831 replies to this topic

[Grus]

I vote to keep it the way it is. A 12 man QP is the closest you can come to a wave in FP.

[Leif Heggland]

Please leave it 12x12. I know there are alot of folks who think it will improve the match maker but the reality is that it will exuberant the match maker issues. In 12x12 a couple minimal participants doesn't guaranty a stomp, in 8x8 it will.

[Earlito]

Dayum, you put 8 vs 8 against development of faction play? Jeez, you dumped 8 vs 8 for reasons beyond my grasp and now you sell us 8 vs 8 and stall of faction play? Faction play was a stillbirth from the beginning and it has not developed in a way that keeps a moderatly active veteran unit playing. So what you need is a good matchmaker in 8 vs 8 and a FP mode that lives up to its name. Solaris 7 and new mechs is good for new players and to keep the mechporn community happy. But a lot of old veterans who hoped for deeper FP have left and need more proper patches and improvements to come back. Just my 2 cents.

[NotGiggity32]

Please leave major stuff like this alone. I just want new maps and new mechs. 12 vs.12 is fine. If there is a disco on one side, there is often times one on the other side. I can usually reconnect before I get penalized.

Every time something like this comes up I become incredibly leery to spend any money here. Especially when you start talking about changing the mechanics of the in game economy.

[NyxSilence]

The sync dropping with 10 assaults in the same match is pretty ridiculous and the tonnage requirements for groups is also counterproductive not to mention extremely difficult to work with sometimes. If you could make it so it was for solo queue 3 man maximum and for drops group 4 and above they would have to change the next they were using to fit the needs of the percentage requirements or rather deficits in this particular case. 8 V8 is fine and 12v12 is also fine. If you choose between the two or at least have the option to that would be great.

xUnbreakablex, on 06 June 2018 - 03:58 PM, said:

I feel like 8v8 could be a change for the better if you can limit it to 2 lights, 2 mediums, 2 heavies, and 2 assaults

I'm kind of with him on this one if you run 12v 12 you absolutely must require everybody to only have a certain amount of Lights mediums Heavies and assaults and if its 8 V8 what he stated in his comment is absolutely a okay in my book. If it's 12 V 12 you need to have three of each class of mech maximum. If they can't fit the criteria they will have to wait until the next drop to adjust this would stop people from just murder balling all the time with Heavies and assaults. This means that they would actually be required to learn other classes instead of only running assaults all the time or only running Heavies all the time. Though there are individuals that primarily run mediums or lights these are fewer individuals than the ladder. So the curb this there should be a penalty for playing the same class for more than 5 games and they must have a three-game cushion to go back to whatever they were using so they can receive full C bills again.

[Radkres]

O.o Might as well move the Drop deck to Quick play then people can get the whole Respawn thing with the larger maps so the games will last longer? 32 v 32? o.O

[Prophet OFC]

FWIW:

I dont think reverting to 8 v 8 will do anything to help the game. If maps and modes need work address those headaches, don't try to cutoff the...leg.
However, I think MWO is the best it's ever been (founder) and that says a lot. I'd be concerned with ALL the extensive tweaks, tunes, and balance passes that would have to take place for a step back to 8 v 8 quickplay to really work well. Seems like a moot point. Just keep the game going and if there are cries from the community and devs to alter game modes and maps then they should be dealt with 1 to 1 like any gameplay or geo bug etc.

$.02cbills

[Rebel Ace Fryslan]

No, because your allready not really doing anything to improve Faction Play.

[GrimRiver]

I say yes, because less players means a tighter knit team therefor less people doing nothing(by nothing, I mean not sharing armor with teammates that need agro taken off of them).

8v8 teammates will be more engaged and less dead weight.

During low population hours the MM won't struggle as much to find 8v8.

8v8 is also less clustered than 12v12 trying to fit down a path way because PUGs are gonna PUG.

8v8 will free up more players to paired with others of similar ELO, because getting a full team of 8 T1/2/3 players is easier than a team of 12.(accounting if ELO even exists).

[Edward Scissorhands]

Hard no. use the time on something more important like fixing bugs and improving other elements of the game. If u want to fix something, how bout fixing that really SUPER unbalanced Boreal Vault map.

[Dennin]

[Redacted]

Edited by Tina Benoit, 08 June 2018 - 01:23 PM.
nonconstructive

[Alreech]

Paul Inouye, on 01 June 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

From a logistics/match making perspective, 8v8 has numerous advantages including faster team creation for both solo and group play in the match maker, faster connection times (less ‘Mechs being loaded), improved framerate, improved memory usage and less taxing on your local CPU.

