831 replies to this topic

[Weeny Machine]

Please leave QP alone. 12 vs 12 is more like a real BT feeling than anything else. 8 vs 8 would be too arena-esque - at least for me and I'd surly quit

[Korian]

I like 12 vs 12 8 vs 8 is back to the beta.

use the money in marketing instead to get more people playing. Or fix faction warfare………….

[Looming Dementia]

El Bandito, on 08 June 2018 - 06:51 AM, said:

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

Sure, it decreases the frequency, but when it does occur, you're ******.

[Fastwind]

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 and stop people from sync dropping with 8 annihilators. Also wouldn't a change like this also force a change in some of the maps? Some of the bigger maps may need to be reduced in size because less mechs means more ground to cover and there are a few times I can go entire scouting matches without even seeing the enemy till the end.

we had 8v8 before on the biggest map Alpine Peaks 2cnd biggest Tourmalin np to find the enemy
for those who don't know 8v8 was the matchsize for about 2 and something years before they switched it to 12v12
0 need for mapchanges

bring back 8v8 so carrying actually has an impact also it would help a lot with the matchmaking seeing how few people are playing the game lately and how it screws with the match maker (getting more than 2 tier 1 players per side and match) real tier 1 players not PSR tier 1

Edited by Fastwind, 08 June 2018 - 09:46 AM.

[AzureRathalos]

Huh. The vote (at the time I write this reply) is almost split 50-50.

Should the game be set up as 10v10 then? *shrug*

[Ober Steiner-Davion]

AzureRathalos, on 08 June 2018 - 10:27 AM, said:

Huh. The vote (at the time I write this reply) is almost split 50-50.

Should the game be set up as 10v10 then? *shrug*

Not exactly overwhelming, is it?

[Thug in a Thong]

If the game moves to 8 v 8, it should be another gameplay selection option.

Now if we are pie in the sky asking for stuff, let dead pilots get into disconnected mechs. Introduce melee, spend development dollars making the game VR ready, create a multi-platform match system to play against console folks, make a mech that looks like a unicorn, I LOVE unicorns.

Have the next mechcon near my house, make the mech look more gender specific, create an underwater map, create a mech that can pick up the parts or guns from the battlefield, make a repair mech that can restore health while on the battlefield, and has an area of effect option to boost mech effects, make a battle royal mode, let me leave a tag on the map so I can tag a mech I destroy....

Anyway, just make it so that the game is stable and there are fewer disconnects and I think whatever game modes are in it will be fine.....
...
...
...

Just not 8 v 8, pretty sure that's one of the signs of the apocalypse.

[Psyense]

QP solo queue wait times are fine, it's the group queue that is suffering. If this is a player-pool problem ...

I'd like to see the queues merged and a small group size enforced, maintaining 12v12. A couple of mitigative measures for sync dropping (just suggestions, there are likely better ways):

• multiple groups containing members of the same unit are split as evenly as possible between teams
  
• a method for reporting sync dropping - make it a ban-able offence in QP

Two more thoughts:

The long wait times and higher calibre of player in group queue QP has dissuaded some of my friends from playing - you can't just hop into a game with one or two other people to get them hooked!

Make the invasion game-mode in FP rare, with regular game-types more common to encourage big groups to drop there.

Edited by Psyense, 08 June 2018 - 11:00 AM.

[Shamansky]

No!
smaller maps mean no room for flanking. which leads to boring one and only scenario every time: meta-wall against another meta-wall in the same spot of the map. Hated 'good old' 8vs8 for this. There were ways to flank but they were rarely used cause that led to less mechs on frontline. now if whole alfa goes free-hunting team loses 30% of front-line, and team is still stays heavy enough to hold the incoming fire. and flanking now has an impact on the battle as long as more mechs are raiding behind enemy lines. with 8vs8 lights' target spotting/scouting role is doubtly useful on smaller maps where teams will see each other within first minute. so we'll drown in machinegun-boats again and now we have lots of them dartin among our mech's legs with their rediculous amount of anti-infantry guns on board. I really do not remember the 'fun' of 8vs8 period where you were MUST follow the team even if your understood that the team goes into a deathtrap. My Locusts are still covered with the salt of those 'good old' days

Edited by Shamansky, 08 June 2018 - 11:11 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

Maximum Overkill, on 08 June 2018 - 02:16 AM, said:

8vs8 sounds like the next big thing of the cry-hards - after solaris. Maybe PGI you shouldn't play with the fire as this is the only mode witch seems to work at the moment in comparison to FP and solaris. Use your time to improve the other 2 game modes.

