26 replies to this topic

[The pessimistic optimist]

I was thinking the game might player better with a smaller number of player per match. Like there was way back in beta. Maybe less Nascar maybe less death blobs on some game modes I don't know what do you guys think?

[Bombast]

Been brought up before. Ain't happening. I'd love to see 8v8 though.

[NRP]

12v12 is fine. More a-holes to shoot.

[N0ni]

Nascar mentality and deathballs will still exist even with 8v8. Would be great as it increases the possibility of clutch matches, but it's just not gonna happen as much as some people (including myself) want it.

[Monkey Lover]

8v8 , 1 disconnect will basically be an auto lose.

We should be looking at going to 16v16 .

[Mr Andersson]

I played the game back when it was 8v8. 12v12 was a huge improvement. The only real drawback was that Forest Colony suddenly felt very cramped. And I guess we will experience that anew.

As Monkey Lover pointed out, the effect of one or two disconnects (or worthless potatoes) on one side is dramatically lowered the more players you have on the field.

[Prototelis]

No.

[Appogee]

No.

Besides, MWO is in maintenance mode. PGI aren't expending any further effort on it.

[The pessimistic optimist]

Monkey Lover, on 31 December 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

8v8 , 1 disconnect will basically be an auto lose.

We should be looking at going to 16v16 .

16v16 the maps would need to be bigger that's crowded. Well some of the maps anyways. Some could do 16v16 other would suck a slong.

[Monkey Lover]

SirSmokes, on 31 December 2018 - 04:43 PM, said:

16v16 the maps would need to be bigger that's crowded. Well some of the maps anyways. Some could do 16v16 other would suck a slong.

Our maps are huge we don't use 95% of it now. I dont see how making them even bigger would help in any way.

Been said before but changing spawn points adding in other "semi random" model assets(example downed ship blocking main roads) world promote new gameplay.

[El Bandito]

Bombast, on 31 December 2018 - 04:08 PM, said:

Been brought up before. Ain't happening. I'd love to see 8v8 though.

Agreed. 8v8 is best for QP IMO but just aint gonna happen. Cause PGI. FFS, they coulda at least used the PTS for a test run.

Monkey Lover, on 31 December 2018 - 05:08 PM, said:

Our maps are huge we don't use 95% of it now. I dont see how making them even bigger would help in any way.

Been said before but changing spawn points adding in other "semi random" model assets(example downed ship blocking main roads) world promote new gameplay.

8v8 promotes less deathballing due to less risk of getting shot by multiple mechs. Which means more of the map can be used by soloers (done so many times in the past between 2012-2014). Besides, with the inclusion of 8v8 PGI can bring back the old maps and expand the map pool without too much effort.

Monkey Lover, on 31 December 2018 - 04:20 PM, said:

8v8 , 1 disconnect will basically be an auto lose.

We should be looking at going to 16v16 .

Less chance of disco in the first place, compared to 12v12. Also, MWO lost a lot of fps and some good graphics/effects in order to make 12v12 work somewhat. Your suggestion of 16v16 will basically make this game run at 10 fps for most players, unless PGI makes all the mechs to look like featureless blobs.

8v8 on the other hand will improve the fps while allowing PGI to bring back some of the the older, better graphics, especially the damage graphics (current barnacles are laughable and sad at the same time).

Edited by El Bandito, 31 December 2018 - 06:42 PM.

[Tarl Cabot]

Setup QP to alternate between 8vs8, 12vs12 (IS configuration), 15vs15 (Clan configuration). Do it on a weekly basis starting on Tuesdays to the following Monday.

[oneproduct]

El Bandito, on 31 December 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

8v8 promotes less deathballing due to less risk of getting shot by multiple mechs. Which means more of the map can be used by soloers

This is the main reason I would like 8v8. Right now, trying to flank/sneak up on enemy mechs is quite dangerous because they're more likely to have friends around to come to their aid. Having smaller team sizes makes lower tonnage mechs more interesting whereas right now they have a hard time when a large number of mechs create no man's lands with the combined, long-range firepower of heavier mechs.

Edited by oneproduct, 31 December 2018 - 07:54 PM.

[The pessimistic optimist]

oneproduct, on 31 December 2018 - 07:53 PM, said:

This is the main reason I would like 8v8. Right now, trying to flank/sneak up on enemy mechs is quite dangerous because they're more likely to have friends around to come to their aid. Having smaller team sizes makes lower tonnage mechs more interesting whereas right now they have a hard time when a large number of mechs create no man's lands with the combined, long-range firepower of heavier mechs.

This is what I was thinking.

[Nightbird]

12v12 is perfect, 16v16 would be even better

[Monkey Lover]

El Bandito, on 31 December 2018 - 06:34 PM, said:

8v8 promotes less deathballing due to less risk of getting shot by multiple mechs. Which means more of the map can be used by soloers (done so many times in the past between 2012-2014). Besides, with the inclusion of 8v8 PGI can bring back the old maps and expand the map pool without too much effort.




Less chance of disco in the first place, compared to 12v12. Also, MWO lost a lot of fps and some good graphics/effects in order to make 12v12 work somewhat. Your suggestion of 16v16 will basically make this game run at 10 fps for most players, unless PGI makes all the mechs to look like featureless blobs.

