37 replies to this topic

[Chillidoge]

What the title says. When are we going to see 12v12 go the way of the dodo as it rightly should and see a return of quick play 8v8?

A switch to 8v8 will give us:

- More matches (because fewer people are required to form a match)
- Better chances of success (because you have less chance of being of being focused by a large group)
- More emphasis on teamplay (because your individual choices count more toward success or failure)
- A better new player experience, for all the above reasons.

I think 12v12 would do much better in Faction, as you have multiple spawns and there is a greater incentive to spread out and work together in lances, rather than ball up and focus down targets.

Thoughts? Comments? Go for it.

[RRAMIREZ]

If it's just QP as is go from 12v12 to 8v8

(just to emphasis the other point of view)
A switch will give us:
- even more impact of groups
- even more impact of tonnage imbalance
- less teamplay as groups represents a bigger proportion and have their own strategy and comms
- a poorer new player experience because they can't "stay in the pack and learn"
- some people that already stated that they are not interested in 8v8 (pop sink)

It would be a very bad move IMHO to go for this change without really thinking about consequences, as was made for soup queue

- what about spawns
- what about group PSR for MM
- what tonnage balance
- what about valves
etc..

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 28 October 2020 - 02:04 AM.

[Bistrorider]

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

A better new player experience, for all the above reasons.

No

[martian]

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

What the title says. When are we going to see 12v12 go the way of the dodo as it rightly should and see a return of quick play 8v8?

Hopefully never.

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

A switch to 8v8 will give us:

- More matches (because fewer people are required to form a match)

Do you account for the erosion of the MWO playerbase unwilling to play in this new format?

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

- Better chances of success (because you have less chance of being of being focused by a large group)

Are you serious?

As it is now, the pre-made group is one third of the enemy team.

In your format, the pre-made group would be one half of the enemy team. Thus, the effect of pre-made groups on the gameplay would be even more pronounced.

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

- More emphasis on teamplay (because your individual choices count more toward success or failure)

MWO players are mostly interested in solo casual gameplay - that's why the Solo Quick Play Queue was the most successful part of MWO. Teamplay was optional.

People wanting to concentrate on teamplay played Group Queue or Faction Play.

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 01:28 AM, said:

- A better new player experience, for all the above reasons.

You mean, being insta-killed by focused fire of the enemy pre-made group?

New players will not learn anything, if they die in ten seconds to the premade without even firing a shot. And they definitely will not stay in MWO.

You know, there was a good reason why PGI split the original Quick play queue into Solo queue and Group queue. It was exactly because of this.

Edited by martian, 28 October 2020 - 03:07 AM.

[Monkey Lover]

You know those people who don't start moving until 2 minutes into the game and then die right away?
If you have one of these on your team with 8v8 you basically lost before you even started.


No to 8v8, If you want anything bring back 4v4

[Willard Phule]

I think it's a great idea. Right now, with 12v12, 4 guys are allowed to be a premade which only gives you a 33% premade percentage. 8v8 would increase that to 50%. 4v4 would allow a full 100% premade group to harvest 4 solos in record speed.

This is the way MW:O needs to go. 100% premade on a side is the ultimate goal. We either need to go to 4v4 or allow full 12 man premades into QP (who are we fooling? There is no QP. Just call it what it is...the group queue).

[Chillidoge]

OK cool I wasn't expecting replies so it's good to see people still use the forum!

RRAMIREZ first up:

What about spawns? They are pretty broken already, I routinely get thrown to the left/right flank in Canyon Network (depending on which team you spawn on) and the chances of making it to the D3 ramp are about 50/50, with the alternative being you are split off from the team and crushed. Spawns absolutely need to be worked on, I don't understand why we are spread out so much especially when it puts the heavy lance off to the side where they can't be protected. I don't think this has anything to do with having 8 or 12 people though, this is an issue of PGI not thinking enough about where to put us.

What about PSR or MM, exactly? It literally doesn't matter. The rank system is almost completely useless. If we had a Rocket League MM and rank system this would be a different conversation, but then again, we only have a few thousand players at most that make up the userbase. Love it or hate it, this game would cease to function if we could only play with our tier.

What is the issue with tonnage balance if we only have 8 people? I don't see your point on this one. Again, we have so few players that I have seen a fair few matches recently with one or no lights at all, 1-2 assaults or sometimes 5-6 assaults. Are you saying the system is working as intended?

I'm not sure what you mean by valves, but I'm happy to hear more about that. I've not heard the term before.

martian made the point of player erosion because people don't want to play 8v8 - fair point. As far as I'm aware, 8v8 is actually a thing but it's a group only queue. I literally never see it or get matches in it. Why can't we queue for both, as a compromise? I am reluctant to suggest another tick box because as an SEA player I can tell you we don't have enough players to start a match on our own, but 8v8 would actually help with this because, again, it would reduce the number of players needed to start a match in the first place. I think 12v12 has a place in the game, I just don't think it's the first port of call for a casual choice.

