415 replies to this topic

[Imperius]

WarHippy, on 14 March 2018 - 07:52 AM, said:

This is where our views diverge. I don't want the individual to have greater impact as this is supposed to be a team game. The individual can have great impact even in 12v12, but they are generally not the only deciding factor. I really want PGI to emphasize on the group dynamic rather than the individual. We both know the damage that has been done to groups over the years and it just feels like people want to throw up their hands and give up by focusing more on the individual.
Does anyone change their opinion on anything around here, or for that matter rethink their lack of real arguments? You seem to be projecting.
Well said. I may rub you the wrong way, but I just want the discussion to be had. Just because something sounds good on paper doesn't mean it actually is good. Things need to be discussed. Different opinions provide different perspectives that can help iron out potential pitfalls that otherwise would not have been noticed until it was too late.

Side note: I don't think anyone ever wanted to stop your crusade for the MKII they just didn't care for your way of crusading for it. It certainly rubbed a lot of people the wrong way to the point some didn't want the MKII just to spite you.

The thing is PGI doesn’t support groups at all. Constantly makes sure to punish them. Sure they could undo those punishments but they won’t. So fhis is the compromise. I mean you were around when Roadbeer and I fought for groups correct? It has always been important to me.

That’s also why I fought for single player/coop or AI opponents. PGI has fundamentally destroyed their game to help potatoes feel like they are good or make a difference. I tried to give them a place to play and not punish the rest of us so we can actually have fun. CW also died because of its lack of an AI opposition. Solaris will be no different.

Did you click my link to that album where one group of 4 was always extremely bad. All those matches I got around 1000 damage and still lost. Those numbers aren’t inflated either with spread damage.

That’s not fun, the term carry harder exists because of that. I play pvp games to win, potatoes play this game to larp. Then have the audacity to come here in the forums and complain about losing and the game isn’t fun because they don’t want to be forced to “meta”

Edited by Imperius, 14 March 2018 - 10:19 AM.

[Solahma]

Splatshot, on 14 March 2018 - 09:45 AM, said:

The maps were way smaller....they will have to change all that otherwise you might never find the other team.

You do know that maps like Polar Highlands are used in 8v8 competitive right? Do you honestly believe that the maps are so large that you'd simply not find the enemy. On the contrary, early team movement would be MUCH more important. Scouting and cautiously moving ahead would be a lot more important. In 12v12 we've seen exactly what happens on every map. It's the same thing again, and again, and again. It's extremely predictable and dumbed down. This happens because the maps are actually SMALL for 12v12. They only offer teams of this size a limited amount of natural options. By that, I mean that there are very clear and obvious routes to take and terrain to hold that is suitable for 12 players. It 8v8, you'd actually increase the available options to a team.

Ultimately, yes there is a chance that teams take a little longer to engage. But that's A GOOD THING, because that time moving is a lot more important and tacticoolool. You'd see matches playing out differently each time because movement is easier. It encourages more decision making and strategy.

I'd be one of the first to complain about not fighting in a game built around the foundation of good mech combat. But this shift didn't make me bat an eyelash. I'm not worried in the slightest about the map sizes we have now. I think all maps would play-out BETTER with this size, and less players.

[Splatshot]

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 10:25 AM, said:

You do know that maps like Polar Highlands are used in 8v8 competitive right? Do you honestly believe that the maps are so large that you'd simply not find the enemy.

No I did not know that. Then like you said it may not matter for the skilled players that are left.

However, I would guess the people who do not move together or communicate, anyone below t3, will never find them easily on most maps without major changes. So New players will have more issues... that may be good or bad.

[Solahma]

One of the most enjoyable parts about 4v4 scouting was that matches were vastly different every drop. Fighting in areas that were not used much. Moving through areas you'd typically never see in a 12v12. While 8v8 will still be more predictable than 4v4, it goes without saying that less players in a match offer more options for setting up engagements. It does give you less options after the primary fight has started though. In 12v12, you have the potential for back-up to arrive, fresh mechs to trade out positions, flank movements. For example, in 12v12 you could have 8 frontline mechs and 4 flanking mechs which works very well if you can naturally make it work with your team. The problem is that MOST matches have less coordination and the 8 frontline mechs typically start following the flanking mechs which results in full-team rotations, or NASCAR.

[Splatshot]

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

That’s not fun, the term carry harder exists because of that. I play pvp games to win, potatoes play this game to larp. Then have the audacity to come here in the forums and complain about losing and the game isn’t fun because they don’t want to be forced to “meta”

Every game has this issue, however as the population here is so small it is an issue.
Other games also have the Tier Level of the Tank/Boat/Plane to deal with that as your LARPers never get up to the High Levels, here all mechs are in the same bucket.
I see no way of doing that here though, so you get the issue two fold.

