831 replies to this topic

[Etherlane]

NOOOOOOOOOO...
This will ruining our C-bills Income~~ The more longer we're playing with less mech in the battlefield, The less cbill we get.. per seconds? per minutes? per hours? Maybe, idk.. What I know is.. I love C-Bills.. $_$ #SaveOurCbills

[Imperius]

TWIAFU, on 08 June 2018 - 04:17 AM, said:

Voting NO.

Will NOT change my vote UNTIL I know how it will impact MY game mode of choice, CW.

Tell us how it will effect that FIRST.

Zero interest in QP but you said the change will impact CW and the ability to address issues there. I, like a great many others, are here ONLY for CW. Unless you plan to flush all of us down the proverbial toilet you will need to address our concerns with the only mode in MWO we play.

CW will never be fixed because its main issue is the actual community. Units are practically dead all that are left are solos. They don’t want to be “farmed” so CW like Solaris will stay dead. As I said they would over 4 years ago.

[Agent of Change]

Saobh, on 08 June 2018 - 12:42 AM, said:

Frankly the people who state the "good ol' days of 8v8" seem to forget that a whole lot of variables have changed in the game since the change from 8v8 to 12v12.

Going back to 8v8 will not bring back the feel from those days

Specifically it should be noted the move to 12v12 was made Before clan mechs and clan tech. Before viable 80 point laser Vom builds. 8v8 was worse than 12v12 with goose egg rofl stomps and again that was BEFORE the tech/weapons that allowed the current super pinpoint alpha meta builds that are causing problems in 12v12 today.

Anyone at all who thinks that going back to 8v8 with teh builds prevalent today will be any better than it is now or was then is kidding themselves. Without a MAJOR overhaul of the weapons/alpha warrior nonsense (and ghost heat has never been a good fix) then 8v8 is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

what we ACTUALLY need is:

• Longer TTK through reduction in the viability of high alpha builds
  
• Focus on turning FW into something people want to play
  
• More maps people want to play (I'm so tired of seeing canyon network and HPG every other match)

Edited by Agent of Change, 08 June 2018 - 10:32 AM.

[Imperius]

Agent of Change, on 08 June 2018 - 04:26 AM, said:

Specifically it should be noted the move to 12v12 was made Before clan mechs and clan tech. Before viable 80 point laser Vom builds. 8v8 was worse than 12v12 with goose egg rofl stomps and again that was BEFORE the tech/weapons that allowed the current super pinpoint alpha meta builds that are causing problems in 12v12 today.

Anyone at all who thinks that going back to 8v8 with teh builds prevalent today will be any better than it is now or was then is kidding themselves. Without a MAJOR overhaul of the weapons/alpha warrior nonsense (and ghost heat has never been a good fix) then 8v8 is just rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

what we ACTUALLY need is:

• Longer TTK through reduction in the viability of high alpha builds
  
• Focus on turning FW into something people want to play
  
• More maps people want to play (I'm so tired of seeing canyon network and canyon network every other match)

Wants to increase TTK doesn’t relize that said high alpha builds require fodder to hide behind to cool down, 12v12 enables that fodder 12v12 also has a shorter TTK.

[TWIAFU]

Imperius, on 08 June 2018 - 04:22 AM, said:

CW will never be fixed because its main issue is the actual community. Units are practically dead all that are left are solos. They don’t want to be “farmed” so CW like Solaris will stay dead. As I said they would over 4 years ago.

If you actually played the mode as primarily designed you would know, like those that do play, your post is full of sh*t.

Solo are at fault for playing solo in the Group/Unit queue.

Groups are not at fault for SOLO S7 being dead, solo are. Should tell you something that solo don't even want to actually play solo but ride on the coattails of others.

And you know where you can find sympathy, right? In the dictionary between sh*t and syphilis.

[Voivode]

I liked 8 v 8 much better, it was a much more engaging experience as your contribution just mattered more. With 12 v 12 it really just comes down to who got fewer of those impatient players that just charge at the enemy and die. I feel like 8 v 8 had a way higher likelihood that a team down a few kills could rally and win it whereas 12 v 12 going down a few kills almost guarantees defeat.