8 vs. 8 in group play has following restiction of group sizes:
6+2
5+3
So groups of 6 and 5 Players can only be matched with groups of 2 or 3 players, and will have longer waiting times.
In 12 vs 12 only the 10 & 9 group sizes are affected, and such big group sizes are at the moment less common than 6 or 5 players.

The best group size for matchmaking will be 2 players (2/2/2/2 & 6/2 & 4/2/2 & 3/3/2), 4 players (4/4 & 4/2/2) or 3 players (3/3/2 & 5/3).

IMHO the best solution to that problem would be fixed group sizes of 4/8/12 players.
But what would force the players to use the "Looking for Group" function to fill up the group to 4/8/12 players and inviting strangers to their teamspeak (because MWO has no VOIP in the frontend) and I don't think the playerbase would like that.

With fixed 4/8/12 group sizes it would be still possible to set up a 8 vs 8 or even a 4 vs 4 if not enough players are aviable for 12 vs 12.

Paul Inouye, on 01 June 2018 - 01:22 PM, said:

From a player organization perspective, 8v8 means less management headaches getting 8 players together rather than 12, deck building would have a much higher impact in terms of what ‘Mechs are fielded and how they’re played. The ability to be carried through to victory is less likely due to the fact that in an 8v8 scenario, every ‘Mech matters more.

A group of 8 Players - in most cases a premade with own teamspeak, drop leader and a plan - will mostly fight against mixed teams. In the worst case it's a organized 8 vs a disorganized 2/2/2/2 stomp.
And 8 player groups are at the moment not uncommon...

From a player organization perspective it doesn't matters if a 2 player group is split between 2 lances to fit in a 2/3/3 matchmaking or shares a lance in a 6/2 or 4/2/2.
The Lance should act together, but can't because you don't know as player nothing about the other mechs and players in the lance.
Fixing the group size to 4/8/12 players would allow to drop as full lance / two lances / company, making player organization on the server much easier.

One word about player organization on the server:
The best way to improve that would be a 13 player acting as commander.

But frankly, I don't belive that the MWO player base would like such heavy changes, so I voted for 8 vs 8.

Edited by Alreech, 07 June 2018 - 12:59 PM.

[Brain Cancer]

Quote

-Maps are too big for this

This is never an argument, as 8 players will reach the same spots as 12 do now,in the exact same amount of time. Maps can be too small for 12v12, but they won't be too large for 8v8 or even 4v4 unless they're too big, period. We're too predictable in terms of where people are going to be otherwise.

Also, there will never be 16v16 or 24v24, simply because the engine will cough blood and with many more players. In fact, it'll actually run better with 8v8 as that's what the initial engine tolerances were designed for. We can go smaller, but larger isn't happening unless they build a more optimized engine from scratch.

[Stargazzer811]

I feel 8v8 should be added in and 12v12 kept for QP as well. Why not have both, one match its 8v8, then the next you drop 12v12. It would make the game more unpredictable in a way, as now everyone has to prepare for any eventuallity, instead of running a 6 AC/2 Annihilator all the time, knowing they have 11 other mechs to use as meatshields and don't have to worry about having enough up-front firepower to beat something better then their mech.

Plus, as many people have stated, nothing is being done to make faction play better in any respect, short of further catering to the 12 mans who roll the pugs time and again. So I would say just leave the 12v12 in QP and add 8v8 as an alternate drop mode that either is randomly selected by the computer or can be voted upon.

But don't change it wholesale because 1. Waste of time and resources you could use giving us more/better maps and tech support (like listening to how the Thunderbolt needs its damn armor quirks back!) and 2. you'll end up pissing more of your playerbase off in the short run and losing money in the long run.

TL:DR, leave 12v12 alone and add 8v8 as an alt drop mode, not replace one with the other.

[Skinjob]

I'll use my first post on these forums to say I really hope you don't do that.



I'd rather you made it 16v16.

[Karghen]

I would not want to see 8v8 replace 12v12. In general, as a software developer myself, I've found users are happiest when you can add to their experience without detracting from it elsewhere (which can be tricky, granted), and more importantly, add meaningful choice to their experience.

Right now, I almost exclusively play QP in both solo, and group match up formats. I would love to experience more Faction 12v12 and 4v4 but I find the wait times are usually intolerable to my limited play time. Furthermore, I find the restrictions in 4v4 to be pretty stifling and the tiers in Solaris a complete joke in matchup quality (but that is a rant for another thread).

If I were king for a day, I think the approach I would take would be to make match making more flexible to player selections than the current setup. Instead of queuing for one activity, I would want to be allowed to queue for multiple activities and to be dropped into the one that becomes available first based on the size of the group I'm dropping with. To help facilitate the radical difference in modes, perhaps move Mech selection from pre-mode selection into the pre-game lobby, where teams can then negotiate against whatever tonnage/scenario restrictions might be in place.

