39 replies to this topic

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Hello, i often see suggestions to do 8v8 quickplay instead of current 12v12. They say: if there will be less mechs, there they will carry the game.

So, how do you think about the different approach - why not make the game 16 v 16.

Edited by Sneaky Ohgoorchik, 17 September 2018 - 12:54 AM.

[Wil McCullough]

Sneaky Ohgoorchik, on 17 September 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

Hello, i often see suggestions to do 8v8 quickplay instead of current 12v12. They say: if there will be less mechs, there they will carry the game.

So, how do you think about the different approach - why not make the game 16 v 16.

The question is: why do you want a game mode where individual players influence the outcome less?

[Anjian]

Wil McCullough, on 17 September 2018 - 01:19 AM, said:

The question is: why do you want a game mode where individual players influence the outcome less?

Match outcome less affected by AFKs, disconnects and early kills or deaths.

Look at World of Tanks, War Thunder, World of Warships for games with 14 to 16 person teams.

Edited by Anjian, 17 September 2018 - 01:51 AM.

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Wil McCullough, on 17 September 2018 - 01:19 AM, said:

The question is: why do you want a game mode where individual players influence the outcome less?

I saw 15 v 15 in WoT. People tend to spread across the map, more styles of play availible. And individual player influence outcome more this way . Cause the part when cohesion of players blobs go down longer, more interesting endgame maneuvres.

Also afk, dc, yolo players affect the match less

Edited by Sneaky Ohgoorchik, 17 September 2018 - 01:57 AM.

[justcallme A S H]

MWO struggles as it is with FPS and load times etc.

You wanna add another 8 players? No thanks... Plus PGI have ruled out a change there anyway last time the 8v8 discussion came up (instigated by PGI recently). So safe to say, it just ain't gonna happen.

[Anjian]

Sneaky Ohgoorchik, on 17 September 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

I saw 15 v 15 in WoT. People tend to spread across the map, more styles of play availible. And individual player influence outcome more this way . Cause the part when cohesion of players blobs go down longer, more interesting endgame maneuvres.

Also afk, dc, yolo players affect the match less

A lot of the game variety within a match has to do with the map design too, which is the topic in the other thread. Not saying Wargaming makes the best maps, I got issues with them on both WoT and WoWs, but they generally follow one basic concept --- they have areas for brawl and areas for snipe, all in one map. This forces players to play different styles with the maps, and accommodate for players that do have different playing styles. If you're the brawler, head for the city, and if you're the sniper, take that spot on the hill. The maps also reward flanking, which is why a disproportionate number of clashes takes place along the sides.

This influence also spreads to War Thunder, although generally, I do like their maps even better than Wargaming's, because they are also magnificently pretty, immersive, and yet has clever level design for snipers, brawlers and flankers all over. Mobile mech game War Robots also feature very good level design, with areas for brawl, areas for snipe, attention for cover, and attention for flanking and movement. When we test their maps, their questionaires ask about these issues in particular.

Can't emphasize enough how level design can make or break a game.

If you want to ask me what is the best map in MWO, its the base in Vitric Forge. I also like the bases in Emerald Taiga, Boreal Vault, and Sulfurous Rifts.

Edited by Anjian, 17 September 2018 - 02:19 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Less players means your team is more effected by an AFK? Sure but its a 15 minute MAX QP game, and more people means you have more chance for afks and trolls on your team, so that reasoning is a little facetious.

You say people only want 8v8 because "they think they will carry better", obviously you are biased if you think that's the only reason. Or cranky? I want 8v8 because it would be less of a swarm fest all day, and yes because individual action matters more, if you are so worried about early deaths and the like, why does that worry only come up here? Wouldn't like a proper tiering system solve those issues much more?

It just seems like a lot of these arguments don't have a lot of actual merit, your beliefs just line up with the current system so you feel justified in crapping on the idea of 8v8.

[Anjian]

Shifty McSwift, on 17 September 2018 - 03:45 AM, said:

Less players means your team is more effected by an AFK? Sure but its a 15 minute MAX QP game, and more people means you have more chance for afks and trolls on your team, so that reasoning is a little facetious.

You say people only want 8v8 because "they think they will carry better", obviously you are biased if you think that's the only reason. Or cranky? I want 8v8 because it would be less of a swarm fest all day, and yes because individual action matters more, if you are so worried about early deaths and the like, why does that worry only come up here? Wouldn't like a proper tiering system solve those issues much more?

It just seems like a lot of these arguments don't have a lot of actual merit, your beliefs just line up with the current system so you feel justified in crapping on the idea of 8v8.

