94 replies to this topic

[wanderer]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 03:36 AM, said:

Hmmm you know what would fix this?

Let's see. Who else has come up with a suitable system?

Oh! DICE has. Many years ago.

Introduce respawns, mech repair bays, 20x20km maps, 32v32 and this game will really take off.

MW:LL is the way to go. But no... so many of you want a small scale boring arena deathmatch where the "average" match is decided in the first two minutes.

At that point (MW:LL), it's no longer Battletech. It's the same as MW4- giant robot battle with Battletech names stuck on the top.

Also, we're getting respawn modes (or rather, multi-spawn modes), larger maps, and 12v12. 32v32 would take some order of forever to do unless we were stuck in a "small scale arena deathmatch" decided in two minutes.

Quote

Sorry guys. It usually is decided in the first two minutes. Is the enemy team LRM heavy? Can your team counter in time? No... you lose.

Does the enemy team have a Streakcat? There goes all your light Mechs. Decided in two minutes.

You don't encounter the enemy? Well we better go for their base because that's what they are going to do. No defenders? You lose.

One reason I'm for 12v12 ASAP. That "swing" happens more slowly as it takes more dead 'Mechs to cause a snowball effect, and the odds that focus fire takes out targets increases, meaning the balance of a fight will shift more rapidly.

[Adridos]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 03:42 AM, said:

No mod, other than Counter Strike has been played by millions.

Certain Warcraft 3 mod disagrees.

[Mack1]

Well yes the current maps are way too small for 15 v 15 but I would assume larger maps would be made.

You see guys I play a lot of WOT which is 15 v 15 and if we lose a few players at the start it's far easier to come back from it as you can still have a good group of 7 or 8 tanks working together to take a vital part of the map. In 8 v 8 once you lose 2 or 3 then unless you are really good and organised you ain't coming back.

I have played a good 40 WOT games today but not a single MWO game and that is because I love the tactical side of gaming more than the pew pew side and MWO is closer to COD (which I loathe) than it is to any form of tactical shooter. You just jump in, the fighting starts pretty much 10 seconds into the game and it's just

1. jenners appear
2. LRM's let rip
3. A few mediums arrive
4. All hell breaks loose
5. Game ends usually 8 - 0 to the premades
6. I fall asleep

In WOT the maps feel huge, the tactical options are numerous, you have to watch both flanks, balance out the attacking teams, spot for artillery, use defensive hull down tactics, use bushes and trees for camo I could go on.

If this game had 12 v 12 or 15 v 15 on a larger map the tactical options would grow which is what I said and that is an absolute fact, it's pretty obvious really. I don't really understand the mentality of someone who thinks 8 v 8 is more tactical than 15 v 15 when clearly the larger the battle the more tactical options you have.

It's a bit like in WOW, if you do a 8 man dungeon you are limited but a 40 man raid has far more options. If you still don't understand then you never will

[Stunner]

Stormwolf, on 04 November 2012 - 02:58 AM, said:

Words fail me.

According to your sig you are a clanner so 15v15 would be a trinary vs trinary which would be lore once clans are actually in game.

Looking forward to 12v12

[Stunner]

Slepnir, on 04 November 2012 - 06:53 AM, said:

15...somebody needs to learn to count, 4 in a lance would be 16 mechs not 15., however i think going the other way would be a much more enjoyable game 4V4-lance on lance-makes for a very challenging game. and requires teamwork since you dont have hordes of players focus firing on a single mech to overwhelm it.

Problem is a company is normally 3 lances so 12 v 12 a clan trinary is 15.

Adridos, on 04 November 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Certain Warcraft 3 mod disagrees.

yeah no kidding and that mod has spawned many spin off games.

[xRaeder]

Adridos, on 04 November 2012 - 07:24 AM, said:

Certain Warcraft 3 mod disagrees.

Should have read "No FPS mod has."

Edited by xRaeder, 04 November 2012 - 10:04 AM.

[xRaeder]

wanderer, on 04 November 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

At that point (MW:LL), it's no longer Battletech. It's the same as MW4- giant robot battle with Battletech names stuck on the top.

Also, we're getting respawn modes (or rather, multi-spawn modes), larger maps, and 12v12. 32v32 would take some order of forever to do unless we were stuck in a "small scale arena deathmatch" decided in two minutes.



