42 replies to this topic

[Bobzilla]

Why not have a respawn mode, if I don't like it I don't have to play it. If I don't play it, it doesn't affect my exprence playing.

Not playing this game because there's a respawn mode would be like not playing any video games because some have respawns. It has nothing with what I want to play if i so choose.

I personally wouldn't have much intrest, but just because I wouldn't play it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have the chance that wants to, if there is enough intrest.

[Inertiamon]

As I said in the OP - I'm a fan of the sim style and respawns in certain game types paves the way for a far more fierce "hardcore" mode where it's can be as sim as it gets without harming new player retention. You could even work it like some mobas where you have to have acheieved a certain number of "casual" mode games before you can even play the full fat option. The hardcore mode could even reintroduce R&R in a controlled sense, balanced against larger win rewards.

[Mechteric]

Bobzilla, on 11 April 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

Why not have a respawn mode, if I don't like it I don't have to play it. If I don't play it, it doesn't affect my exprence playing.

Not playing this game because there's a respawn mode would be like not playing any video games because some have respawns. It has nothing with what I want to play if i so choose.

I personally wouldn't have much intrest, but just because I wouldn't play it doesn't mean everyone else shouldn't have the chance that wants to, if there is enough intrest.

Counterstrike doesn't have a respawn mode and they've done well for themselves. Maybe its just that certain games or just game modes don't work with respawns while others do. That's probably a fair assessment to take it on a case by case basis, and it is my thought that MWO won't work as well with respawns much the same reason Counterstrike doesn't.

[Inertiamon]

CapperDeluxe, on 11 April 2013 - 05:16 AM, said:

Counterstrike doesn't have a respawn mode and they've done well for themselves. Maybe its just that certain games or just game modes don't work with respawns while others do. That's probably a fair assessment to take it on a case by case basis, and it is my thought that MWO won't work as well with respawns much the same reason Counterstrike doesn't.

There's some key difference in my mind that make CS a case for rather than against though. Namely that between rounds of CS you remain connected to a persistent server. Secondly the rounds are shorter on average. Thirdly gungame CS is massively popular as a variant and that works respawns in just fine.

When looking at other game examples you have to continue to bear in mind one key issue, and that's the ratio between the amount of time people are connected to your infrastructure and therefore costing you money, and the amount of time they're actually spending playing and therefore enjoying your game. The ratio in MWO right now is probably quite poor.

[Hotthedd]

Critical Fumble, on 10 April 2013 - 05:56 AM, said:

You're making it sound like a moral issue, you don't have to offer human sacrifices to respawn, you know.

As long as the time invested:rewards ratio stays the same between the two, your point holds no water. It being easier holds no water either, as both sides would be able to respawn.

I'd grant that pure unrestricted respawns would be stupid, but a limited respawn or the ability to use another mech from your bay could be interesting.

We are rewarded on damage done, wins, and kills. If I am playing in a no-respawn mode, and you are in a different match that allows respawns, you would be rewarded by having more damage and kills. Therefore = easy mode, as you would not need more SKILL to get more damage.

Syllogy, on 10 April 2013 - 06:53 AM, said:

Why would it drive players away?

Because many of us who were initially attracted to MechWarrior actually LIKE the fact that there are no respawns, we were told that there would be no respawns, and support the game FOR THAT REASON. If this game becomes just like the thousands of other twitchy respawn games, it will not compete.

[Inertiamon]

I've got really bad news for you as regards what you thought MWO would be.

Equally though, I don't see why you think it impossible to balance hardcore/sim gametypes with larger rewards.

[Durant Carlyle]

Inertiamon, on 11 April 2013 - 01:40 AM, said:

Doesn't get it post.

Okay...

This is a sim. You get one 'Mech per match. Each drop on a planet is a different match. Just like the previous MechWarrior single-player games where you get one life in the mission. If you die, it's over and you have to start the mission again.

The respawn style/tactics I'm talking about is when you die and then respawn in the same match/game. Exiting the match and choosing another 'Mech for a different match isn't the same thing at all.