For example, if solo, and I could select 1v1 (with tier sub-selection), 2v2, 4v4, 8v8, and 12v12, I would get dropped into the first match that satisfies my group size, tonnage, and relative skill level. But if me and a bud want to drop as a duo, we could select 2v2 and up as eligible match types for our group size. 4 of us want to drop to together then 4v4 and up, etc, etc. This then makes all game modes attractive to various group sizes who can then queue simultaneously for all eligible queues and play which ever comes up first.

As an added motivator to keep one mode from getting too popular over others, offer incentives to each of the modes in the form of bonus C-bill payouts, or bonus cache points or what have you to those modes that are seeing less traffic than other modes. These bonuses should be dynamic and near real time and proportional to the relative popularity of the various modes as they change throughout the day.

Basically, I'd like to see more variety in game play as that is what helps to keep games re-playable for years.

Speaking of which just couple of other ideas to throw around...

I think adding random "mutators" to matches that change the conditions under which we fight could add a whole new level to the meta-game and could result in a greater variety of mech build outs that people would develop as they try to have a mech on hand to counter various mutators. Things like "reflective dust" that reduces laser damage, or "Electromagnetic storms" that hamper missile target locking, or "thick atmosphere" that interferes with ballistics or various ground conditions that make the surface slippery or sticky and impacts mobility. Might be asking too much of the Cry engine here, but it would definitely shake things up.

Another thing to drive variation might be to add variable tonnage requirements in each match so that sometimes 4v4s might be for 50s and under, or in other matches, it may be a range like 40 to 70, or 70 and up. Basically set up conditions that players have to adapt for.

I could write a book on this I'm sure, but I think I'm getting my general point across.

[Martel66]

As someone who played plenty of 8v8 back in the day, I strongly hope things stay 12v12 in quick play. Remember, 12v12 was an upgrade that the player base was asking for at the time. I remember thinking how much better things were when we switched to 12v12.

The matches were more action packed. You could still win with a disco or afk. The game felt more strategic and allowed for more types of play. 8v8 was more often a stomp fest and comebacks in a match were very rare. One pilot in YOLO or Leeroy! mode was usually all it would take to doom one side.

If PGI does look towards changing to 8v8, I really hope they put it up on a test server first for a good long while. As someone who's played lots of both, I'm sure some of the people voting for 8v8 will realize its just not as fun once they get to try it.

[Anudiz]

I voted for 8v8 as I am remembering it from the beta days to be more enjoyable and for other reasons which were posted several times already. Although I am not strictly for either option and can see advantages on both sides.

I noticed many arguments against 12v12 being thrown around which do not apply as directly or strongly as people like to imply e.g.:

• 8v8 makes disconnects worse! Yes, if you get a disconnect it may impact the game more, but you will be less likely to get a disconnected player in the first place.
  
• 8v8 will cause faster snowballing when the first player dies! Yes, statistically each player is worth more in 8v8 and a loss will therefore be more meaningful. BUT at the same time it becomes less likely for players to die early in the first place! A bad peak over a hill can easily cost your life in 12v12 due to the amount of guns in the game. When there are less people to start out with errors like this will be punished less and players will more likely be able to recover from misplays. Again this could very well balance itself out.
  
• 8v8 will cause Meta-Builds to become a requirement! While each mech will hold more meaning than before, there is also more room to maneuver and for flanking tactics, enabling player skill to better negate mech shortcomings. If you don't believe this is enough and you need 12v12 for your fun-mech to be able to win a game, then you are literally saying that you want to depend on teammates to carry your dead weight, which also means you depend on your teammates not doing the same you do.

On the other hand 8v8 also brings very compelling advantages:

• Individual players will live and contribute longer
  
• Misplays won't be punished as hard
  
• Player skill becomes more meaningful
  
• More viable tactics
  
• Faster and possibly better matchmaking

Edited by Anudiz, 07 June 2018 - 01:30 PM.

[Hechtic1]

The only way I see this working out is if you get FW back to where it was, so that the community wants to actually play it. If not I don't see this as being beneficial at all.

[Sjorpha]

I want quickplay switched to 8v8, but I also think Faction Play should be your top priority going forward. I don't really understand why these things would be at odds though.

8v8 quickplay might be good for Faction Play too, as people who like 12v12 and groups that wants to invite players beyond 8 would go there. So it could help get FP a little more populated.

I really hope there is major development for FP under way though, it's been hibernating way too long.