One reason I'm for 12v12 ASAP. That "swing" happens more slowly as it takes more dead 'Mechs to cause a snowball effect, and the odds that focus fire takes out targets increases, meaning the balance of a fight will shift more rapidly.

I believe you may be talking about how you think everyone will run around in Atlases.

Well there are two solutions to that. Make it cost more than it does not to repair them, or introduce a class based system such that there can only be a certain number of Assaults, Heavies, etc in a 32v32 match.

And I agree. It's too late for them to do 32v32. I don't ever think that community warfare will matter. What will it add to the game? Nothing. Faction points? Why the hell will that matter when everyone who plays hardcore will have what they want.

I seriously doubt PGI will even be able to introduce the clans in time.

Plantside 2 is calling. I still have til November 16th to pre-order.

[Stone Wall]

I would love a team of 10 streak cats and 5 lrm boats. What carnage.

Edited by Stone Wall, 04 November 2012 - 10:06 AM.

[Shredhead]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Should have read "No FPS mod has."

DayZ disagrees...

[hanitora]

Heh, as if it's that simple.

You can have 7 losses against 1 loss on enemy team and still win if your survivor is a pristine Atlas while enemy has 7 crippled mechs, 4 of which have no weapons left, 2 are almost cored and 1 is an LRM boat without ammo.

Edited by hanitora, 04 November 2012 - 11:01 AM.

[Nacon]

So it's wrong for me to be hopeful maybe one day in the future, matches can be big as 50 vs 50 vs 50 vs 50 (4 teams) on a 16km x 16km map?

(Yes, CryEngine 3 can support 8km sq. with 2m per unit, thus 16km sq. map currently and go even bigger with more coding. Server, however...)

Edited by Nacon, 04 November 2012 - 11:07 AM.

[Bobfrombobtown]

saying the first two kills decide the outcome is flat out wrong. Here's some video proof. First two kills belonged to the opposition.


Edit: This was a PUG I ended up in after hitting "Launch" without any of the usual people I play with.

Edited by Bobfrombobtown, 04 November 2012 - 11:50 AM.

[Harmatia]

Why do you think changing the total team size would fix this "problem"?

[Stormwolf]

Stunner, on 04 November 2012 - 09:02 AM, said:

According to your sig you are a clanner so 15v15 would be a trinary vs trinary which would be lore once clans are actually in game.

Looking forward to 12v12

Since it's probably lost on so many people, I'll explain this.

Yes, the Clans have 15 mech trinaries, but this doesn't mean that the IS should always have units depend on increments of 4.
Just read any novel, units will start out as lances of 4 or maybe even mixed units that contain tanks along with infantry. Many times in the lore you'll see units that are put together out of what people can field.

It's not like Morgan Kell is gonna tell a unit with 3 mechs to stay behind at the dropship because they are not a full lance.

Besides there is such a thing as augmented lances or Comstar Level II's (six mechs). Even Wolf's Dragoons were retconned into having used trinaries from time to time IIRC.

A lance size of 4 is normal, but you won't always see this in the field.


At any rate, the devs have pointed out in the past that they wanted to go for 12 vs 12 battles.

[lsp]

MagicHamsta, on 04 November 2012 - 02:56 AM, said:

False, me has had more games won when 2 people disconnect from the start/suicide from the beginning & still won relative to games lost due to being down 2 people.
Something about being down 2 people seems to make people less careful.
(.-.)

Mayhaps your streak cat piloting skills require some work.
('-')

Why do you type like your from the 14th century? You talk like that too?

[xRaeder]

Harmatia, on 04 November 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Why do you think changing the total team size would fix this "problem"?

Well lets see.

Larger team size does a few things.

1. It normalizes player skill across the two teams, making it harder for premades to dominate pugs.
2. It encourages team play.
a. It does this by increasing the play size with larger maps. Larger maps + more people = team play because it is harder to accomplish something just by yourself.
3. Requires less balancing. Since the map and player count is larger the OPness of certain loadouts is mitigated. A Streakcat for example is less useful in a 20x20km map than it is in the maps we have now as there are more ways to counter it.

Shredhead, on 04 November 2012 - 10:57 AM, said:

DayZ disagrees...

