI currently thinks is a "good place"

- Some players who don't want 8v8 will leave (100% fact)





+ Some players would come back for 8v8 (100% fact)

• Both of these things WILL happen. It's a pretty moot point IMO. Some players will HATE the idea of 8v8 so much that they would actually quit. Some players will LOVE the idea of 8v8 and return to the game. It's just a given. However, I HIGHLY doubt that 25% of the player-base will stop playing the game or find marginally less enjoyment if it switched from 12v12 to 8v8. Just because a person votes to not want a feature, doesn't mean they are going to quit because of that feature. A change like team size doesn't fundamentally change the game. So some will leave, some will return, some will grit their teeth and remain, and the majority will get what they want. The majority won't be happy because they got what they want, but because they genuinely believe this will result in a better state for the game. They realize the advantages offset or outweigh the disadvantages. We'd be gaining more than we'd lose.

There is obviously a lot more that could be said about this, and I'll try to keep up-to-date with this thread and the topic in general.

You forgot a thing. Increased TTK. Funny isn't it, that they reject the very thing they want to do. Why you wonder, well there arn't as many people around to shoot you simulantiously.

I noticed it ever since 12v12 came out - the games became stale and noone wanted to push or sometimes even peek as focused fire of 4 more mechs is way more punishing as it was before.

Also "Increased burden on top players (speculation)" is not true. Quite the contrary as they have fewer asses to carry. Armor is a shared HP pool in this game and less people can **** it up in 8v8 making your own armor more efficient. So actually its a buff for people know how to handle their personal HP-pool-share.

One could argue that makes your assaults more important again and something you want to protect even more than before.

Edited by JohnnyWayne, 06 March 2018 - 05:58 AM.

[Thermoluminescence]

Imperius, on 05 March 2018 - 11:41 AM, said:

Most of MWO’s glairing issues and CW’s downfalls and issues are caused by a unstable and hard to work with foundation. CryEngine! Look at StarCitizen. It will never be complete.

They are using lumberyard, and besides that their progress makes MWO's development look like a joke.

Besides, Star Citizen will never be finished not because of the engine, but because Chris Roberts will keep pushing the goal posts as long as people keep giving RSI millions of dollars.

[Dragonporn]

Read a lot of points in this thread from both sides. Gotta say, I personally enjoy 12v12 a LOT, I suppose a lot more than I would enjoy 8v8. If 8v8 would be set as main gamemode for solo QP, I probably won't leave, but it will definitely hurt fun factor for me. Even if it would (very speculatively speaking) balance out matches in some measure and improve matchmaking, it will lose this visceral, action packed massacre feel game has now. And honestly, all complaints about stomps and imbalances are so strange to me, can't say it goes overboard to the point of truly ruining fun. More competitive environment with more dependence on personal skill and mech build (meta) may start ruining fun even harder by forcing majority of players to use very restricted pool of meta builds, which if they won't go for, will hurt overall team score and be a cause of even harder stomps. This will kill this mode even faster than anything else.

Most importantly, I think solo QP is in a good place in terms of how casual, fun competitive mode should be. I wouldn't want any changes besides more maps/modes with small tweaks to existing ones. I don't see what's wrong with people, who prefer highly competitive modes (probably those who are already in units) stick with those, and leave QP with 12v12 for more casual crowd. When somebody starts boasting how good they are, while spending 90% of their time in solo QP, it's a bit comical...

And on performance note. It i unlikely that less mechs on the field will have any significant effect for overall performance. From my personal observations, framedrops (with sufficient hardware power) are caused on specific maps and in specific places (even with 0 players). That's an issue with the engine, don't think there's a way to solve it without big modifications (which may not even be possible).

Edited by Dragonporn, 07 March 2018 - 12:50 AM.

[sycocys]

I'll just put this out there about 8v8 -

It would be the most PGI-capable way of increasing the TTK without having to put the effort into actually re-coding the mechanics so that they can actually deliver a semblance of balanced gameplay.

"Most" of the maps are large enough that with 8v8 they could alter the drop points to further spread out and nearly -force- the majority of the matches into being lance versus lance combat as the initial confrontations. Some alterations to a few of the game modes could reinforce that.

End up being the most minimally viable amount of work they could possibly do to overall create the situation they claim to want to head towards. Additionally if they made the change to FW that 2 teams matched up for consecutive matches, they could implement scouting + standard (8v8 + a 4v4 scout) for a couple matches and keep the 12v12 dota matches and end up with lower queue times for the people that want to play it and a mode that actually provides something that actually resembles a campaign style system.

[Spare Parts Bin]

I think many of MWO's problems are game modes and maps. The old maps need to be brought back as well as new missions or changes to existing missions. Escort just needs to go.

[sycocys]

Spare Parts Bin, on 07 March 2018 - 04:45 AM, said:

I think many of MWO's problems are game modes and maps. The old maps need to be brought back as well as new missions or changes to existing missions. Escort just needs to go.

Escort could have worked out decently if it wasn't centered around one of the largest, slowest mechs and instead was something that actually had some context with the little bit of game they actually have.

[Mystere]

sycocys, on 07 March 2018 - 03:01 AM, said:

I'll just put this out there about 8v8 -

It would be the most PGI-capable way of increasing the TTK without having to put the effort into actually re-coding the mechanics so that they can actually deliver a semblance of balanced gameplay.

Now imagine that from a PR point of view. Is that a good way of attracting new players and expanding the game?

To me it looks more like death throes.

[Imperius]

Mystere, on 07 March 2018 - 07:09 AM, said:

Now imagine that from a PR point of view. Is that a good way of attracting new players and expanding the game?

To me it looks more like death throes.

If the community asks for 8 v 8! And gets 8 v 8. Then yes it’s great PR! People are looking for the few game developers out there left that take player feedback seriously.

[KHETTI]

No 8v8, cool i can finally go ahead and uninstall MWO, a big cheers to the community, you guys made this game what it is.
Russ and PGI, you guys need to get a grip.

[Imperius]

KHETTI, on 07 March 2018 - 07:48 AM, said:

No 8v8, cool i can finally go ahead and uninstall MWO, a big cheers to the community, you guys made this game what it is.
Russ and PGI, you guys need to get a grip.

Bye! Not sure what you’re referring to but I can assure you I never asked for community warfare, Solaris, or the new skill tree. Weird how those are the three things that have put the game in it’s current state.

If better client performance, longer TTK, and adding more options to actually play this game as a thinking mans shooter are not your thing. Then go have fun in PUBG.

More players on the screen has never made games more fun. It just makes you as the player less important.