[Solahma]

Splatshot, on 14 March 2018 - 10:42 AM, said:

I see no way of doing that here though, so you get the issue two fold.

Reducing the match sizes could help put the right players in the right matches... just a thought...

[Sjorpha]

Splatshot, on 14 March 2018 - 10:30 AM, said:

No I did not know that. Then like you said it may not matter for the skilled players that are left.

However, I would guess the people who do not move together or communicate, anyone below t3, will never find them easily on most maps without major changes. So New players will have more issues... that may be good or bad.

Players that don't organise around a strategy will keep funneling to the same central grids they are going now. 8 mechs in F7 aren't harder to find than 12 mechs in F7. I really doubt that aspect of solo queue would change.

[Splatshot]

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Reducing the match sizes could help put the right players in the right matches... just a thought...

Only if the tool you use to sort them, works.

With PSR the way it is now, I do not think it will matter.
If it did work, then yes.

[WarHippy]

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

The thing is PGI doesn’t support groups at all. Constantly makes sure to punish them. Sure they could undo those punishments but they won’t. So fhis is the compromise. I mean you were around when Roadbeer and I fought for groups correct? It has always been important to me.

I was right there with you guys fighting for the groups. I'm still fighting for them which is why I prefer it remain 12v12.

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

That’s also why I fought for single player/coop or AI opponents. PGI has fundamentally destroyed their game to help potatoes feel like they are good or make a difference. I tried to give them a place to play and not punish the rest of us so we can actually have fun. CW also died because of its lack of an AI opposition. Solaris will be no different.

Solaris may fail, but I don't think it will. Single player and Co-op also are not an alternative to people wanting fun PVP. Potatoes are always going to exist.

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

Did you click my link to that album where one group of 4 was always extremely bad. All those matches I got around 1000 damage and still lost. Those numbers aren’t inflated either with spread damage.

I saw them, but I don't see them as evidence we need to make individual performance more of a focus. I do see that we need a match maker that is more than just an XP bar.

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

That’s not fun, the term carry harder exists because of that. I play pvp games to win, potatoes play this game to larp. Then have the audacity to come here in the forums and complain about losing and the game isn’t fun because they don’t want to be forced to “meta”

Everyone should be playing to win, and its why I hate the surrender option in other games like LoL for example. That being said there is room for hardcore players and lore enthusiasts but it requires better provisioning of the players than the tier system and current game modes provide.

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 10:40 AM, said:

One of the most enjoyable parts about 4v4 scouting was that matches were vastly different every drop. Fighting in areas that were not used much. Moving through areas you'd typically never see in a 12v12. While 8v8 will still be more predictable than 4v4, it goes without saying that less players in a match offer more options for setting up engagements. It does give you less options after the primary fight has started though. In 12v12, you have the potential for back-up to arrive, fresh mechs to trade out positions, flank movements. For example, in 12v12 you could have 8 frontline mechs and 4 flanking mechs which works very well if you can naturally make it work with your team. The problem is that MOST matches have less coordination and the 8 frontline mechs typically start following the flanking mechs which results in full-team rotations, or NASCAR.

Personally I have found that the biggest difference in scouting that causes what you describe is how the game mode is designed. Limiting the type of mechs and having an actual goal/objective of collecting data points scattered all over the map gives more reason for to players to spread out and scout. If it was 4v4 with assault mechs you would see less of that and more go to X on the map to fight because nobody wants to run all over the map in an Annihilator.

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 11:01 AM, said:

Reducing the match sizes could help put the right players in the right matches... just a thought...

It could, but it won't because it uses the tiers as the bucket of players it is pulling from and even within tier 1 the range of skill is very large. If they ever manage to better segregate players by skill level the truly gifted(and for that matter the truly terrible) are going to have long wait times to find a match. When that happens what do we do so those players don't quit? I suppose we could always move back to 12v12 where the individual isn't as important so we can open up the range of players they play with.

[Splatshot]

Sjorpha, on 14 March 2018 - 11:30 AM, said:

Players that don't organise around a strategy will keep funneling to the same central grids they are going now. 8 mechs in F7 aren't harder to find than 12 mechs in F7. I really doubt that aspect of solo queue would change.

When I play that doesn't seem to happen, but as I am T4 and play less than 30 matches a year these days.
I may be wrong. It has been quite awhile since I played consistently.