Even as a beginning player on day one you can choose to exit the match and drop in another match with a different 'Mech. They probably don't know it because we don't have a tutorial yet, but the fact is that the option is there.

I see players disconnecting only seconds after they die all the time in matches. I don't think the connected/playing ratio is as bad as you think it is.

I know about CounterStrike, as I played the original version before Source. It was actually my first experience with online gaming, and I got addicted quickly.

Edit: Another misconception about MW:O is that when the 'Mech dies, the pilot dies. That's not the case. You are assumed to eject, land safely, run around avoiding the enemy, and get picked up by friendly rescue forces. It just happens in the background where you don't see it, like the salvage operation that allows you to get your 'Mech back even when your team just lost 0-8 in the last match.

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 11 April 2013 - 08:49 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Inertiamon, on 11 April 2013 - 08:40 AM, said:

I've got really bad news for you as regards what you thought MWO would be.

Equally though, I don't see why you think it impossible to balance hardcore/sim gametypes with larger rewards.

The tone of your post makes it sound as though you speak from a position of authority. AFAIK, the debate is not over.

[Bobzilla]

Hotthedd, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

We are rewarded on damage done, wins, and kills. If I am playing in a no-respawn mode, and you are in a different match that allows respawns, you would be rewarded by having more damage and kills. Therefore = easy mode, as you would not need more SKILL to get more damage.


Because many of us who were initially attracted to MechWarrior actually LIKE the fact that there are no respawns, we were told that there would be no respawns, and support the game FOR THAT REASON. If this game becomes just like the thousands of other twitchy respawn games, it will not compete.

If you play more you'll make more. Don't really see how that's defferent than it is now.
You support this game because you were told there wouldn't be respawns? That seems a little silly to me, let alone he's talking about a mode that you wouldn't have to play. And yeah, a twitchy respawn game can't compete with the top games that are twitchy respawn games.....wait a minute.

[Fooooo]

Hotthedd, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

We are rewarded on damage done, wins, and kills. If I am playing in a no-respawn mode, and you are in a different match that allows respawns, you would be rewarded by having more damage and kills. Therefore = easy mode, as you would not need more SKILL to get more damage.

That just seems wrong, you most definatly would still need skill. Overall the better players would still be getting more DMG than the others etc etc.

Its not like suddenly the game changes and weapons do more or less damage or something. Its still the same game, with the same skillsets needed to win.

However yes, constant respawns over a 20min match is something I do not want to see in this game.

I like the idea of the dropship mode as its just 4 lives(mechs), not unlimited, and it will play well to objective based matches. (as long as you cant instantly drop your next mech solo, i think I would prefer you have to wait for your lance to die first etc so you all spawn together.)

Edited by Fooooo, 11 April 2013 - 10:00 AM.

[Hotthedd]

Fooooo, on 11 April 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

That just seems wrong, you most definatly would still need skill. Overall the better players would still be getting more DMG than the others etc etc.

Its not like suddenly the game changes and weapons do more or less damage or something. Its still the same game, with the same skillsets needed to win.

However yes, constant respawns over a 20min match is something I do not want to see in this game.

I like the idea of the dropship mode as its just 4 lives(mechs), not unlimited, and it will play well to objective based matches. (as long as you cant instantly drop your next mech solo, i think I would prefer you have to wait for your lance to die first etc so you all spawn together.)

My point being that in the current mode, there is only so much damage you can do, and only so many kills you could get. With respawns, you could do more damage (more lives + more enemy mechs) and get more kills, giving you more XP and C-bills. Therefore = easy mode.

[Critical Fumble]

Hotthedd, on 11 April 2013 - 08:34 AM, said:

We are rewarded on damage done, wins, and kills. If I am playing in a no-respawn mode, and you are in a different match that allows respawns, you would be rewarded by having more damage and kills. Therefore = easy mode, as you would not need more SKILL to get more damage.

