831 replies to this topic

[Lord Fatal1s]

Excellente idée.

Edited by Fatal1s, 07 June 2018 - 05:45 AM.

[Agent of Change]

Koniving, on 07 June 2018 - 05:35 AM, said:

Personally, both of these were NEVER necessary.

*snip*

Then what about the big groups of 24+ players who want to go in and just battle each other in the 12 vs 12 group queue?
I mean why change that?

For the first bit I agree partially, heavies are the main issue, but weight (and by consequence armor) does matter and larger teams. Mainly the hard limit should be no more than 3 of any weight class under any circumstance would be my argument. Assaults were just an example becasue they bring the afformentioned weight and armor.

The second part... that change is not what I'm advocating, and certainly not what i'd like but it's what Paul said they are looking at.

[B l i t z]

why not both?

8v8 Q and 12v12 Q?

[P]

i like dynamic gameplays

so 8v8, 12 v 12, 16v 16, 20 v 20 and 24 v 24 into the mix, just for the kicks of it

[Agent of Change]

B l i t z, on 07 June 2018 - 05:56 AM, said:

why not both?

8v8 Q and 12v12 Q?

If you recall they tried this and MM times spiked for all team modes because we really don't have the player base to split the queues any more. If that's changed then sure why not, have an 8v8 and a 12v12 team queue. (but what i suspect would be teh 12v12 team queue waits would get really long).

[Eisenhorne]

If it in any way diminishes your ability to improve faction play, then no, it's not worth the time. Stomps will always happen, I remember back when it used to be 8v8 it was still frequently one sided. Faction Play needs a more meaningful map, a way for IS to fight IS and Clan to fight Clan, and Incursion and Assault need to be much less annoying. Also better rewards for Loyalists, maybe after hitting rank 20 excess loyalty points can purchase unique "Loyalty" skins for mechs. Something. This would be far better than 8v8 quick play.

[Charles Sennet]

Would 8V8 permit bringing back old maps like the original Forest Colony and Frozen City? Those, and other maps, seem tailor made for less players on the field.

[LaserAngel]

Charles Sennet, on 07 June 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Would 8V8 permit bringing back old maps like the original Forest Colony and Frozen City? Those, and other maps, seem tailor made for less players on the field.

I was going to ask this too. I want 8 vs. 8 back.

[Agent of Change]

Eisenhorne, on 07 June 2018 - 06:02 AM, said:

Stomps will always happen, I remember back when it used to be 8v8 it was still frequently one sided.

If this is at all the reason this is being brought up then i don't even have words for teh shadenfreude I'll experience when people experience teh fact that less mechs on the field doesn't mean fewer ROFL stomps. 8v8 had MORE stomps than 12 every had, basic math friends if you though losing a mech in 12v12 was bad it's only 8.3% of your fighting strength in an 8 man team that same mech is 12.5% of your fighting strength.

8v8 matches snowball FASTER than 12v12.

Edited by Agent of Change, 07 June 2018 - 06:11 AM.

[Joe Mallad]

Hey Paul... please tell me that if you guys go to a 8 vs 8 that you'll leave the maps as they are? No adjusting of sizes please. Would be nice to have space to actually run and maneuver on the maps with 8 less total players. On that note, have you guys ever thought about a type of game mode for free pay that is similar to faction game play were we can get more than one Mech drop? Even if it's something like 2 Mech drop decks? Lose your first Mech and then you can get your back up Mech and come back into the fight?


But back to map sizes... PLEASE PLEASE leave them as they are now. 8 vs 8 doesn't mean maps have to be shrunken down again. The issue then was even with 8 vs 8, the maps were small and it was always brawl fests. People want to brawl all day, let them go to Solaris. Lowering the player countbit keeping the maps how they are will give us room to actually play and have fun.

Edited by Joe Mallad, 07 June 2018 - 06:15 AM.

[Bud Crue]

I’m kind of indifferent.

On the one hand, I think going back to 8v8 is bad optics for the game, but since it has been rebranded to focus its 1v1 and 2v2 mode above all else and add the fact of FP (the once vaunted 12v12 “end game”) has been allowed to whither for as long as it has, perhaps those optics are now irrelevant.

On the other hand, what the hell. From a game play perspective the only real drawback that I can see is the fact that on those fairly frequent occurrences where we have more than 8 players in GQ (admittedly this occurs less frequently of late) we would be forced to split up; and I am in the camp of “the more the merrier” style of play. That being said, 8v8 would not be the end of the world and if it means a potential better over all gaming experience, then what the hell.