[Agent of Change]

Imperius, on 08 June 2018 - 04:34 AM, said:

Wants to increase TTK doesn’t relize that said high alpha builds require fodder to hide behind to cool down, 12v12 enables that fodder 12v12 also has a shorter TTK.

Ok let's talk TTK then. providing fodder isn't the problem. The issue is two fold one practical one psychological. the practical issue is that it doesn't take 12 mechs right now to erase a mech in seconds it actually only take 3-5 and practically speaking in most cases that's all you are taking fire from in most cases unless you derp right out into the open with a death wish.

Practically making the teams 8v8 doesn't fix the issue that you still can and will get focused by 3-5 mechs. That 3-5 number isn't generally a result of 12 mechs on the map it's a factor of available firing lines, those don't change with 4 less mechs. You can talk about "fodder" to hide bhind with cools downs but that's not a strong argument when both sides are using teh heavy alpha high heat builds and both have to cool down. That won't change with fewer players, the meta may shift but quite frankly High alpha is so powerful it's not going to shift that much. So the fodder argument doesn't work because both sides will have the same issue.

Which brings us to point 2 the pyschological part of the equation. The short TTK provided by high alpha builds, amplified by focused fire has made the average player gun shy. That ALSO won't change with a move to 8v8 because of the practical issue above, what a move would do would make teh average player even LESS interested in taking any kind of risk because of how quickly 8v8 snowballs with teh loss of even a single mech. I know you remember the old 8v8, tell me you don't remember how prevalent rofl stomps were (and how pissed off about them people were) and again that was before the tech that currently enables alphas higher than anything we'd previously seen.

You aren't going to to see significantly longer TTK from the point of engagement on average in 8v8 than in 12v12 right now if nothing else changes. And that's the point, 4, 8, 12, 16 whatever really doesn't matter unless the stuff that's ACTUALLY the problem gets addressed. And as stated 12v12 isn't a problem right now IMO, I'm having more fun with teh game than i have since release and that does color my opinon. All things considered I think the 8v8 change would be detrimental because it would further exacerbate existing issues and I like the larger scale of the 12v12.

[Big boooka]

It is necessary to remove and quirky and other upgrades to do 8-player clan vs 12 players in the sphere. It is necessary to remove the quick game mode, this mode can not be balanced. Fast game is random, random can not be balanced.

Edited by Big boooka, 08 June 2018 - 05:20 AM.

[Imperius]

Agent of Change, on 08 June 2018 - 04:50 AM, said:

Ok let's talk TTK then. providing fodder isn't the problem. The issue is two fold one practical one psychological. the practical issue is that it doesn't take 12 mechs right now to erase a mech in seconds it actually only take 3-5 and practically speaking in most cases that's all you are taking fire from in most cases unless you derp right out into the open with a death wish.

Practically making the teams 8v8 doesn't fix the issue that you still can and will get focused by 3-5 mechs. That 3-5 number isn't generally a result of 12 mechs on the map it's a factor of available firing lines, those don't change with 4 less mechs. You can talk about "fodder" to hide bhind with cools downs but that's not a strong argument when both sides are using teh heavy alpha high heat builds and both have to cool down. That won't change with fewer players, the meta may shift but quite frankly High alpha is so powerful it's not going to shift that much. So the fodder argument doesn't work because both sides will have the same issue.

Which brings us to point 2 the pyschological part of the equation. The short TTK provided by high alpha builds, amplified by focused fire has made the average player gun shy. That ALSO won't change with a move to 8v8 because of the practical issue above, what a move would do would make teh average player even LESS interested in taking any kind of risk because of how quickly 8v8 snowballs with teh loss of even a single mech. I know you remember the old 8v8, tell me you don't remember how prevalent rofl stomps were (and how pissed off about them people were) and again that was before the tech that currently enables alphas higher than anything we'd previously seen.