Per match the rewards for a respawn mode would be higher; but if they last longer how is it not logical that the match rewards increase as well? If the average single life match lasts 5 minutes and gives an average reward of 80k C-Bills, how is it "easier" to grind a respawn mode that lasts an average of 20 minutes and gives an average of 320k C-Bills? Hint: its not. They would have to adjust the rewards to suit the mode, but they'd have to do that anyway it avoid farming exploits.

And yes, you'd get more damage playing a respawn mode, but it would not mess with the skill:damage ratio. Someone who can only get 50 damage a round would not suddenly be the top of the leader boards because stupidity is still lethal, you just get another chance. Unless that comment was about comparing yourself to others based off a damage/round statistic. In which case you just have to isolate damage/round in single life modes.

Durant Carlyle, on 11 April 2013 - 08:44 AM, said:

The respawn style/tactics I'm talking about is when you die and then respawn in the same match/game. Exiting the match and choosing another 'Mech for a different match isn't the same thing at all.

If you're referring to intentionally blowing lives in order to distract or disrupt because it costs nothing, that would be bad in this setting. But in a single life or limited respawn setting it becomes a carefully calculated risk. Of course, even with unlimited respawns on a reasonably long timer it wouldn't be so bad either, but you'd need to have winning or losing tied to an objective away from the spawn points or tied to kills and have random spawn points in groups.

You argument makes perfect sense from the perspective of a RP person and/or BT/WM fan. It makes no sense to anyone else. PGI is doing a lot of things like that, too, third person and free repairs make little sense from a purist perspective, but it appeals to more people. What you said would be effective to people who have played BT for a long time (this does not include the dev team, apparently) and get into the "immersion" feel. For anyone else you need to argue from it making the game (taken as a game, not an extension of your favorite fantasy world) not fun.

Also, your closing point is off. You CAN die in your mech if the cockpit is blown out. Even if you say that its set to go off automatically when your rector hits the safety override and there's another auto-eject system for when the pilot's protection is compromised, you still have a lot of holes, not least of which is injuries from ejecting and landing. There's also the unprecedented generosity of the winning side NOT stealing your dead mech, in which case the most you could hope for is having to pay a ransom for it.

[Durant Carlyle]

Critical Fumble, on 11 April 2013 - 04:53 PM, said:

Also, your closing point is off.  You CAN die in your mech if the cockpit is blown out.  Even if you say that its set to go off automatically when your rector hits the safety override and there's another auto-eject system for when the pilot's protection is compromised, you still have a lot of holes, not least of which is injuries from ejecting and landing.  There's also the unprecedented generosity of the winning side NOT stealing your dead mech, in which case the most you could hope for is having to pay a ransom for it.

In-universe, yes this would happen.  However, in this game it doesn't.  There does have to be SOME hand-wavium, but too much is bad.  Just like there's no scarcity of new technology or supply/demand or other "realistic" stuff.

Our pilots never lose their lives.  Our 'Mechs magically reappear in our 'Mech Bay despite losing a match.  That's enough hand-wavium for this game.  No need to add respawn crap to it.

Believe it or not, I'm all in favor of a more realistic game.  Lose a 'Mech in a match and you have to buy a new one.  Salvaging.  Travel time.  Things like that.  But that wouldn't make for a fun game for most people now would it?

Edited by Durant Carlyle, 11 April 2013 - 08:53 PM.

[White Bear 84]

Should be limited to BF3, COD...

Ok ok, dropship mode only!!!

(And even then limited to 4 mechs of different types)

Edited by White Bear 84, 11 April 2013 - 07:38 PM.

[Hotthedd]

Bobzilla, on 11 April 2013 - 09:53 AM, said:

If you play more you'll make more. Don't really see how that's defferent than it is now.
You support this game because you were told there wouldn't be respawns? That seems a little silly to me, let alone he's talking about a mode that you wouldn't have to play. And yeah, a twitchy respawn game can't compete with the top games that are twitchy respawn games.....wait a minute.