[TheStealthDude]

Please no. The best way to win quickly is to coordinate with a full team. It's much easier to get a full team of 8 than it is to get a full team of 12. Therefore, we can expect this change to lead to more stomps in group queues as fully coordinated teams become more common.

[TorinZ]

No. Played 8v8 back in the day, and was fun. But enjoyed moving to the 12v12 format. To be honest, today's mechs versus what we had back then, pretty sure 8v8 would not be the same. And since everyone else has their own theory on how it would play out...I am pretty sure it would reduce the overall fun in Quick Play. I mean, if I had a Bushwacker, Warhammer, or clan mechs (just to name a few) back in beta, I am pretty sure 8v8 would have felt a lot different.

Dev Resources should be used to regroup on Faction Play and redesign it completely. Maybe with producing MW5 and seeing BT, they could have new ideas and put them in place.

[Banshee2X]

I massively support this and the amount of people voting “no” is utterly amazing to me considering the positives of 8v8 are as follows.
1. Better game performance due to the reduction of 8 Mechs being on the battlefield.
2. Potentially faster matches and shorter wait times between matches.
3. Server stability possibly increased from the reduced load on them.
4. Potential for better hit registration from the reduced load on the servers.
5. Potential for better team coordination and closer matches.
The only real negative I see is the fact you won’t earn as many chills or XP per match but I’m sure those values will be adjusted.

[Koniving]

Agent of Change, on 07 June 2018 - 05:46 AM, said:

The second part... that change is not what I'm advocating, and certainly not what i'd like but it's what Paul said they are looking at.

I know you're not advocating that group queue goes to 8 vs 8, the question is rhetorical / directed at PGI.

Not changing the group queue version would also allow players to have a 12 vs 12 with whatever they want.. Its a nice middle ground for those that want 12 vs 12 quickplay, as it would be 12 vs 12 quickplay with groups.

------------
PGI did the 3/3/3/3 thing. Few liked it and they did away with it. It was also pretty much untennable. Sure it'll be easier to do in an 8 player group, but.. eh. The game's fun dropped significantly if I could look at my team and know what the other team has.

It also ruined the potential of faction play as it became designed with that in mind, except it didn't work and they dropped it but faction play never got...fixed...
(That post was made with everything from the CW reveal in mind... and then it was nothing like it.)

But in truth, compare the amount of fun that long time players have now... as opposed to back then. Those of us still around who made youtube videos, you can hear all the fun being had even on the wrong of a completely stacked team, especially if we prevailed over said stacked team. Compare it to now... When the teams are "even" but the min/maxing is not even... one team is just completely slaughtered with no chance of turning it around, especially when the assaults drop in 2 hit kills, the mediums drop in one hit kills and the lights just flop.

When there's too much balance, it stagnates. Ever played chess? It'd take over 2,000 games before you might possibly come up with a single move that might not have been done before, and even then it was probably followed by and preceded by moves that other people have done before. And decades before you come up with an original strategy that hasn't been done before. This is where an absolute meta thrives, tinkered only by PGI's random mettling. In BT builds can be diverse because the foes encountered are also expected to be diverse. X laser vomit may not work when swarmed by 4+ lights. Y wouldn't have much luck with 4+ lights if Z has 3 streak boats. Z wouldn't have much luck with 3+ streak boats if A has ballistic boats. A wouldn't have much luck with ballistic boats if X has laser vomit, or if B has whatever... the idea is that the list keeps going and going and going until there's a complex maze of rock paper scissors lizard spock....or something even more convoluted. No absolute meta, because there's no guarantee of what you will face.

While its not the only reason, it was one of the many reasons that no meta was absolute, and often "meta" would be the "flavor of the day." It was fun to see what was being put to use and come up with a counter... then the next day that counter or some other one would be the dominant meta and we'd play the minigame again...and again..and again.. or we just coasted with what we found to be fun.

Fun...
Remember when this game was fun?
God... I almost can't.

------------
Now this is completely on a separate thing, but truth be told, I do kinda miss the 4 player groups in solo queue. While I agree that half the team being a group could suck again, if we do stick with 12 man groups I would certainly enjoy having 4 players grouped or higher tier as something with a bit more cohesion than the current system.