8v8 on the other hand will improve the fps while allowing PGI to bring back some of the the older, better graphics, especially the damage graphics (current barnacles are laughable and sad at the same time).

Ok if your theory is correct. less players means less death ball then 4v4 we have now must never do this. But this is not what i see, any team not grouping up in 4v4 now will die. Just as any team in 8v8 not grouping will die.

As for fps, again lets use your theory, 4v4 we have now should run at 3 times the fps correct? I see no increase or decrease in 4v4.

16v16 has more to do with bandwidth then fps. I would say over the last 4 years this has improved to the point we could add 4 extra players per side...

Edited by Monkey Lover, 31 December 2018 - 10:07 PM.

[El Bandito]

Monkey Lover, on 31 December 2018 - 10:04 PM, said:

Ok if your theory is correct. less players means less death ball then 4v4 we have now must never do this. But this is not what i see, any team not grouping up in 4v4 now will die. Just as any team in 8v8 not grouping will die.

As for fps, again lets use your theory, 4v4 we have now should run at 3 times the fps correct? I see no increase or decrease in 4v4.

16v16 has more to do with bandwidth then fps. I would say over the last 4 years this has improved to the point we could add 4 extra players per side...

That's cause Scouting is different than regular QP experience. That mode is currently used as a quick way to get the lootbags, and what do you need to get lootbags? Matchscore. So why wouldn't people ball up and fight each other ASAP? Getting intel is not the main objective here. The mechs in Scouting are all fast movers so there is very little point in trying to sneak up on them using unused routes.

As for 4v4 fps, I still get stable 60 fps when not in combat but once I get into combat, it sometimes drops down to 50 fps--which is still far better than 12v12 where I can go as low as 25 fps, and sometimes the whole game stutters--in a good gaming computer! Scouting never stuttered for me.

As for 16v16, fps WILL matter due to all the mechs and effects happening at the same time. Unless one wants MWO to look like this, one shouldn't even talk about 16v16 using current flawed engine. Perhaps once MWO is ported to Unreal engine things might improve.

Edited by El Bandito, 31 December 2018 - 11:05 PM.

[N0ni]

El Bandito, on 31 December 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

Unless one wants MWO to look like this

I'd totally be down for retro graphics, it'd go amazing with the sound mod.

[Monkey Lover]

El Bandito, on 31 December 2018 - 10:54 PM, said:

That's cause Scouting is different than regular QP experience. That mode is currently used as a quick way to get the lootbags, and what do you need to get lootbags? Matchscore. So why wouldn't people ball up and fight each other ASAP? Getting intel is not the main objective here. The mechs in Scouting are all fast movers so there is very little point in trying to sneak up on them using unused routes.

As for 4v4 fps, I still get stable 60 fps when not in combat but once I get into combat, it sometimes drops down to 50 fps--which is still far better than 12v12 where I can go as low as 25 fps, and sometimes the whole game stutters--in a good gaming computer! Scouting never stuttered for me.

As for 16v16, fps WILL matter due to all the mechs and effects happening at the same time. Unless one wants MWO to look like this, one shouldn't even talk about 16v16 using current flawed engine. Perhaps once MWO is ported to Unreal engine things might improve.

We had 8v8 in beta then 4v4 in beta testing, every time the team that grouped up won. Deathball works for an unskilled team.


You're saying 25% increase in player is going to cut your fps 75%? You people are just making up stuff because you think 8v8 would be better for some reason. Seeing we are just putting stuff out there. How about pgi just optimize the engine a little ?




Over all it doesn't even matter PGI stopped putting money into this game. nothing is going to change.

Edited by Monkey Lover, 01 January 2019 - 02:45 PM.

[El Bandito]

Monkey Lover, on 01 January 2019 - 02:40 PM, said:

We had 8v8 in beta then 4v4 in beta testing, every time the team that grouped up won. Deathball works for an unskilled team.

You're saying 25% increase in player is going to cut your fps 75%? You people are just making up stuff because you think 8v8 would be better for some reason. Seeing we are just putting stuff out there. How about pgi just optimize the engine a little ?

Over all it doesn't even matter PGI stopped putting money into this game. nothing is going to change.

1. QP is already full of unskilled teams thanks to the PSR system.

2. When PGI implemented 12v12, my FPS legit went from constant 60+ to sub 30 fps. PGI had to make several patches to improve it, and I had to overclock my CPU but I never got my old fps back. That's ******** for a 2012 game.

3. PGI doesn't know how to make the engine work well enough to implement 16v16 without messing up the fps massively, seen from previous experience. All it will do is to further set a barrier against people playing this game due to increased tax on CPU requirements.

4. Oh, and you think current MM is bad? Wait until you see it bring tons of T5s into the match against T1s because it can't find 32 players in time. Have fun getting teammates who doesn't even know anything about GH penalty, let alone locking the target. 16v16 might have sounded feasible back when we had 4 times more population, but now, it is just gonna be bad.

Edited by El Bandito, 01 January 2019 - 04:25 PM.