Deleting FP would do virtually nothing to MWO at this point, given how much of a yawning void it's become. FP would have to become the entire game for it to be functional, and a game that revolves around large units grinding PUGs for shiny prizes would die a horrible, angry death. I'd be quite happy to simply see the mode folded into group queue and leave it at that. We can't get it bigger than 12 on a side thanks to engine limitations.

Solaris still has a chance. It needs work, but it also doesn't need huge groups of players to be functional.

The future of the game lies in modes with numbers between 1-12. 8v8 just happens to be the point at which your average player can actually keep track of the enemy team without losing parts of the red team entirely. Is 12v12 more "epic"?

Sure.

Does it mean less money per match? Not really, most players don't pick up more than 2 kills (or some total of 8 units hit) in a given game, and nobody consistently is ganking 8 players per game. You'll play, get your dosh, cycle repeats and with easier match generation, you'll also have less time between matches.

It also means more strain on the engine, which was honestly designed for 8v8. PGI ended up sacrificing performancewise to get it to run 12v12, so 8v8 will naturally run better.

[WerewolfX]

Here we go BT 12v12 grognards are gonna keep the game they want it and piss all over the folks who would prefer fun cause "Inhernehts sphess rohbits!" are serious buisness

[Erik Krieger]

The most annoying thing for a good player are bad players in his team.

With the reduction to 8 vs 8 the bad players can't be compensated as well as in 12 vs 12. Result: more frustration and less fun.

And the chance to turn a bad starting game around will be much much smaller..

[Agent of Change]

Psyense, on 08 June 2018 - 10:55 AM, said:

QP solo queue wait times are fine, it's the group queue that is suffering. If this is a player-pool problem ...

I'd like to see the queues merged and a small group size enforced, maintaining 12v12. A couple of mitigative measures for sync dropping (just suggestions, there are likely better ways):

• multiple groups containing members of the same unit are split as evenly as possible between teams
  
• a method for reporting sync dropping - make it a ban-able offence in QP

Make the invasion game-mode in FP rare, with regular game-types more common to encourage big groups to drop there.

Honestly during the hours i play (admittedly peak) I usually don't have a problem at all with the group queue. BUT if we are going to consider changes to the existing system here is a thought that many will absolutely hate even though it would speed up both queues.

i have to explain this in two parts because there is a procedure for each queue: (this would work with either 12 or 8 man games you'd just have to change teh numbers a little)

First Solo queue - Solo queue tries to build a game using only solo players within the PSR band first. IF it hits a time threshold it re balances teh players it's found and pulls in no more than 4 players for each team that queued as a small group (so 2x2 1x3 or 1x4) to fill space on both teams to make the 12 v 12 and drop quickly, get equivalent drop weights and stay in the PSR band.

Second Group Queue - Same as now except at a certain time threshold a game that has 9 or more players per team in groups will back fill the open slots with appropriately ranked (by PSR) solo queued players. (a total of up to 6 solo players of appropriate PSR back filling both teams for a maximum of 3 on each team.

Now before you scream at me about how terrible an idea this is allow me to first say I don't expect this to ever happen and it is basically a design specifically design to address MM time and ONLY MM time. In it's defense/explanation the idea is that if the solo queue is slow it's because there flat out are not enough players to fill a game so allowing small groups to fill 1/3 to 1/4 of the teams you increase the chance of filling those games quickly without unduly imbalancing the game. So long as both teams get an equivalent amount of small grouped players it is "fair" in principle. The Groups queue on teh other hand will be slow when the math on group numbers doesn't add up. so allowing up to 1/3rd of the teams be back filled with solo players that unjams that back log without unduly disadvantaging anyone. The solo players who end up in teh Team game will likely never be new players because the the PSR should never pull anyone less than a 3 on GP of course you could even restrict it to 1 and 2 if the population supports it. So that's that idea.

As for Sync Dropping... well it's a terrible idea to try and make it punishable. it happens sometimes, and is as likely to work as not. by coincidence the above scheme would actually make it much harder to have skilled player sync drop in solo or small groups as either could get called by a different bucket to back fill. but the point is Sync dropping happens, sometimes on purpose sometimes accidentally and it would be poor form to have a punishment in place for anything that can just happen without player control.

Edited by Agent of Change, 08 June 2018 - 11:25 AM.

[Brain Cancer]

TWIAFU, on 08 June 2018 - 04:38 AM, said:

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.