Technically you are right. But DayZ is more about survival... and in fact is like a MMO more than MWO is. Your stats and more importantly your location is saved when you log off. This is a more traditional FPS in that there is no persistent world.

But we are arguing semantics MW:LL is still a better game than MWO even if it doesn't have millions of people playing it. Since we are comparing the two... it is important to note that MWO doesn't have a million people playing either.

Edited by xRaeder, 04 November 2012 - 12:08 PM.

[sokitumi]

wanderer, on 04 November 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

At that point (MW:LL), it's no longer Battletech. It's the same as MW4- giant robot battle with Battletech names stuck on the top.

Say what you want but MW4 was the last serious commercial success of the franchise. To call it giant robot battle that stole BT names.. is, frankly, pathetic. The controls were more creative than MWO's wasd crap. There was 10x the content of MWO on it's release. Weapon groupings .. way better. etc etc etc.. but i'm sure the TT fans stopped reading at MW4..

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 12:07 PM, said:

.. it is important to note that MWO doesn't have a million people playing either....

User's online is suspiciously missing since OB.... Curious...

Edited by sokitumi, 04 November 2012 - 12:19 PM.

[IceSerpent]

Mack1, on 04 November 2012 - 02:54 AM, said:

The big problem with 8 v 8 is the first 2 kills will decide the outcome of the game, sure not always (my streak cat video proves this) but 90% of the time once you go 2 Mechs down you are pretty much screwed. I have played loads of games and can only think of 2 or 3 times we have come back from losing 2 Mechs early on.

This is simply false. Losing 2 mechs means absolutely nothing. Heck, with current number of disconnects and AFK bots it's not uncommon to start the game with just 6 "live" pilots and still win.

Quote

This is why the game should be at least 15 v 15 now I know this is "Lore fail" but we are supposed to be having fun, I really don't care about Lore, I care about enjoying my time playng. Happy customers spend money, unhappy customers leave and no one is going to tell me MWO has mostly happy customers, in-game chat and the forums confirm most are very unhappy.

Get 12 v 12 moving asap and then work on 15 v 15 and keep expanding before it's too late.

Personally, I wouldn't mind, but the big question is if your rig can handle 15v15 on current maps?

P.S. 15 is a Clan trinary, so it wouldn't be too bad lore-wise.

[xRaeder]

IceSerpent, on 04 November 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

This is simply false. Losing 2 mechs means absolutely nothing. Heck, with current number of disconnects and AFK bots it's not uncommon to start the game with just 6 "live" pilots and still win.



Personally, I wouldn't mind, but the big question is if your rig can handle 15v15 on current maps?

P.S. 15 is a Clan trinary, so it wouldn't be too bad lore-wise.

How many times do I have to dispell the myth that the average "gaming" computer can't handle larger maps and larger player counts (if you dont have a $200-300 GPU 2 years or younger you shouldn't be playing modern FPS games... sorry... PC gaming is expensive).

Cryengine 3 has content streaming that allows the GPU to not render things not viewable. Indeed all GPUs do this to an extent... the GPU isn't rendering the entire 360 view... more like 180 degrees... at any one point in time.

I'm too tired to post all the relevant documentation DIRECTLY from Crytek GMB about it... but suffice to say if the Xbox360 can pull off a million Triangles on screen (with 8+ year old hardware and 512 MB of RAM mind you) rest assured... even a $1500 gaming PC can pull off 5-10 times that.

In fact the limit on play size says more about PGIs ability to develop a robust backend than it does about client hardware or Cryengine 3s abilities. Look at how long it is taking them to correct netcode issues.

Edited by xRaeder, 04 November 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[IceSerpent]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 12:25 PM, said:

How many times do I have to dispell the myth that the average "gaming" computer can't handle larger maps and larger player counts (if you dont have a $200-300 GPU 2 years or younger you shouldn't be playing modern FPS games... sorry... PC gaming is expensive).

As many times as it's necessary for you to realize that a lot of folks don't have an average "gaming" rig - look at all the forum posts about dual core CPUs and antique GPUs. It's not about CryEngine, but about how many mechs can you put into a "furball" before those low-end PCs begin to crap themselves out.

For me and you it won't be an issue, for PGI it might be due to a lot of people not being able to play.