64 replies to this topic

[TychoTheItinerant]

Forces more attention to the objective and extends matches. Make Cbill rewards greater to compensate for time spent, and put a "wave timer" on re-drops. Add a "deathmatch" mode where there is no respawn and the sole objective is to kill other players.

[Cybermech]

mention of respawns somewhere.
but not sure if it will be in game.

[Johnneh]

they are against putting respawns into the game because of the tactics people will use on the battlefield

[TychoTheItinerant]

Johnneh, on 02 October 2013 - 04:00 AM, said:

they are against putting respawns into the game because of the tactics people will use on the battlefield

like what?

[Shockwave144]

TychoTheItinerant, on 02 October 2013 - 04:02 AM, said:

like what?

You're joking right? What would you do if you knew you couldn't die?

Edited by Shockwave144, 02 October 2013 - 04:05 AM.

[TychoTheItinerant]

Shockwave144, on 02 October 2013 - 04:05 AM, said:

You're joking right? What would you do if you knew you couldn't die?

That's the thing, you DO die. And you get to sit and wait until next drop becomes available. This isn't going to make kamikaze-warriors a viable tactic. Dying still has a sizable penalty in that you spend that much less time completing/defending an objective. Look at TF2. Hell, if you want to really dissuade kamikaze play, tie a player's longevity to the amount of Cbills they earn post-match. Costs money to drop in single player games, right?

[Shockwave144]

TychoTheItinerant, on 02 October 2013 - 04:10 AM, said:

That's the thing, you DO die. And you get to sit and wait until next drop becomes available. This isn't going to make kamikaze-warriors a viable tactic. Dying still has a sizable penalty in that you spend that much less time completing/defending an objective. Look at TF2. Hell, if you want to really dissuade kamikaze play, tie a player's longevity to the amount of Cbills they earn post-match. Costs money to drop in single player games, right?

That's if they do it that way but I won't hold my breath.

[Fut]

The only "Respawn" mode that I think would be acceptable would be the "Dropship Mode", where you go into battle with 4 Mechs ready. When you get destroyed, you can select one of your remaining 3 Mechs and enter the battle again... etc.

It's a nice compromise between the group of people who want respawns, and those who don't.

[WarHippy]

What Fut said above.

Also I do not want this game to become more and more zerging. Leave the respawns out it dumbs down the game.

[TychoTheItinerant]

WarHippy, on 02 October 2013 - 04:47 AM, said:

What Fut said above.

Also I do not want this game to become more and more zerging. Leave the respawns out it dumbs down the game.

How would a respawn result in more zerging than is already present, or "dumb down" the game?

[Joseph Mallan]

I'm with the Hippy. ReSpawn does not belong in this game. I might be with Dropship mode but that still does not fit in the universe.

[TychoTheItinerant]

Joseph Mallan, on 02 October 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

I'm with the Hippy. ReSpawn does not belong in this game. I might be with Dropship mode but that still does not fit in the universe.

Are you seriously arguing for canonicity in a game that has already dropped the ball PLENTY of times on that? Clan invasion, Gauss mechanics, the list goes on. Canon works fine for TT, which the BattleTech canon was DESIGNED for, but for MechWarrior, especially a multiplayer incarnation like MWO? Come on.

Sarna.net said:

[color=#000000]MWO does not meet the current criteria for [/color]canon[color=#000000] for the BattleTech universe. When asked, BattleTech [/color]Line Developer[color=#000000] [/color]Herbert A. Beas II[color=#000000] expressly confirmed in an official chat that the game would not be canonical[/color]per se^[1][color=#000000], i.e. it would not be in a position to add events, characters or other content to the canon of the BattleTech universe.[/color]
As an official product with a valid license, MWO can be regarded as apocryphal.

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 02 October 2013 - 04:58 AM.

[Livewyr]

Respawns -> Bad for economy.

Controlled Respawns, acceptable.


Kill only matches: Absolute fail. (If you have to ask why.. you haven't run into the shutdown troll spider of spite.)

[Joseph Mallan]

No. I am arguing that ReSpawn is a losers mechanic and caters to the lower denominator. There is a price we pay for making mistakes... we die. Game over for the dead.

Gauss Mechanic works well for a 90m Minimum Mechanic.

[bloodnor]

ignore this man he is clearly insane

[Joseph Mallan]

Yeah... cause i am willing to accept the consequences of my failed actions.

[TychoTheItinerant]

Livewyr, on 02 October 2013 - 04:57 AM, said:

Respawns -> Bad for economy.

Controlled Respawns, acceptable.


Kill only matches: Absolute fail. (If you have to ask why.. you haven't run into the shutdown troll spider of spite.)

How is respawn bad for the economy?

Joseph Mallan, on 02 October 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

No. I am arguing that ReSpawn is a losers mechanic and caters to the lower denominator. There is a price we pay for making mistakes... we die. Game over for the dead.

Gauss Mechanic works well for a 90m Minimum Mechanic.

Already into the "appeal to ridicule" stage are we? "ONLY LOOOOOOOOOSERS WANT RESPAWN" :V

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 02 October 2013 - 05:06 AM.

[Farix]

Because there is a large segment of players who will use respawn to farm c-bills rather than achieve the modes objective. PGI has already reduced the c-bill rewards by about 16% because of 12v12. Adding respawns will force their hand to reduce them even further. Perhaps as much as 60% depending on how many times they allow respawns.

[WarHippy]

TychoTheItinerant, on 02 October 2013 - 04:50 AM, said:

How would a respawn result in more zerging than is already present, or "dumb down" the game?

Respawns take away from the risk resulting in lower tactical awareness, and need for group interaction. In most respawn games players just swarm the objective until one side gains and advantage and it snowballs into a win. That is fine for some mindless fun, but does not make for compelling play. Making a mistake that gets you killed needs to have meaning. Working with your team needs to have meaning.

[TychoTheItinerant]

Farix, on 02 October 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Because there is a large segment of players who will use respawn to farm c-bills rather than achieve the modes objective. PGI has already reduced the c-bill rewards by about 16% because of 12v12. Adding respawns will force their hand to reduce them even further. Perhaps as much as 60% depending on how many times they allow respawns.

Well, maybe if players didn't feel so damn starved for cbills that they felt they needed to resort to farming, it wouldn't be an issue.

WarHippy, on 02 October 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

Respawns take away from the risk resulting in lower tactical awareness, and need for group interaction. In most respawn games players just swarm the objective until one side gains and advantage and it snowballs into a win. That is fine for some mindless fun, but does not make for compelling play. Making a mistake that gets you killed needs to have meaning. Working with your team needs to have meaning.

Respawns don't remove that risk entirely. In the time between when you get killed and the next drop comes around, a lot can happen that could have ended more favorably for your team if you hadn't gotten yourself killed. If anything, the ability to respawn will force more team coordination to obtain objectives. An in-game VOIP would do wonders for this, as well, or allow for certain "talk" commands to be hotkeyed for quicker use and increased coordination. Hell, while they're at it, putting a player on each team in the role of MechCommander and making them responsible for parsing gathered intel and relaying orders/laying out strategy would be great.

Edited by TychoTheItinerant, 02 October 2013 - 05:17 AM.