You aren't going to to see significantly longer TTK from the point of engagement on average in 8v8 than in 12v12 right now if nothing else changes. And that's the point, 4, 8, 12, 16 whatever really doesn't matter unless the stuff that's ACTUALLY the problem gets addressed. And as stated 12v12 isn't a problem right now IMO, I'm having more fun with teh game than i have since release and that does color my opinon. All things considered I think the 8v8 change would be detrimental because it would further exacerbate existing issues and I like the larger scale of the 12v12.

Well neither of us can prove anything without testing.

[Agent of Change]

Imperius, on 08 June 2018 - 05:21 AM, said:

Well neither of us can prove anything without testing.

The thing is we already have data points and a wealth of experience from 8v8 to show that 8v8 was not decidedly better in terms of match quality than it is now. Graphically it was probably a bit less intensive and better for people on lower end machines, but I seem to recall long matchmaker times and ROFL stomps 3 out of 4 matches pretty clearly back then and that was following public release when the player base was at one of it's highest points.
SInce the last time we had 8v8 we have added: Clan tech, Maps designed with 12v12 in mind, and economy completely reworked with 12v12 in mind, and more that doesn't really impact the match itself.

(If we can actually see comparative metrics about how many one sided matches and matchmaking wait times then and now that would help a lot of folks see how they line up rather than going with best recollections, but unless PGI shares those with us we are kind of blindfolded as to the hard numbers,)

So while we can't "prove" anything without testing we can make some educated guesses based on current and past information. And most of that evidence says that 8v8 isnt' the primary issue, but moving to 8v8 (and doing it right) would require developer effort in reworking stuff that is currently working reasonably well while not working on the underlying issues.

As i said many times previously i'm open to 8v8 but only AFTER the big issues have been addressed and it can be shown that it would materially improve the game. I am completely unconvinced at this time that the effort required to change some thing that is currently IMO working as well as it can given teh factors involved to something that will likely exacerbate those problems is worth teh effort over the underlying (and if we are honest years old) problems.

Edited by Agent of Change, 08 June 2018 - 05:40 AM.

[RJF Volkodav]

Yes.But this shall go with matchmaker changes.
Old suggestion - make match size dependent on possibility to find best players elo matchup.
Use players stats (elo) to fill in teams. If match of 12 cannot be formed in desirable time - lower players count (i.e. 10-8-6), but maintain teams elo. Need to consider forming match with opponents with close elo value (not just summary value) to avoid having 3-4 top 100 pilots at the same team.
If you have a team of 10 in queue just dont cut the count and try to form a match with 10-12 players as it is today.
This type of matchmaking is used in a lots of other projects. Dont know why cant we have the same MM in MWO.

[-Spectre]

I don't think it is worth the time it would require to shift over to 8v8 in qp, especially looking at the division in the poll. However, I think it would be a great idea to give players an option of which to search for, like WarmasterRaptor mentioned. Don't make any other changes to the maps, and just see which one people like better based on what they search for.

[Burminator]

I would say maybe becouse well we still have a lot of disconnects. I don't like that, it already has a big impact as it is. For lower tier players this would be anoying if you drop with a pug who hasn't figured the game out jet and is overheating all the time and is not doing annything. I like the idee but you are missing some serios stuff like i just mentioned. I also do faction play a lot more and when one player disconnects for the whole game you know you are gonna lose unless you have one of the best strategies, okey the 8v8 thing is not FP but still. I think i would rather like a 10v10 option just to reduse the impact of all the disconnects even if they rejoin but mostly when they rejoin most of the battle is already decided and your team wiil be losing

[El Bandito]

Etherlane, on 08 June 2018 - 04:21 AM, said:

NOOOOOOOOOO...
This will ruining our C-bills Income~~ The more longer we're playing with less mech in the battlefield, The less cbill we get.. per seconds? per minutes? per hours? Maybe, idk.. What I know is.. I love C-Bills.. $_$ #SaveOurCbills

PGI will increase base rewards for 8v8. Remember, they reduced it when we switched to 12v12. So don't fret.