As for the percentages of pre-mades, yes I am serious. As a pre-made player myself I can tell you that it doesn't guarantee victory. If matchmaking is looking to put pre-mades against each other in a fair way (which I assume it would do) this shouldn't be an issue regardless of whether it's 12v12 or 8v8.

Your comment on solo casual gameplay missed what I was trying to get across I think. Whether you are on your own or in a group, the game requires you to be teamplay focused in order to succeed. The phrase "teamwork OP" comes to mind. When you have 12 people, it's easy for people to, for example, decide that the team will support their individual strategy because there is less individual responsibility placed on their actions. This is what I'm trying to point out. In 8v8, your choices matter more, so an LRM-only build is going to be even more frowned upon than it already is. You do make a good point regarding Group queue - I'd happily play it, if I could ever find a damn match in it.

Finally, you mention being instakilled by a pre-made as a negative player experience. It's a fair point. It still happens in 12v12 though, so I mean, I don't disagree, but I also don't think it's that relevant when we are talking about trying to increase match stability via more available matches.

I do like Monkey Lover's suggestion of 4v4 though, I would happily give that a try, though we need maps for that, and, well, I'm not holding out much hope for PGI to cook some of them up any time soon, to be frank.

I think part of the issue with 12v12 is my favourite maps are mostly the classic maps, and 12v12 is just not designed for these maps at all. Conversely, the 12v12 tailored maps like Frozen City are really not fun to play in comparison, even worse is Forest Colony. Some of the maps are stupidly large, even for 24 players. Again, I doubt PGI will make us a new set of maps, the game is 8 years old, but it is what it is. It's a tough one because I feel no matter the choice, one way or another the player experience, new or otherwise is harmed.

Finally, Lockheed_

I can see you want to increase the number of players so I am, naturally, not surprised we don't agree. That's fine. A single "potato" doesn't lose you the match, I think that's a bit over the top to be honest. An AFK teammate hurts for sure, but you can still win. With only 16 players, a disconnect or AFK is worse, yes, but the reality is these things happen, particularly with crashes on drop which has been an issue for years now with no end in sight. Perhaps PGI could look into what causes that and fix it?

On the point of being on a large battlefield with things happening on multiple fronts I actually agree, that's a really cool part of MWO, the issue is that so many instances of combat play out on the exact same place in the map, from the exact same points of entry, with the exact same flanking tactics (because none of the previous points ever change) that your dream is a difficult one to achieve. What you suggest, to me, sounds like a match made in heaven for Faction Play, which I enjoyed, the one or two times I could get it. I think it's a good idea, but again I think for new players, you kinda want to get them in the door, get them playing and have them feel like part of the team, rather than a single person in an amorphous blob of 23 other people shooting the sh*t out of each other in the same 500m space every time.

Anyway thanks for your comments guys, maybe some more will come through, who knows? I still think 8v8 is a better experience overall than 12v12 for quick play, and I still think 12v12 has a place somewhere in this game. End of the day, it's up to the developers to do their part and figure it out, all we can do is discuss and offer suggestions, so I appreciate the input either way.

[RickySpanish]

12v12 causes a lot of chaos on the battlefield at the moment imo. Minor positioning mistakes are very punishing with so many opponents, especially if one team is deathballing. 8v8 would reduce the number of players on the map, thereby allowing a greater range of movement and a longer time to kill. The size of groups would also need to be dropped though, to reduce their impact. With those two changes I think the game might be improved a fair bit. But I don't trust the developers to not do something daft, like 8v8 with 4 man teams.

[selfish shellfish]

From a purely population perspective and better matchmaking due to the need to pick less players for a match maybe.

What about 9 vs 9 though? You get to keep the three lances but instead of 4 you have 3 mechs in each. Groups could be limited to max 3 man instead of the current 4 man.

In "theory" having 18 players instead of 24 would make it easier to find suitable matches without placing players of wildly different PSR in the same matches. How much that would really helps is an open question though...

[The pessimistic optimist]

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 05:44 AM, said:

OK cool I wasn't expecting replies so it's good to see people still use the forum!

RRAMIREZ first up:

What about spawns? They are pretty broken already, I routinely get thrown to the left/right flank in Canyon Network (depending on which team you spawn on) and the chances of making it to the D3 ramp are about 50/50, with the alternative being you are split off from the team and crushed. Spawns absolutely need to be worked on, I don't understand why we are spread out so much especially when it puts the heavy lance off to the side where they can't be protected. I don't think this has anything to do with having 8 or 12 people though, this is an issue of PGI not thinking enough about where to put us.