Let me tell you why. Right now you can be (as I am) in tier 4 and see several popular tier 1 players (or unpopular but so high on the Jarl's list that they gotta shove fact down your throat at every turn), and have none of them on your side. But when we had 4 players in the solo queue as a group, Alpha lance was always given to them. If you were in Alpha lance and NOT in a group, you knew only one thing, the old ELO rating considered you to be high enough to make up for the fact that you're not a group player. Especially if you're in the top position (it used to sort players by ELO, and at the end of the match by match score within each lance as of UI 1.1, prior to that with the 2012 UI they were sorted entirely by match score). Typically this was done to counter four player groups against either a 3 player or a 2 player and 2 solos in the opposite side.

This means the "high end players" shoved into "low end matches" actually had a "Challenge" to deal with. That oughta do something to humble those that think stats mean everything by removing them from matches where they can farm, and putting them into matches where they can show their skill even if the skill base they are put into is lower than where they should be.

In 8 vs 8... I can see why people wouldn't want it. I don't really have friends on here anymore (they all quit long ago because this game stopped being fun). But even so I wouldn't mind seeing it, or maybe a 2 player premade. I dunno. But I do miss that challenge. Just a little tougher than playing against pure soloists as a soloist against a 2 or 4 player premade, not as tough as going against a 12 man as a 2 player group.

Agent of Change, on 07 June 2018 - 06:00 AM, said:

If you recall they tried this and MM times spiked for all team modes because we really don't have the player base to split the queues any more. If that's changed then sure why not, have an 8v8 and a 12v12 team queue. (but what i suspect would be teh 12v12 team queue waits would get really long).

If 8 vs 8 and 12 vs 12 wasn't split, though, you sign up for one and you get both depending on what fills up sooner... then it wouldn't be split.

The problem is the limitations on the other end with the game code.

[PanzerMagier]

QP was fun when you only had to carry 7 potatoes. Space captain says yes to 8v8 QP.

Also this thread is poorly advertised, I agree, it should be on MWO frontpage website.

[M T]

Since engine is so crappy with
huge fps drops i’d say yes. Also easier to
carry teams with bad players

[VXJaeger]

8vs8 because of better hitreg and smaller murderball instamelting your face.

[Agent of Change]

Virtually Dark, on 07 June 2018 - 06:27 AM, said:

I massively support this and the amount of people voting “no” is utterly amazing to me considering the positives of 8v8 are as follows.
1. Better game performance due to the reduction of 8 Mechs being on the battlefield.
2. Potentially faster matches and shorter wait times between matches.
3. Server stability possibly increased from the reduced load on them.
4. Potential for better hit registration from the reduced load on the servers.
5. Potential for better team coordination and closer matches.
The only real negative I see is the fact you won’t earn as many chills or XP per match but I’m sure those values will be adjusted.

How long have you played the game? I mean honestly i'm asking and not to beat you with experience or diminish your POV just the fact that anyone who has been playing since pre-release has in fact seen 8v8 in action and that's where a lot of these no's are coming from.

I am not making an arbitrary choice, go back a page and read my posts, I am making an informed stance based on experience. to address your points:

• 1. This is a fact, it can't be argued with but for a lot of gaming machines this isn't a significant problem. i won't say it isn't a benefit for many but it isn't a factor i'm considering in my case.
  
• 2. This was not that case. Matches haven't gotten any particularly longer with 12 instead of 8 per team and wait times are actually really good right now on average in my experience, there were times with the 8v8 iterations where it was similar waits or even significantly longer, it will depend on potential implementation.
  
• 3. Server stability won't be impacted significantly i a positive direction as unless the overall player count drops, same amount of players no matter what plus more individual games being hosted means we'll break even or have a negative impact on the same amount of servers theoretically.
  
• 4. See point 3.
  
• 5. This is not actually the case, and this is from experience. In 8v8 every mech is worth more to the team than in a 12v12. a single spud, DC, or early kill is a bigger swing. 8v8's snowball harder and faster than 12v12 games because you lose more proportional firepower with each loss.

Again i don't want to smack you down just give you a perspective from people who have seen it in action. I liked 8v8 when it worked but 12v12 works well and IMO better than 8v8 did on average.

(checking your profile i see you created the account back in 2014 so I assume you are also an old hand here, in which case I think that it would be obvious to you why some of us are not fans of the idea of going back to what were often teh bad old days.)

Edited by Agent of Change, 07 June 2018 - 07:17 AM.

[Ghostkodiak]

How will switching to 8vs8 effect achievements?