I also know that in real skill system I would never be a T1, so if ever did the XP/time to get there it would be wrong anyway.

[Imperius]

WarHippy, on 14 March 2018 - 11:54 AM, said:

I was right there with you guys fighting for the groups. I'm still fighting for them which is why I prefer it remain 12v12.
Solaris may fail, but I don't think it will. Single player and Co-op also are not an alternative to people wanting fun PVP. Potatoes are always going to exist.
I saw them, but I don't see them as evidence we need to make individual performance more of a focus. I do see that we need a match maker that is more than just an XP bar.
Everyone should be playing to win, and its why I hate the surrender option in other games like LoL for example. That being said there is room for hardcore players and lore enthusiasts but it requires better provisioning of the players than the tier system and current game modes provide.
Personally I have found that the biggest difference in scouting that causes what you describe is how the game mode is designed. Limiting the type of mechs and having an actual goal/objective of collecting data points scattered all over the map gives more reason for to players to spread out and scout. If it was 4v4 with assault mechs you would see less of that and more go to X on the map to fight because nobody wants to run all over the map in an Annihilator.
It could, but it won't because it uses the tiers as the bucket of players it is pulling from and even within tier 1 the range of skill is very large. If they ever manage to better segregate players by skill level the truly gifted(and for that matter the truly terrible) are going to have long wait times to find a match. When that happens what do we do so those players don't quit? I suppose we could always move back to 12v12 where the individual isn't as important so we can open up the range of players they play with.

You missed my point about PVE. I bet a lot of these potatoes wouldn’t play pvp if they had a choice. Which obviously they don’t.

Big groups are nice but too many systems struggle to make it viable and that’s why we need to go back to 8v8 and dial it back in. We’re not getting reworks on these systems and we’re not getting a new engine. Working with what we have 8v8 is a solid option.

Edited by Imperius, 14 March 2018 - 12:15 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

How many people that are calling for 8v8 played it before? When it was active in MWO.

The maps were way smaller....they will have to change all that otherwise you might never find the other team.

With them spending soo much money and resources on the maps like they said, i wonder if this even can happen.

This isn't correct, simply because people end up moving for the same map points every time.

Whether there 8 people or 12, they'll still go for the exact same locations. Huge chunks of most modern MWO maps are wasted space these days.

[Splatshot]

Brain Cancer, on 14 March 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

This isn't correct, simply because people end up moving for the same map points every time.

Whether there 8 people or 12, they'll still go for the exact same locations. Huge chunks of most modern MWO maps are wasted space these days.

Yeah, based on what was said after that, i will not disagree with that.

However that just shows how bad the maps are when only one or two locations are used each battle.

Then again when you only play HPG, Mining Collective and a random one every so often, i guess it makes sense.

[Imperius]

Brain Cancer, on 14 March 2018 - 12:17 PM, said:

This isn't correct, simply because people end up moving for the same map points every time.

Whether there 8 people or 12, they'll still go for the exact same locations. Huge chunks of most modern MWO maps are wasted space these days.

Yup people probably will gravitate to the same points, but those points won’t be congested. Eventually and possibly not even used. It’s speculation.

One thing is certain, it won’t be as congested.

Edited by Imperius, 14 March 2018 - 12:32 PM.

[Mystere]

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 10:25 AM, said:

You do know that maps like Polar Highlands are used in 8v8 competitive right?

Which map do you think started the "MWO is now a walking simulator" complaint?

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

Then again when you only play HPG, Mining Collective and a random one every so often, i guess it makes sense.

To PGI's credit, Rubellite breaks the trend. There is no two spots people end up in every game, even now.

[Mystere]

Solahma, on 14 March 2018 - 10:40 AM, said:

One of the most enjoyable parts about 4v4 scouting was that matches were vastly different every drop. Fighting in areas that were not used much. Moving through areas you'd typically never see in a 12v12. While 8v8 will still be more predictable than 4v4, it goes without saying that less players in a match offer more options for setting up engagements. It does give you less options after the primary fight has started though. In 12v12, you have the potential for back-up to arrive, fresh mechs to trade out positions, flank movements. For example, in 12v12 you could have 8 frontline mechs and 4 flanking mechs which works very well if you can naturally make it work with your team. The problem is that MOST matches have less coordination and the 8 frontline mechs typically start following the flanking mechs which results in full-team rotations, or NASCAR.