What about PSR or MM, exactly? It literally doesn't matter. The rank system is almost completely useless. If we had a Rocket League MM and rank system this would be a different conversation, but then again, we only have a few thousand players at most that make up the userbase. Love it or hate it, this game would cease to function if we could only play with our tier.

What is the issue with tonnage balance if we only have 8 people? I don't see your point on this one. Again, we have so few players that I have seen a fair few matches recently with one or no lights at all, 1-2 assaults or sometimes 5-6 assaults. Are you saying the system is working as intended?

I'm not sure what you mean by valves, but I'm happy to hear more about that. I've not heard the term before.

martian made the point of player erosion because people don't want to play 8v8 - fair point. As far as I'm aware, 8v8 is actually a thing but it's a group only queue. I literally never see it or get matches in it. Why can't we queue for both, as a compromise? I am reluctant to suggest another tick box because as an SEA player I can tell you we don't have enough players to start a match on our own, but 8v8 would actually help with this because, again, it would reduce the number of players needed to start a match in the first place. I think 12v12 has a place in the game, I just don't think it's the first port of call for a casual choice.

As for the percentages of pre-mades, yes I am serious. As a pre-made player myself I can tell you that it doesn't guarantee victory. If matchmaking is looking to put pre-mades against each other in a fair way (which I assume it would do) this shouldn't be an issue regardless of whether it's 12v12 or 8v8.

Your comment on solo casual gameplay missed what I was trying to get across I think. Whether you are on your own or in a group, the game requires you to be teamplay focused in order to succeed. The phrase "teamwork OP" comes to mind. When you have 12 people, it's easy for people to, for example, decide that the team will support their individual strategy because there is less individual responsibility placed on their actions. This is what I'm trying to point out. In 8v8, your choices matter more, so an LRM-only build is going to be even more frowned upon than it already is. You do make a good point regarding Group queue - I'd happily play it, if I could ever find a damn match in it.

Finally, you mention being instakilled by a pre-made as a negative player experience. It's a fair point. It still happens in 12v12 though, so I mean, I don't disagree, but I also don't think it's that relevant when we are talking about trying to increase match stability via more available matches.

I do like Monkey Lover's suggestion of 4v4 though, I would happily give that a try, though we need maps for that, and, well, I'm not holding out much hope for PGI to cook some of them up any time soon, to be frank.

I think part of the issue with 12v12 is my favourite maps are mostly the classic maps, and 12v12 is just not designed for these maps at all. Conversely, the 12v12 tailored maps like Frozen City are really not fun to play in comparison, even worse is Forest Colony. Some of the maps are stupidly large, even for 24 players. Again, I doubt PGI will make us a new set of maps, the game is 8 years old, but it is what it is. It's a tough one because I feel no matter the choice, one way or another the player experience, new or otherwise is harmed.

Finally, Lockheed_

I can see you want to increase the number of players so I am, naturally, not surprised we don't agree. That's fine. A single "potato" doesn't lose you the match, I think that's a bit over the top to be honest. An AFK teammate hurts for sure, but you can still win. With only 16 players, a disconnect or AFK is worse, yes, but the reality is these things happen, particularly with crashes on drop which has been an issue for years now with no end in sight. Perhaps PGI could look into what causes that and fix it?

On the point of being on a large battlefield with things happening on multiple fronts I actually agree, that's a really cool part of MWO, the issue is that so many instances of combat play out on the exact same place in the map, from the exact same points of entry, with the exact same flanking tactics (because none of the previous points ever change) that your dream is a difficult one to achieve. What you suggest, to me, sounds like a match made in heaven for Faction Play, which I enjoyed, the one or two times I could get it. I think it's a good idea, but again I think for new players, you kinda want to get them in the door, get them playing and have them feel like part of the team, rather than a single person in an amorphous blob of 23 other people shooting the sh*t out of each other in the same 500m space every time.

Anyway thanks for your comments guys, maybe some more will come through, who knows? I still think 8v8 is a better experience overall than 12v12 for quick play, and I still think 12v12 has a place somewhere in this game. End of the day, it's up to the developers to do their part and figure it out, all we can do is discuss and offer suggestions, so I appreciate the input either way.

I played this game before there were 12 v 12 and most of the problems people think having 8v8 would cause were just not there. That being said that was when the player population was higher so it might not work as well as it did back then.

[martian]

The smaller team you have, the greater the effect of "snowballing" is.

Lose one or even two 'Mechs in 12v12 and nothing is lost. Lose three 'Mechs in 12v12 and you can still turn the game around.

Lose one or two 'Mechs in 8v8 and the game is pretty much over, unless the enemy makes some serious mistake and loses the lead.

[The pessimistic optimist]

martian, on 28 October 2020 - 06:23 AM, said:

The smaller team you have, the greater the effect of "snowballing" is.