Burminator, on 08 June 2018 - 06:39 AM, said:

I would say maybe becouse well we still have a lot of disconnects. I don't like that, it already has a big impact as it is. For lower tier players this would be anoying if you drop with a pug who hasn't figured the game out jet and is overheating all the time and is not doing annything. I like the idee but you are missing some serios stuff like i just mentioned. I also do faction play a lot more and when one player disconnects for the whole game you know you are gonna lose unless you have one of the best strategies, okey the 8v8 thing is not FP but still. I think i would rather like a 10v10 option just to reduse the impact of all the disconnects even if they rejoin but mostly when they rejoin most of the battle is already decided and your team wiil be losing

You will have 1/3 less chance of having disconnected players in 8v8, compared to 12v12. So it evens out.

Edited by El Bandito, 08 June 2018 - 06:53 AM.

[Quandoo]

Only if it allows for more balanced gameplay by skill and solo vs clan play.
But I would like 24 FFA the best.

Edited by Quandoo, 08 June 2018 - 06:55 AM.

[Panthros]

I love the idea! I miss the old 8v8 maps!!!

You need to fix Faction Play and this would be a start. This would offer a key differentiator for Faction Play. I would also ask that you fix Faction Play to only allow Faction Play maps. I and many stopped playing Faction Play because it lost its feel after using regular maps.

[Kell Aset]

Voted NO, enough of time wasting, please ffs improve Faction Play already, make it worth playing , now it lacks depth and meaning, nothing matters in our so called "Faction Play", wins & loses don't matter, planets are all the same and don't matter, state of IS map doesn't matter. Not to mention that factions are all the same, actually now we have only two factions - clans and IS. I was a Kurita loyalist since Community Warfare was released and nothing in this game makes me care about my faction.

Btw. if anything, I would prefer to see more players per match, not less, more players for more epic battles, but that is not as important as FP improvements.

Edited by Kell Aset, 08 June 2018 - 07:36 AM.

[Imperius]

Agent of Change, on 08 June 2018 - 05:37 AM, said:

The thing is we already have data points and a wealth of experience from 8v8 to show that 8v8 was not decidedly better in terms of match quality than it is now. Graphically it was probably a bit less intensive and better for people on lower end machines, but I seem to recall long matchmaker times and ROFL stomps 3 out of 4 matches pretty clearly back then and that was following public release when the player base was at one of it's highest points.
SInce the last time we had 8v8 we have added: Clan tech, Maps designed with 12v12 in mind, and economy completely reworked with 12v12 in mind, and more that doesn't really impact the match itself.

(If we can actually see comparative metrics about how many one sided matches and matchmaking wait times then and now that would help a lot of folks see how they line up rather than going with best recollections, but unless PGI shares those with us we are kind of blindfolded as to the hard numbers,)

So while we can't "prove" anything without testing we can make some educated guesses based on current and past information. And most of that evidence says that 8v8 isnt' the primary issue, but moving to 8v8 (and doing it right) would require developer effort in reworking stuff that is currently working reasonably well while not working on the underlying issues.

As i said many times previously i'm open to 8v8 but only AFTER the big issues have been addressed and it can be shown that it would materially improve the game. I am completely unconvinced at this time that the effort required to change some thing that is currently IMO working as well as it can given teh factors involved to something that will likely exacerbate those problems is worth teh effort over the underlying (and if we are honest years old) problems.

So when 8v8 was originally out. We didn’t have half tiered match maker, we didn’t have clans, we didn’t even have VOIP.

But keep attempting to push your agenda without even attempting to test. We’re done talking you weren’t here for debate you we here to attempt to just discredit my post.

[Looming Dementia]

Laser Kiwi, on 07 June 2018 - 10:19 PM, said:

15 million is about enough for 2 decent mechs IS and not quite 2 clan, you forget, without double heat sinks endo and a better engine a lot of these mechs are FUBAR on ignition.

I was thinking more like a newbie buying a heavy, a medium, and a light. Newbies should not be in assaults, until they learn to not stick their noses around corners that haven't been checked by quicker teammates.