I call that a "player problem" rather than a "12v12 problem". <shrugs>

[Solahma]

Mystere, on 14 March 2018 - 12:53 PM, said:

I call that a "player problem" rather than a "12v12 problem". <shrugs>

I am inclined to believe that good design must account for its players and their tendencies. There are very clear tendencies of MWO players in solo quick-play. The amount of players in a match influences what players do and how they play. Obviously it's not the only factor. No one is claiming that. But it does influence how players naturally play a match. It controls what areas are congested and where firing lines form. It controls what flanking opportunities are available and which are being guarded.

While 12v12 creates more opportunities to coordinate, it also creates more opportunities to FAIL at coordination. It can amplify both extremes more frequently than smaller matches with less players.

It really is a fine-line on this front. Both 8v8 and 12v12 have merits and nuanced differences that I can appreciate. Like i've said from the beginning, 4 less players on each team isn't going to dramatically change how the game works or player mentality. My belief is that it would simply encourage better behavior for team coordination.

I've drop-called many solo matches to great success. It's crazy how easily you can roll through 12 mechs when people listen to a leader and perform their tasks. It's also nearly impossible for the other team to counter unless they have enough skilled players to carry or coordinate themselves by equal measure. In 8v8, as everyone seems to agree with, the individual has more weight and his/her performance is more crutial to success. These two things combined means that a coordinated 8-man would be easier to battle against if you have decent shots on your team. In other words, you can combat coordination with skill. It gives teams more of a chance when 6 of the 8 players aren't listening, refuse to listen, disagree with bad timing, etc. It tones down those extremes.

While that's sorta like nerfing coordination potential, it also has the potential to to increase coordination quality and consistency. Less players to communicate with is easier, less intimidating, and a higher chance of full-team cooperation IMO.

Edited by Solahma, 14 March 2018 - 01:17 PM.

[LordBraxton]

Imperius, on 14 March 2018 - 10:17 AM, said:

The thing is PGI doesn’t support groups at all. Constantly makes sure to punish them. Sure they could undo those punishments but they won’t. So fhis is the compromise. I mean you were around when Roadbeer and I fought for groups correct? It has always been important to me.

That’s also why I fought for single player/coop or AI opponents. PGI has fundamentally destroyed their game to help potatoes feel like they are good or make a difference. I tried to give them a place to play and not punish the rest of us so we can actually have fun. CW also died because of its lack of an AI opposition. Solaris will be no different.

Did you click my link to that album where one group of 4 was always extremely bad. All those matches I got around 1000 damage and still lost. Those numbers aren’t inflated either with spread damage.

That’s not fun, the term carry harder exists because of that. I play pvp games to win, potatoes play this game to larp. Then have the audacity to come here in the forums and complain about losing and the game isn’t fun because they don’t want to be forced to “meta”

This summarizes why all of my IRL friends quit MWO, and why I finally stopped playing a long time ago as well.

When they floated the idea of return to 8v8 I was fully erect and ready to return. My discord group asks anytime MWO is brought up in conversation, "8v8 back yet?" or "can we duo in the solo queue yet?"

I feel like I have to play MWO alone, and then even carrying 3x my weight can be meaningless, or I need to rejoin a big unit and run organized 6-10 man drops.

They catered to casuals and the game went to ****.

[SFC174]

Imperius, on 13 March 2018 - 04:12 PM, said:

Maybe you'll just end up in a match without those two because you weren't needed to "fill spots"

Again quit dismissing what is being said by many. None of us said it will fix any of these systems you keep bringing up. We said it would help remove strain on them.

I'm getting tired of your strawmans.

That word, it does not mean what you think it means.

Your willful ignorance about the matchmaker, and the point I'm making, is both amusing and disappointing. As a Tier 1 player, I count the same to the matchmaker as any of those top players - this is a flaw, but its how it is. I'm not a spot filler that gets pulled in when enough Tier 1s aren't available. Your assertion that 8v8 would take strain off the matchmaker is wrong for precisely that reason. And until the rating system is fixed, 8v8 is a bad idea. Not because 8v8 doesn't fix the matchmaker (that's your strawman, I never said it should or would), but because the matchmaker's flaws become amplified with fewer players in the game. Nothing you've said argues against that, and the reason I keep beating you about the head with it is because it's a critical flaw with going back to 8v8. Get PGI to fix that first and I'd support 8v8 in a heartbeat (even if I think fewer players is less interesting, I'd trade fewer players for an improved MM).

It's also why 8v8 would actually be better for group drops. Since there is no matchmaker there, other than trying to fit the right sized groups together, changing match size wouldn't matter from an MM standpoint. But its death to solo queue.