94 replies to this topic

[Davers]

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

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.

1. Larger teams do nothing if one side is a premade and the other isn't. There are many premades who think they will have no problem rolling PUG teams with the 4 limit. (Whether they are right is to be seen)

2. Larger teams do not necessarily encourage team play. Adding more players per side will not increase cooperation. The best that can be hoped for is that multiple people will do the same stupid tactics at the same time.

2a. It's true that larger maps (especially really large maps) require more tactics and teamwork. Which is why if we ever get them they should be for premades only. Think how many matches are lost because 'No one checked the tunnel'. Imagine if there were like 5 ways to get to each base?

3. Regardless the size of the map, most combat happens within 300m, since that is optimal range for most weapons.

[Commie95]

I've won games with 2 afkers or trolls suiciding from the start so its winnable. I do like bigger battles though just because I like giant battles.

[Vastian]

Why is this even a post? In any game without respawns, the first team to lose 25% of their team is going to lose or dig deep into their skill pool to win.

With good team composition you can still win, because if your team was playing well and lost those two mechs still, the enemy mechs should be hurting. They were probably scouts or brawlers targeting for LRMs or working on a larger critical mech. That's when a hero gauss cat or LL Atlas can turn the tide back in your favor.

If you're talking about pugs though, forget it. Pugs should face pugs, end of story. And yes, you have zero chance of coming back from 6 to 8 with no comms.

[xRaeder]

Davers, on 04 November 2012 - 01:11 PM, said:

1. Larger teams do nothing if one side is a premade and the other isn't. There are many premades who think they will have no problem rolling PUG teams with the 4 limit. (Whether they are right is to be seen)

2. Larger teams do not necessarily encourage team play. Adding more players per side will not increase cooperation. The best that can be hoped for is that multiple people will do the same stupid tactics at the same time.

2a. It's true that larger maps (especially really large maps) require more tactics and teamwork. Which is why if we ever get them they should be for premades only. Think how many matches are lost because 'No one checked the tunnel'. Imagine if there were like 5 ways to get to each base?

3. Regardless the size of the map, most combat happens within 300m, since that is optimal range for most weapons.

All the things I said are true if PGI were to do these four things:

1. Large maps and player counts (32v32).
2. Multiple objectives.
3. Respawns and a ticket system and/or class limitations (only certain number of heavies, mediums, etc).
4. Server browser and 3rd party server hosting/admins.

[Cergorach]

2 single sided kills is an indication that the opposing team has good players or you own team had bad players. It is survivable, but if your side has more bad players, the situation will not change. The solution is not in the game mechanics, mapsize, teamsize, etc. It's in the matching mechanics, team folks with the same skill level up and let them fight against others of that skill level. Also don't allow large teams against PUG teams. That should solve most of the issues.

That doesn't mean I don't want to see a battallion vs battallion game (36 vs 36) on a very large map with multiple objectives, respawn, repair, resupply points. Hell yeah, I still want that combat drop they promised with that promo trailer ;-)

[Shredhead]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

All the things I said are true if PGI were to do these four things:

1. Large maps and player counts (32v32).
2. Multiple objectives.
3. Respawns and a ticket system and/or class limitations (only certain number of heavies, mediums, etc).
4. Server browser and 3rd party server hosting/admins.

No to respawns. People tend to not value their lives when they can easily return and do the same derp again.
And a big fat NO to dedicated servers, as it will only split the playerbase and lead to "Frozen only" or even "No Heat No Ammo" BS servers.

[Tardstrong]

I agree. With the limit of players in a match it is hard to bring a counter to an specialized mech.
Streakcats are imba because a team might not have enough long range.
LRM's and Gauss are OP because you can't close with them.
The limit of numbers in a match disallows the ability to counter specialized mechs.
Resulting in 2 or more specialized mechs being able to be the downfall of a match.

[LarryDaBird]

The Savior of this game is supposed to be the 4 man premades being the largest allowed in against pugs. I think that was what the initial concern was for because lets face it four decent players will beat 8 man pugs 90% of the time.

[Elder Thorn]

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

I have seen people posting this in a few other threads but think it deserves it's own discussion.

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 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.

gamemodes and maps will need to be designed, so that you have to cover multiple areas and will lose very easily if you just all stick together, then we can talk about more players.
But i agree, this should come soon.

[Leetskeet]

I honestly don't think this game can handle 8 more people.

It's already a laggy mess with 16.

[Vermaxx]

Being down two is a game breaker for a pug.

For a premade (and I am including a group of pubbies in Teamspeak working together, possibly even coordinating mech choices), being down two isn't necessarily the end of the world.

For a group with paper-thin teamwork and fragile morale, being down two is the beginning of mad rushes for...well I'm not even sure what they're all running off for.

12v12 is coming...eventually. Course that sums up every announced option up to and including the mythical CW.

Edited by Vermaxx, 04 November 2012 - 08:26 PM.

[LarryDaBird]

Not beating a dead horse and this is more for those optimistic that 12v12 will be the answer.

Being rather blunt and just from past experiences, when a game starts and launches with smaller than intended match sizes and decides that at an arbitrary point down the road we're going to expand the match size from 8v8 to 12v12 or 15v15 to 32v32 that it rarely ever happens in the near future, sometimes never at all. Expect the 8v8 game modes for at least the next 9 months to a year or longer because enough people have said it before me, but I will paraphrase a little, "The game is barely working/half broken right now, what makes you expect that adding in the equivalent of another full team is even possible under the current setup." If they want to tax the game more before they fix whats wrong with it they are even dumber than I thought, which is pretty damn stupid.

