7 replies to this topic

[LordNothing]

depending on when you play wait times can be anywhere between acceptable and atrocious. there have been a lot debate and of false starts with regards to 8v8 or any changes to match size what so ever. rather than losing off peak players i think it would be a good idea to employ dynamic team sizes based on active population. teams sizes from 2v2 to 12v12 would all be acceptable, or it might snap into one 3 brackets of either 4v4, 8v8, or 12v12 which can simplify things.

qp group limits would be placed on 3 brackets of team size in order to best keep the 1/3 solo to team ratio:

4 players for 12v12 - 10v10
3 players for 9v9 - 7v7
2 players for 6v6 - 2v2

tonnage balance is another issue. best solution is to also bracket the class configuration:

3/3/3/3 for 12v12
2/2/2/2 for 8v8
1/1/1/1 for 4v4

idk what to do about other sizes as you cant deploy half an assault, another case for bracketing. it might be better to let players use whatever they want and try to match the total tonnage between teams as close as possible. i have to admit 4/4/4/4 is not being very well enforced right now under the current iteration of the matchmaker. what about we include a class modifier in addition to tier. for example a t3 player in a heavy might be equivalent to a t2 player in an assault. though that may intensify instances of wolf packing if high skill players try to exploit it (by running skilled lights against potato assaults).

you might also use optimal maps for the current team size. some of the smaller maps (classic maps in particular) would be more well suited to 8v8 games. perhaps include solaris maps for sizes 4v4 and less, of course those maps would need to be retrofitted for some of the modes. scaled down domination (smaller hill) and assault could be used, might even be able to support conquest with 3 points instead of 2. some siege maps might also be retrofitted for qp modes as well for large match size. maps weighting would also be dynamic so avialable choices at the vote screen would better match the current population situation. this is a nice to have and not really that important.

Edited by LordNothing, 16 July 2020 - 09:17 PM.

[Monkey Lover]

When they did 8v8 in group q test we watch it. Almost every time the first team to go down 1 mech lost. If 2 went down you might as well gave up.


So I would agree a 8v8 game is better than no game. I wouldn't try one for one.

[Willard Phule]

Even better, instead of pretending to find some kind of "fairness," why not just open up the throttle on groups and allow full 12 mans against a team with nothing but brand new Cadets?

Seriously, we all know how it's going to end up. This game has already become Stompwarrior Online. Why not accelerate it to it's ultimate destiny? It's not like this game is keeping PGI afloat anymore, MW5 is their cash cow. We're just an afterthought of a memory.

[LordNothing]

Monkey Lover, on 16 July 2020 - 11:24 PM, said:

When they did 8v8 in group q test we watch it. Almost every time the first team to go down 1 mech lost. If 2 went down you might as well gave up.


So I would agree a 8v8 game is better than no game. I wouldn't try one for one.

exceppt their are 2 types of players that do test sessions. tryhards trying to get a leg up, and potatoes looking for loot. and in both cases its not enough players for the matchmaker to do a lick of good (its usually disabled for such tests).

[LordNothing]

Willard Phule, on 17 July 2020 - 04:39 AM, said:

Even better, instead of pretending to find some kind of "fairness," why not just open up the throttle on groups and allow full 12 mans against a team with nothing but brand new Cadets?

Seriously, we all know how it's going to end up. This game has already become Stompwarrior Online. Why not accelerate it to it's ultimate destiny? It's not like this game is keeping PGI afloat anymore, MW5 is their cash cow. We're just an afterthought of a memory.

kind of skinny for a cash cow, isnt it? especially with them practically giving it away for free now. dlc will take the place traditionally occupied by mwo mechpacks. but its all regurgitated content, i might just hold off on the dlc until a sale hits because i dont think i care enough to buy it at full price.

[OneTeamPlayer]

Okay since it's somehow disappeared as spam (gee, wonder why it's coming up so often) let's try to put this another way.

There was a system in the past that worked. Sometime around pre-april as legend has it.

We should return to the system that worked rather than continually trying to modify a system that doesn't work and has provided no benefit for a majority of players.

Edited by OneTeamPlayer, 17 July 2020 - 06:31 AM.

[Willard Phule]

LordNothing, on 17 July 2020 - 05:59 AM, said:

kind of skinny for a cash cow, isnt it? especially with them practically giving it away for free now. dlc will take the place traditionally occupied by mwo mechpacks. but its all regurgitated content, i might just hold off on the dlc until a sale hits because i dont think i care enough to buy it at full price.

Haven't wasted real money on MC for years. Don't plan on doing so any time soon, either.

[LordNothing]

Willard Phule, on 17 July 2020 - 06:53 AM, said:

Haven't wasted real money on MC for years. Don't plan on doing so any time soon, either.

they give away a lot of mc in events now, so its not like i have to give them money. other side of it is if they didn't do this id have moved on by now.