Lose one or even two 'Mechs in 12v12 and nothing is lost. Lose three 'Mechs in 12v12 and you can still turn the game around.

Lose one or two 'Mechs in 8v8 and the game is pretty much over, unless the enemy makes some serious mistake and loses the lead.

Yea but your forgetting mech die A LOT faster in 12 if fire is focused so it A LOT easy to lose mech quickly if enemy team is on it's game snowballing still just as bad. Time to kill is slower in 8v8

[RRAMIREZ]

Chillidoge, on 28 October 2020 - 05:44 AM, said:

OK cool I wasn't expecting replies so it's good to see people still use the forum!

RRAMIREZ first up:

(quickly)
My point was to enphasys that lot's of thing are already broken. And we agree on that.
So let's just keep all this points as is (cause they are broken) and let's go 12v12 => 8v8 that your point.
My point is : all those problems that were not well assest before going to soup queue will remain pain in the... or will even become greater pain in 8v8 if not assest correctly in first place.
And you're rigth that's were PGI, developpers, whoever that will manage "changes" have to show that it will not be the same mess that soup queue prove to be...

Edited by RRAMIREZ, 28 October 2020 - 06:48 AM.

[Nightbird]

Yes, let's move to 8v8 because it is more punishing for players as the Match Maker gets far worse when number of players go down. This will allow us to close MWO earlier.

[RickySpanish]

martian, on 28 October 2020 - 06:23 AM, said:

The smaller team you have, the greater the effect of "snowballing" is.

Lose one or even two 'Mechs in 12v12 and nothing is lost. Lose three 'Mechs in 12v12 and you can still turn the game around.

Lose one or two 'Mechs in 8v8 and the game is pretty much over, unless the enemy makes some serious mistake and loses the lead.

Nah that works both ways, losing a 'Mech in 8v8 is a greater proportion of your remaining team than 12v12, but there are less 'Mechs for you to survive against in the first place, and more room and time to do that in. Another way of looking at it is that It'll take longer in 8v8 to lose that first 'Mech.

But like I said, group size would certainly need an adjustment and I just know that won't happen because apparently, PGI is all about sticking more knives into the pig to see if it might still bleed.

Edited by RickySpanish, 28 October 2020 - 07:01 AM.

[Mochyn Pupur]

Yeah right. Low player base and you want to strip down the experience of new or developing player's by turning them into seals - that's what killed back FW and now you want to do it with QP. Get real!

Current situation is far from ideal, but what you propose is like lemmings running towards a cliff, only going to be one outcome and it's not looking good for the lemmings.

What is needed now is a substantial drive to get more people involved in the game as a whole. It is a niche market that needs to draw new people in and older players back. Get the numbers up, get the transactions moving and stabilise the game. People will not stay and be clubbed by pre-mades in 8x8. Lose one mech and you're on the rocky road to a loss, 2 and the match is over, especially against better skilled opposition. 12x12 at least draws the match out and makes it feel slightly more worth while for the drop waits.

As a Legendary Founder, this post smacks of a name change and trolling with only 7 posts listed. Find your bridge, crawl back under it and don't come out until you have an idea that support and encourages the whole of the community. You have seen the decline in the game; why are you trying to hasten it?

[martian]

SirSmokes, on 28 October 2020 - 06:26 AM, said:

Yea but your forgetting mech die A LOT faster in 12 if fire is focused so it A LOT easy to lose mech quickly if enemy team is on it's game snowballing still just as bad. Time to kill is slower in 8v8

But in QP 12v12 one can step in and compensate for weak players or for those who died too quickly. I think that in QP 8v8 it is more difficult.

RickySpanish, on 28 October 2020 - 06:59 AM, said:

But like I said, group size would certainly need an adjustment and I just know that won't happen because apparently, PGI is all about sticking more knives into the pig to see if it might still bleed.

Please do not tell me that ... I know well how PGI works.

[The pessimistic optimist]

marti[sub]an, on 28 October 2020 - 07:09 AM, said:

[/sub]
_{But in QP 12v12 one can ste}p in and compensate for weak players or for those who died too quickly. I think that in QP 8v8 it is more difficult.


Please do not tell me that ... I know well how PGI works.

Same thing is true for 8v8 if the match maker dose a good job of making sure both team have some vets.

[Acolyte of the Chin]

It'd be nice if PGI were to give group 8v8 a go.

I don't think it'd matter much for quickplay or make sense if group were still up to four people.

As much as people have been buzzing lately, we have yet to hear or see PGI doing anything other than perhaps put feelers out and ask us how they could get us to spend money on a game they stopped developing.

[martian]

SirSmokes, on 28 October 2020 - 07:23 AM, said:

Same thing is true for 8v8 if the match maker dose a good job of making sure both team have some vets.

Yes, "if the match maker does a good job" ... and we have seen the quality of PGI's work since 2013.