Point is they need to rework the 8v8 system based on a stat based ranking system or at least a random system that looks at everything, tonnage, weapon loadout, mech speed etc. and plan on it being permanent, because I highly doubt the code or servers can handle 12v12 without a complete rewrite.

TLDR: Don't look at 12v12 as being the magical answer to end your matchmaking woes because by the time it is likely to arrive the game is likely to already be dead.

Edited by LarryDaBird, 04 November 2012 - 09:03 PM.

[EdgePain]

The bigger problem is that matches tend to be over before they've begun (majority of matches for me while PUGing see one side wipe out the other). Yeah a coordinated 4 can beat an uncoordinated 8... that's more an exception than a rule. Pitting pre-coordinated teams against non-coordinated teams is ridiculous... they should've shut premades off or only allowed premades to face premades until they get their "system" implemented. So that whole arguement is a separate issue.

The problem is a lack of proper MM. Just evening up the tangibles (firepower/speed/defenses) at least would get better balance. And usually on the bad side of the current MM, you get even worse with more Trials/DCs/AFKs/Suicides and other general morons, which technically are intangibles that's hard to account for, and other rules would be required to balance that. So if you just add more people you don't necessarily change the balance, it could just get worse for one side. Proper MM is likely the only solution, and it's a ways off.

More game modes, maps, player group size, and other custom options would certainly be welcome... but they are obviously going to take time too, and MM to me is a much bigger concern.

[SkipP]

About 4 or 5 months ago, when I first got into closed beta, I created a spreadsheet that documented each match and variable such as number of players on each team, who drew first blood, which team won, how much they won by, etc., etc.

My conclusion, after ~50 games, was that the team that drew first blood (destroyed the first enemy 'mech) only went on to win the match ~54% of the time. Now, that's definitely more than half, but not really statistically significant.

I was thinking about doing another such spreadsheet/stats-tracker now that the game has had many updates and is in OB.

My guess is that there is some sort of inherent imbalance that causes so many one-sided victories. But I don't think it's a PUG vs. Pre-Made problem, and I don't think it's a whoever-lost-a-mech-first-looses problem. I think that's most perception.

Edited by SkipP, 04 November 2012 - 10:03 PM.

[Cpt Grunge]

I think 12 vs. 12 would be great, not 15 vs. 15. For people with bad lag/connection issues 24 vs. 30 people in a match could be a big difference in play-a-bility.

[RadicalTed]

Cest7, on 04 November 2012 - 02:57 AM, said:

Maps are too small for 12v12

Maps are too small for 8v8

[Bromineberry]

xRaeder, on 04 November 2012 - 02:33 PM, said:

1. Large maps and player counts (32v32).
2. Multiple objectives.
3. Respawns and a ticket system and/or class limitations (only certain number of heavies, mediums, etc).

This would be great. Instead of a normal "ticket" system, everybody has a max amount of lives (to stop people suiciding Atlases), and each revive draws from a pool of tonnage. If your x tons of mechs are gone, game over.

[Krivvan]

Bromineberry, on 04 November 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

This would be great. Instead of a normal "ticket" system, everybody has a max amount of lives (to stop people suiciding Atlases), and each revive draws from a pool of tonnage. If your x tons of mechs are gone, game over.

Bad idea to do it by tonnage. Lighter mechs are, if anything even without any lagshield, more survivable than heavier mechs.

[Cpt Grunge]

Bromineberry, on 04 November 2012 - 10:34 PM, said:

and each revive draws from a pool of tonnage. If your x tons of mechs are gone, game over.

Can you explain that a little more in depth? It sounds interesting but I really don't have the full picture.

[Bromineberry]

Krivvan, on 04 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Bad idea to do it by tonnage. Lighter mechs are, if anything even without any lagshield, more survivable than heavier mechs.

It was just a rough idea. Of course you have to think seriously about balance.

Cpt Grunge, on 04 November 2012 - 10:36 PM, said:

Can you explain that a little more in depth? It sounds interesting but I really don't have the full picture.

It would be a little bit like in (god, I never thought I would refer to it as a good example) Battlefield. You have got several playmodes (capture the flag or something like rush with a defense and an offense team etc.) any you got your tonnage.
If an Atlas dies, he loses one life (like in old games), and 100tons of your tonnage is lost. The amount of "lifes*tonnage of the mechs" should not be the same with the absolute tonnage.
Example:
1 Atlas, 1 Cat. Each has 10 lifes (1000 tons + 650 tons = 1650 tons) but the team as a whole has only 1500 tons. So the Atlas can die 10 times, and the cat 7 times. Or the Cat 10 times and the Atlas 8 times, or ....
It should NOT be instant respawn of course, so kthat illing two or three mechs in a short row would give one team the upper hand for a short moment of time.

These are just numbers to explain the idea behind it, because it would need serious numbercrunching to make a good system out of it. But I think it would reward team players, the lances (especially if you are a premade vs premade) would have to think about what mechs to use (tonange wise) and what loadout they should have. A LRM boat f.e. would be pretty useless after it has depleted its ammo. Of course you could combine this with fixed "lance tonnage" or with battle value. Less heavy mechs or more medium ones?

Like I said, this is just an idea which will never be implemented I think. Which is sad, because the thing I miss most about the battles are the feeling of beeing in a battle. If I play a game of TF2 or played a game of BF, I always had the "goal" to win the round, to get to the enemies base. If it worked, I had somehow this "Yeah, we've done it!" feeling. But because the games in MWO are quite quick I totally lack the feeling of achievement, even if my team won...

This game mode was one of the first things I thought of when I picked up this game. But I'm sure most people would hate it. And, yes I know, there won't be a gamemode like this. But a man can dream, can he not?