And the gross majority of players are...soloers. Enjoy your gameplay desert, the reason we have separated group/solo in QP is precisely why FP has become a dead zone. Too many players who just want to get in the robot, Shinji and shoot other robots. Which as we both know is a recipe for FP disaster, although the rewards in FP + occasional event requirements lure them in to be turned into mashed potatoes.

There's a reason why there's no longer penalties to swap factions, too. PGI realized the primary users of FP were nomadic mercs who just wanted to grind the same rewards in each one, rather than giving them any reason whatsoever to pick a faction and stick with it. Heck, GONK (my unit) was made so KONG players could play in FP with Clan robots.

As you may notice, we have an FRR contract now. Three guesses why. No penalties worth mentioning for disloyalty, no rewards worth mentioning for staying, not even so much as a couple of decals or even a skin, just follow the big units around and harvest the poor PUGs.
Love it or hate it, the game will only thrive if we make the solo player experience the focus of MWO. Make those matches as smooth, fast, and easy to generate as possible. Bigger is definitely not better for this game.

NobleSavage, on 08 June 2018 - 11:14 AM, said:

The most annoying thing for a good player are bad players in his team.

With the reduction to 8 vs 8 the bad players can't be compensated as well as in 12 vs 12. Result: more frustration and less fun.

And the chance to turn a bad starting game around will be much much smaller..

Quite the opposite. A good player usually has to carry.

It's easier to carry seven than eleven. You have that many fewer players shooting at you, that many fewer you have to kill to compensate for that under-200 target-not-teammate, and you even have a lower chance of a half-dozen potatoes showing up at once.

[Fantomas against Aniskin]

I want 24V24!

[SCHLIMMER BESTIMMER XXX]

Fobhopper, on 06 June 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

switching to 8v8 will allow for mechs to live longer/play longer. Turning a corner to have 12 blow a torso off instantly is not fun. Not to mention it should make hit reg/detection better since there is loss of a load on the system (or at least I am hoping), and reduced queue wait times.

While we are going back to how it was, can we also bring back Predator vision? that was the best.

believe me, 4-5 mechs fokusing you are enough to get wrecked in a few seconds.
And imho it will be far more common that you run into this constelation in 8v8

[BTGbullseye]

I skipped the vast majority of the pages here because I can't read all that without getting salty.

Had to vote "maybe", and here's why...

1. No, if there is no other changes to the apart from this.
2. PSR needs to go first. Implement a BV system, and a system that rates actual player skill independent of win/loss.
3. Tiers need to go away. Leaderboards and percentiles are sufficient.
4. Yes, if 2 & 3 are completed. Anything less will effectively kill the game.
5. Even if we stay in 12v12, 2 & 3 are still good ideas.

Thank you for your time.

[R5D4]

If PGI could find some way to overall REDUCE the number of 'buckets' they have today, which currently divide up the player pool too much imo, then I would say yes to adding an 8v8 mode. I do believe that 8v8 would be great for Tier 5/4 players to learn the basics before advancing to 12v12 and could be a fun option for everyone else.

That said I don't want PGI just adding in more 'buckets' to divide up the player pool any more than it currently is and I don't want to see 12v12 go away completely in QP either.

If Faction Play, Group Play, and QP could be replaced with a new system while also addressing PSR that would be where my vote goes but that's hardly likely at this time.

[AzureRathalos]

BTGbullseye, on 08 June 2018 - 11:28 AM, said:

3. Tiers need to go away. Leaderboards and percentiles are sufficient.

Tiers do not need to go away. A brand new player should never encounter (and get obliterated by) a top ranked veteran the first time they drop.

The formulae that takes information like leaderboards and percentiles to sort users into Tiers has to be improved and applied better.

----

I am editing in a comment here because it will keep things in context better than making a reply a whole page later.

A few replies down, Bullseye has accused me of a lack of reading comprehension and continued to push that Tiers have no purpose. The thing is, the way he has described it, he talks of sorting players by their stats and leaving out any kind of containers or tiers to sort the players into.

One way or another, the matchmaker will have to be set so that subsets of players should never encounter each other. Currently that is the tier system, it doesn't completely work right, and it is visible to other players. I do apologize if I wasn't clear with my message. By name, sure the tier system can go away, but some kind of way to put players into subsets will exist whether it is visible or not.

Edited by AzureRathalos, 09 June 2018 - 02:59 PM.

[Stinger554]

Imperius, on 08 June 2018 - 04:05 AM, said:

8v8 was the compromise to get better quality of life out of the only successful game mode.

RIP performance T-T