Beliefs don't just line up with the current system, it lines up with games that have proven to be successful. There is real experience backing up in all of that. Games that I have been and played battles in the thousands. Games that have been deliberately designed that way because the developers know this as a fact.

Maybe in those games, people are not motivated to leave the game because the map doesn't suck, or maybe because the server connections are a lot better and they don't disconnect, or they are motivated more to succeed for every win, stat, and xp earned. I don't honestly experience disconnects and AFKs in proportion of team size.

I also play a game that is only 6 VS 6. I can tell you the effects of one missing player due to AFK is deeply profound even when you have respawns. If the game has a very high level of play on both teams, the effect of a single missing player can be catastrophic for one team when every little bit matters to win. This is not theory, this is real game experience.

Edited by Anjian, 17 September 2018 - 04:41 AM.

[Shifty McSwift]

Anjian, on 17 September 2018 - 04:40 AM, said:

Beliefs don't just line up with the current system, it lines up with games that have proven to be successful. There is real experience backing up in all of that. Games that I have been and played battles in the thousands. Games that have been deliberately designed that way because the developers know this as a fact.

Maybe in those games, people are not motivated to leave the game because the map doesn't suck, or maybe because the server connections are a lot better and they don't disconnect, or they are motivated more to succeed for every win, stat, and xp earned. I don't honestly experience disconnects and AFKs in proportion of team size.

I also play a game that is only 6 VS 6. I can tell you the effects of one missing player due to AFK is deeply profound even when you have respawns. If the game has a very high level of play on both teams, the effect of a single missing player can be catastrophic for one team when every little bit matters to win. This is not theory, this is real game experience.

As profoundly catasptrophic as realising one of your assaults is a minimised engine, armor stripped, LRM boat with no outside support? I realise that is a hyperbolic example, but people are playing it out like you aren't already and always will be effected by these aspects, I for one wouldn't mind less of it, and would appreciate options to suit. You prefer more of it, and the games current state suits you slightly better than I.

Really 8v8 I think is a good threshold point for these issues, through my experience I have personally found 12v12 to just be a bit much. But what would suit both of us more is options for both right? Hell i would take the random chance of being dropped into 16v16 QP games if it meant also a chance to be dropped into 8v8s.

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Im talking all hypothetical here.

Shifty McSwift, on 17 September 2018 - 03:45 AM, said:

Less players means your team is more effected by an AFK? Sure but its a 15 minute MAX QP game, and more people means you have more chance for afks and trolls on your team, so that reasoning is a little facetious.

You say people only want 8v8 because "they think they will carry better", obviously you are biased if you think that's the only reason. Or cranky? I want 8v8 because it would be less of a swarm fest all day, and yes because individual action matters more, if you are so worried about early deaths and the like, why does that worry only come up here? Wouldn't like a proper tiering system solve those issues much more?

It just seems like a lot of these arguments don't have a lot of actual merit, your beliefs just line up with the current system so you feel justified in crapping on the idea of 8v8.

About chances: they are equall. But when the numbers of the unwanted is small, the feel of the game would be better for 16 men team.

About bias: 16v16 for president. There was a reddit thread today, where a person said, that he is back to QP from FW and everyone in QP is bad. It was his argument about carrying and nobody seem to disagree. And then he made a statement about lights being UAV yolo boats, or something.

About 8v8: **** it. I want Planetside scale of battles.

About swarming 6/8>6/16. There will be nothing but swarming. Better say gopnicking for 8v8. It will be like FW scouting. In current state of things 8v8 QP will be dead in no time.

Edited by Sneaky Ohgoorchik, 17 September 2018 - 04:56 AM.

[Vellron2005]

Sneaky Ohgoorchik, on 17 September 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

Hello, i often see suggestions to do 8v8 quickplay instead of current 12v12. They say: if there will be less mechs, there they will carry the game.

So, how do you think about the different approach - why not make the game 16 v 16.

Why not ditch lances and go for stars?

2 stars of 5 or 3 stars of five.. so 10 or 15 players?

[Anjian]

Shifty McSwift, on 17 September 2018 - 04:46 AM, said:

As profoundly catasptrophic as realising one of your assaults is a minimised engine, armor stripped, LRM boat with no outside support? I realise that is a hyperbolic example, but people are playing it out like you aren't already and always will be effected by these aspects, I for one wouldn't mind less of it, and would appreciate options to suit. You prefer more of it, and the games current state suits you slightly better than I.

