90 replies to this topic

[Dethl0k]

I would love to have the option of 8v8 and 12v12, in beta in a 8v8 there was so many times I was the last mech left and had to fight 1-3 people and sometimes pull it off and feel like a hero (although the hunch 4p laser vomit was godly back then) now in 12v12 that’s a rare occurrence, usually if I’m last I’m fighting 4-6 mechs with no chance of winning. Better chance of Epic moments in 8v8. But I don’t want to lose 12v12 either. We need more content/options not less

[Spare Parts Bin]

50 50, on 11 March 2018 - 01:38 PM, said:

I voted for the 12v12/8v8 mixed quick play, but feel that when the population is fluctuating that it should even accept 4v4.

It's not about punishing groups or anything like that but simply a mechanism to combat wait times and it should be dynamic.
This should just be a thing for both quick and faction play.
If should just be a simple test every 30 seconds.
Is there enough players for 12v12
No
Is there enough players for 8v8
No
Is there enough players for 4v4
No
Wait another 30 seconds and repeat.

A added bonus that comes from allowing matches of different team/players size is that it creates variety in the games.
4v4 plays differently to 8v8 and to 12v12. So not only would it help wait times, but we get another difference in the combat that will change our experience and gives the game more life as a result.

Should work pretty easily for solo quick play, but to make sure players that form groups do not find themselves in a position where they cannot get a match, groups may need to be limited to 4 (a lance) or allow some way of letting the lances drop individually for a group.

Generally, solo quick play is pretty easy to get matches.
Group and faction play, not so much.

So, with all that in mind, I would request an update to the poll to allow for as much variation as possible within the common lance structure.

Dethl0k, on 13 March 2018 - 03:03 PM, said:

I would love to have the option of 8v8 and 12v12, in beta in a 8v8 there was so many times I was the last mech left and had to fight 1-3 people and sometimes pull it off and feel like a hero (although the hunch 4p laser vomit was godly back then) now in 12v12 that’s a rare occurrence, usually if I’m last I’m fighting 4-6 mechs with no chance of winning. Better chance of Epic moments in 8v8. But I don’t want to lose 12v12 either. We need more content/options not less

Why not all three? 8x8 was fun and could be great again just do not want to lose 12x12 though. I have never played 4x4 sounds interesting.

Edited by Spare Parts Bin, 13 March 2018 - 07:21 PM.

[BTGbullseye]

I too like the idea of 4v4 as an additional option that isn't limited to lights and mediums.

[Liveish]

Scout Derek, on 12 March 2018 - 04:15 PM, said:

I just wanted to say it again;

Please get your friends, unitmates, and others to vote. More votes means a better formulated opinion, and a better estimate of the population's opinion means an accurate need/want in the game.

Has russ advised when he was posting his poll ?

[Scout Derek]

live1991, on 16 March 2018 - 09:41 PM, said:

Has russ advised when he was posting his poll ?

Good question. He actually hasn't.

https://twitter.com/...427039411986432

According to him he said it may "Take awhile".

I take it they are monitoring this thread and watching the status and activity of this poll. That, or awaiting Solaris feedback before they decide to even take a look into this.

[Sleepyboy14]

Make it 24v24 instead.

[Pariah Devalis]

Considering I can practically watch a movie if I bother to queue up, 8v8 would increase the match speed, which is currently my biggest complaint with the game. Wait time between matches is just awful. Having fewer people to match per game would speed things up.

I suppose it would also be nice to get more frames out of the gameplay due to fewer mechs and effects to render, as well. More so for those with lower end PCs, but everyone benefits from a smoother gaming experience.

Plus, 12 v 12 was, has, and forever will be a bit of a clusterfrak. I said it when 12v12 was announced initially, I felt it when it was finally released. "More" does not mean "better." Fewer mechs on the field means an individually good player can have a larger impact, and an easier time compensating for a couple potatoes on the team.

Further, fewer mechs on a map of any given size means you can more effectively utilize the map. A huge blob of mechs can't exploit smaller areas as well as fewer mechs can, as fire lanes and movement paths start interfering with one another. This opens up avenues for alternative approaches to engagements.

[El Bandito]

Sleepyboy14, on 16 March 2018 - 10:56 PM, said:

Make it 24v24 instead.

Enjoy your 10 FPS MWO, when that happens.

[JohnnyWayne]

Well the main thread got closed now - no wonder that it is "dead in the water" when PGIs own staff keeps it that way.

[Ballistic Panicmode]

Why not an adaptable match size based on current server population, with the option to opt in/out of one of them?

[Spare Parts Bin]

Ballistic Panicmode, on 31 March 2018 - 10:13 AM, said:

Why not an adaptable match size based on current server population, with the option to opt in/out of one of them?

8x8 for the old maps, 12x12 for new, unless the playing population is low. If the population is real low 4x4 might be the fix.

[WinningOne]

It appears as though the major motivation for making this change is players believe their chances for winning the match will increase because there will be fewer bad players in each group. As a result tactics will improve and cheesy game play will decrease. There are a couple problems with this train of thought.

First, the other team will receive the same benefits yours does so, while your team tactics may improve, the other team will also see improved tactics and your chances of winning remain the same. Frankly, you have a better chance to being paired with tactically minded players when teams are larger anyway.

Second, as far as I can tell, having a good commander makes more difference in winning a Quickplay match than any other factor. If you really are frustrated with how things are going, you should be figuring out how to be a good commander instead of asking PGI to reprogram the game.

It's also important to not put too much weight into this poll. Technically, the poll is invalid because of its sampling method. We have no information about the demographics of the people participating in the poll or how they found out about it. Since it's a self-selection poll it has likely attracted a specific type of player from the base while many segments of the population have probably gone unrepresented. The only thing we can say from the poll is we know the opinions of the people who chose to participate.

Edited by WinningOne, 03 April 2018 - 05:25 AM.

[N3tRunn3r]

12v12//8v8 Mix

[Spare Parts Bin]

N3tRunn3r, on 06 April 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

12v12//8v8 Mix

12x12,8x8,4x4 all good options for QP.

[Tier5 Kerensky]

Tight MM tiers should be prioritized over team size, so that players should mainly fight againts players of their own tier. It won't do magic because the way tiers are defined but it would be step to right direction.

I do prefer 12 players over 8, and in fact would love to see like 16 or 20 team size. But it might not even run adequetly on my computer so I understand the technical problems.

[Ahne]

Please do it, after all these years 12v12 massacre matches, give us some tactical gameplay back, outside of 4v4 scouting. An 8v8 gamemode for quickplay would be fantastic, only advantages imo. I hoped and praised an 8v8 mode in 2014...still not here, because people have fun in nascar racesover in tiny maps where they can just brain afk run in circles and die in 1 min to leave the game and start another one, repeating.

[ScorpionNinja]

None of this **** matters to me, now HBS's BATTLETECH GAME is coming out this Late April 2018.

[MrXanthios]

Everything would be possible if the matchmaker took in account other factors than just the simple tier. K/D ratio, average match score during the last 3 to 6 months, overall precision with weapons and others that I can't think of right now. These are simple data that surely can be gathered to really match groups where all partecipants are more or less at the same level. Then we can do 8v8, 16v16, 24v24 and everything else that stimulates your fantasy.

Edited by MrXanthios, 11 April 2018 - 11:41 PM.

[Spare Parts Bin]

This idea of 8x8 is a moot point. I do not see any changes coming soon.

[Liveish]

They should move Group Q to 8v8 to start off with:)