There's very little funnier than a Dire Wolf running (okay, plodding) down the slope from the saddle, into the underside of the loading dock, only to end up surrounded by 8 members of the other team. "But I'm in a 100 ton mech! How did I die SO QUICKLY?!?!?"

Well, maybe a legged Pirates' Bane ... although, that's more pathetic than funny.

Considering that you don't put an XL into an Inner Sphere mech that goes less than 110 kph or so, there's a bit of savings in going with a light engine, nowadays. The endo steel conversion is pretty cheap, too. The double heat-sink conversion is the expensive part.

Quote

New players also make bad choices so there ya go.

Eh, you can't always save them from themselves. If a newbie buys a King Crab, doesn't like it and sells it ... buys a Cyclops, doesn't like it and sells it ... buys an Atlas, doesn't like it and sells it ...

You can only throw so much money at a newbie. If they aren't going to ask for and take the advice of much more experienced players, they're not going to easily pick up any game.

Quote

i am on the fence, i don't know what 8 v 8 is like in random play, but it is the comp standard so maybe its a worthwhile thought, however you might be missing the critical mass needed for good 'conversation' with 8 strangers rather than 12.

In a single-queue game, things would be a lot rougher, yeah. Good coordination is rough enough as it is. Having 3 or 4 non-scout idiots wandering off on their own is less of a big deal, when you have higher numbers.

Also, dropping the numbers would make support mechs less viable. I like playing light support-mechs, when I'm not doing a brawler or mid-range missile/laser build.

Quote

PS my tier one bar is totally maxed out, it can't go backwards proving my tier is not based on actual skill, can we have a psr reset sometime.....

Likewise. Well, I'm in Tier 1, at any rate. I haven't maxed it completely to the right, but it's only a matter of time. I took a year and-a-half off, from November 2016 until a couple of months ago.

With a lot of my builds, I regularly do more than 450 damage, when my team gets crushed, so it's a steady climb. I'm a fan of Streaks and ATM's, when I'm not just screwing around with scouts.

[Agent of Change]

Imperius, on 08 June 2018 - 08:13 AM, said:

So when 8v8 was originally out. We didn’t have half tiered match maker, we didn’t have clans, we didn’t even have VOIP.

But keep attempting to push your agenda without even attempting to test. We’re done talking you weren’t here for debate you we here to attempt to just discredit my post.

When 8v8 was out we did have the elo matchmaking which also caused issues, not to mention the on going complaints that the tiered system itself has caused issues, and I don't believe that that will be changed with smaller match size, though it is possible. There was in fact an "official" voip solution but in client was added later IIRC, and that we didn't have clans as i pointed out and you confirm is actually a detriment to the pro 8v8 argument because with clan tech individual mechs got even stronger alphas and damage potential than before.

You say you want to see it tested, ok fine, I never said i was opposed to testing. But I did point out we did have it for a long time, long enough one might draw some educated conclusions from. The main problem with testing this solution in an apples to apples manner is that it would essentially require the same amount of work to set up a test as it would to just implement it. Any test of the 8v8 setup meant to replicate a functional wide scale replacement would have to invest time in reworking, matchmaking (very likely), the tiering system (likely), available map selection (potentially), Individual match rewards (definitely). at that point you might as well just put it in play. I would support an 8v8 QP event as an opt in. Give us a week or two to select an 8v8 queue with nothing else changed just to see how the games play, it would be imperfect for sure, but i'm fairly sure we would see basically the same situation we are in now only with more Roflstomps like we had previously in 8v8.

Again my only real platform is that there are real structural and balance issues that should be addressed rather than looking for a big shiny surface change that PGI can sell to players as making progress when in fact it's just moving backwards.

As for teh last bit, I'm making arguments about my stance no different that you are, well maybe with a bit more explanation, but if you don't see the difference between "pushing an agenda and discrediting your points" and "polite disagreement and nuanced discussion" then i really can't help you. If you wanna take your ball and go home I can't stop you.

Edit for spelling/grammar

Edited by Agent of Change, 08 June 2018 - 10:33 AM.