Really 8v8 I think is a good threshold point for these issues, through my experience I have personally found 12v12 to just be a bit much. But what would suit both of us more is options for both right? Hell i would take the random chance of being dropped into 16v16 QP games if it meant also a chance to be dropped into 8v8s.

I never felt that 12 v 12 was ever a problem for this game. Like I said, there are much more successful games like World of Tanks that have 14 v 14 to 16 v 16 modes. I would say that there are greater factors affecting the game and one of them is bad level design. I have played 8 vs 8 also in MWO, and I do think 12 v. 12 did allow a greater degree of unpredictability in matches, but changing the number of players in a game simply won't solve the problem if the game has structurally bad level design and game modes.

I would think that if this game is 8 vs. 8, it would do better if it has a limited deck respawn mode to keep the game going.

Another thing is that the maps in the game are now too big for just 8 vs. 8. You would have to go back to the old maps. Too low players on in ratio of the size of the map, your players are just going to spend more time running around the map than actually fighting.

[Shifty McSwift]

Anjian, on 17 September 2018 - 04:57 AM, said:

Another thing is that the maps in the game are now too big for just 8 vs. 8. You would have to go back to the old maps. Too low players on in ratio of the size of the map, your players are just going to spend more time running around the map than actually fighting.

Not all the maps, in fact some seem suited for smaller fights, and others for larger, which again, the idea of having randomised team numbers in QP among other things, could all be a part of the same QP lobbying system that we have, meaning no extra development there, just development of drop scenarios/positioning on the maps/modes we already have.

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Vellron2005, on 17 September 2018 - 04:55 AM, said:

Why not ditch lances and go for stars?

2 stars of 5 or 3 stars of five.. so 10 or 15 players?

Stars for IS. Lances for Clans

[Wil McCullough]

Sneaky Ohgoorchik, on 17 September 2018 - 01:55 AM, said:

I saw 15 v 15 in WoT. People tend to spread across the map, more styles of play availible. And individual player influence outcome more this way . Cause the part when cohesion of players blobs go down longer, more interesting endgame maneuvres.

Also afk, dc, yolo players affect the match less

You will get the same percentage of afkers/dc/yolo players in 8v8, 12v12, 16v16 or what have you. That's how statistics work.

In fact, the higher thr player count per match, the higher the chances you have having those players.

[Thorqemada]

Sneaky Ohgoorchik, on 17 September 2018 - 12:53 AM, said:

Hello, i often see suggestions to do 8v8 quickplay instead of current 12v12. They say: if there will be less mechs, there they will carry the game.

So, how do you think about the different approach - why not make the game 16 v 16.

Do you buy me the Supercomputer i would need to play MWO ?

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Wil McCullough, on 17 September 2018 - 05:33 AM, said:

You will get the same percentage of afkers/dc/yolo players in 8v8, 12v12, 16v16 or what have you. That's how statistics work.

In fact, the higher thr player count per match, the higher the chances you have having those players.

I said affect. Maybe its my english. So percentages on different modes are the same. But a single dc in a scout match (1 out of 4 v4 players) affect the game more than 4 dc in 16v16. The above statement is debatable. So, lets say 1 of 10 players wil dc every game randomly, you will face like 1 of 2 scout matches ruined for one of the teams completely if dc in normalized range. And pretty much every match of 16v16 will be bearable. With rare exception of 4 men dc in one team. Like really rare exception. Its every eight match out of every 4 men dc matches.

So, dc in small matches matter more than dc in bigger matches.

Same goes to yolo and afk.

P.S.: i know, I messed with math here. But 4 dc out of 32 is less nasty than 1 out of 8

Edited by Sneaky Ohgoorchik, 17 September 2018 - 06:28 AM.

[Sneaky Ohgoorchik]

Thorqemada, on 17 September 2018 - 05:44 AM, said:

Do you buy me the Supercomputer i would need to play MWO ?

16 v 16 don't make it that worse than 12 v 12

[Bloodwitch]

it's going to snowball regardless of player size.

2 vs 2 snowballs
4 vs 4 snownalls
8 vs 8 snowballs
12 vs 12 snowballs
16 vs 16 ???

[Anjian]

Kunato Developments, on 17 September 2018 - 06:49 AM, said:

it's going to snowball regardless of player size.

2 vs 2 snowballs
4 vs 4 snownalls
8 vs 8 snowballs
12 vs 12 snowballs
16 vs 16 ???

Go play World of Warships or watch a good number of videos on it. Compared to MWO, it takes forever to beat down a team on WoWs.