Yes. It is called market saturation. PGI just does not have the resources to go head to head against the megacorporations. If MW:O goes full arcade (3PV, respawns, etc.), they will not be able to compete with the next big twitchy game, or the one after that. They need to differentiate.

[Bobzilla]

Hotthedd, on 12 April 2013 - 05:38 AM, said:

Yes. It is called market saturation. PGI just does not have the resources to go head to head against the megacorporations. If MW:O goes full arcade (3PV, respawns, etc.), they will not be able to compete with the next big twitchy game, or the one after that. They need to differentiate.

It's mechs in the BT universe. The majority of players want a twitchy game, by not apealing to them MWO can't compete, how do you not get that? A few people that really enjoy the 'lore' and tactics do not equal thousands that want to just jump in and kill things. However, of those thousands that just want a twitchy game, some are bound to be inticed to look at the universe in which it's set and how tatics can improve their game as to change into one of the few that really enjoy the lore and tatics. Perhaps even move away from the twitchy choice. Key being choice there, options no forcing. Appeal to all. Best chance of sucess.

Why do you think those twitchy games are the chart toppers? Why do you think those twitchy games have a hard core mode? To appeal to people that aren't that interested in the twitchy, want more tatics or get bored. I wouldn't want to play the respawn mode, but I think it would be a great vehicle to gain income, help new players and maybe even change the minds of some twitch players. It could work the other way around, say you try the respawns and love it, whats wrong with that? I hated green beans for a long time, but my taste changed and i'm not going to eat them because of an opinion i used to have, nore did i tell people they couldn't eat them because i didn't like them.

Edited by Bobzilla, 12 April 2013 - 07:01 AM.

[Oppresor]

In one word NO

I find the whole idea of Respawning objectionable. You should enter each mission in the full knowledge that if you get it wrong, you are going to be taken out for the duration of that mission. If you work on that basis, it will discourage the heroic charge and make you think about and develop (over time) sound combat tactics. It should even encourage communication and support between units.

If and when we get mission scenarios that last for 30 minutes plus, instead of, or along side the brief foray's that we currently have; I would advocate a return to In Field Repair and Re-Am; like we had in Mech 3 and 4.

[Krigherren]

Lightdragon, on 11 April 2013 - 03:12 AM, said:

eh... part of that statement is pretty wrong... there are dropships that can carry entire mech batallions and their gear like the overlord, hell even the union class has room for 12 mechs the overlord carries a compliment of infantry, 36 battlemechs and their gear, and has a seperate bay for 6 aeros

With an Overlord that's 3 respawns per player in a 12v12 match, and even so, no intelligent commander would lose a company and decide to send another to replace them, and yet another after that one is also destroyed.

[TehSBGX]

I'm fine with dropship mode. But full respawns would just make the core audience bail, so not worth it.

[Hotthedd]

Bobzilla, on 12 April 2013 - 06:57 AM, said:

It's mechs in the BT universe. The majority of players want a twitchy game, by not apealing to them MWO can't compete, how do you not get that? A few people that really enjoy the 'lore' and tactics do not equal thousands that want to just jump in and kill things. However, of those thousands that just want a twitchy game, some are bound to be inticed to look at the universe in which it's set and how tatics can improve their game as to change into one of the few that really enjoy the lore and tatics. Perhaps even move away from the twitchy choice. Key being choice there, options no forcing. Appeal to all. Best chance of sucess.

Why do you think those twitchy games are the chart toppers? Why do you think those twitchy games have a hard core mode? To appeal to people that aren't that interested in the twitchy, want more tatics or get bored. I wouldn't want to play the respawn mode, but I think it would be a great vehicle to gain income, help new players and maybe even change the minds of some twitch players. It could work the other way around, say you try the respawns and love it, whats wrong with that? I hated green beans for a long time, but my taste changed and i'm not going to eat them because of an opinion i used to have, nore did i tell people they couldn't eat them because i didn't like them.

Where do you get the idea that a "majority" of players want a twitchy game? I am not telling anyone not to eat green beans, I am saying that there are thousands of OTHER places that serve green beans, and if you want green beans, go there.