118 replies to this topic

[Mason Grimm]

Personally I like two different methods depending on how the devs want to go and how they implement death penalty mechanics.

Option 1: If there is no persistent server you could have it like the older mechwarrior games. A number of players "drop" into combat. Once you are dead you sit it out. You can view the overall battlefield but you cannot participate in the battle, this includes no tactical relay of information or effective combat presence. Sure there are ways around this using Teamspeak or whatever variant they have no adays but in-game communications with live players would be muted.

Option 2: Once you are ejected you can run your little butt back to your "spawn point" and suit up in something else that you have sitting in your hanger. We will just assume that every side brought a number of dropships with all your toys to the battlefield. If you don't eject and suffer death with the mech you have to sit the rest of the match out. Survivability would be dependent upon the damage to that particular mech. ie: a headshot with a gauss rifle means your ejection system "malfunctions". Oh, that and you are a smear on a metalic ball flying through the back of your mechs head.

[Melissia]

If player is never going to respawn, they shouldn't be forced to have to just sit there and watch the rest of the game.

[Eegxeta]

I don't like respawns because people put less effort into making balanced mechs for survivability, because dieing has no real penalty. So they just load on all the firepower they can and play for kills which ruins it for the people who play for the battle. I don't think you should be able to respawn so when the people who just go with all guns die the people who design their mechs to last can laugh at them and go on and finish the fight.

[MaddMaxx]

Melissia, on 26 November 2011 - 07:06 AM, said:

If player is never going to respawn, they shouldn't be forced to have to just sit there and watch the rest of the game.

I must have missed the "forced to" bit. Where did you read that Melissia? It has been done before and in a Team based game it is great to be able to select a remaining team mate and basically sit in their cockpit and still "be in the game" Otherwise, go get a fresh beverage.

Re-spawns have there place but if we are fighting in the Persistence game mode, both BT and TT have a Warrior either dead or needing a pick after ejecting. They don't run back to the Hangar, as it is likely 35 Light years away on their Base of Operations planet and the Dropship only brought one for everyone and some fixer upper stuff.

[Dlardrageth]

Indeed, the "forced to sit there" claim seems a bit silly. You know,you could for example just press that little button that turns your computer off - problem solved. Unless someone in your household forces you at gunpoint to play computer games...

Another option might be that after you died, you just go back to your garage and just pick another Mech for another match. Or alternatively wait till the other match is done and you get your Mech back. Sure, it doesn't sound much like "instant gratification", but IMHO it is a legitimate model. Personally I think MWO would need general respawn for all game modes as much as a "Save Game" function. Or an option to turn invincibility and unlimited ammo on. Think that's a totally different kind of game there.

[Melissia]

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

For the record, in CS:S, matches don't typically last twenty minutes, and you can always leave and find another match with no penalty if you die and think the match is gonna be a long time before the next round begins. Same with every other game that doesn't have respawns like that. But I've seen many people on this forum who would have a problem with that logic being applied to this particular game, because they want repairs to take time, or they'd probably object to having a battlemech's wreckage existing in one game while the battlemech is being used in antoher game because of instant repairs or a particularly long match.

Don't give me that bull**** "you can always turn your computer off" strawman. That wasn't my objection.

Edited by Melissia, 26 November 2011 - 07:49 AM.

[Tannhauser Gate]

Type of respawns should be a host option depending on the type of drop. In the end, respawns will be balanced with the type of game play PGI wants to create. But imo, I want the option to choose.

Practice and training: Insta-respawns back at base

Casual all-play games: Respawns back at base with some damage requiring repair bay

League games, conquest battles, unit matches: Limited respawn (in a diff mech), or no respawn, or ghost spectator, all with perm damage that requires expensive repairs.

Edited by lakedaemon, 26 November 2011 - 08:28 AM.

[John Clavell]

Basically, it comes down to the type of player you are, or what you have time for. Personally I prefer no respawn. It's better suited to the type of play I like. It's more realistic, and makes team play more balanced and easier to organise. There are a lot of negatives to respawning. However, there are people who enjoy it. I find it tends to suit smaller non team player better. It allows you to just get into the action. It will also depend on the game design.

[Hallstatt]

NO RESPAWN.

Except for any simulation/training exercises, where you don't lose or get C-Bills/parts/mechs. (= for fun match)

[Dlardrageth]

Melissia, on 26 November 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

[...]

Don't give me that bull**** "you can always turn your computer off" strawman. That wasn't my objection.

You did read my post? Where I even bolded "general respawn" referring to "all game modes"? Why on earth would PGI want to enforce respawn for all game modes? When a lot of people obviously don't like that? Tyrant attitude much? And let me quote you:

Quote

[...]forced to have to just sit there and watch the rest of the game

Noone will force you but yourself. Period. Don't care about CS:S or whatever, it frankly never interested me at all. And is about as relevant as a sack of rice toppling over somewhere in rural china to this topic.

What I do suggest is, there should be an option for different game modes. Some of us might actually want to play prolongued campaign with a higher realism/lethality level, you know? And not only the quick 20-minute-twitchy arcade game with perma-respawn and what not.

I cannot see a valid reason why both cannot exist parallel as optional. Frankly, if you do, you might be better off with CS:S or whatever...

[Kalunta]

Have a mosh-pit for the kids, just-wanna-drop-in-and-shoot-stuff insta-gratification types, and the pent-up anger-frustrated-gotta-blow-off-steam types with all the free-for-all multiple short term play, quick death, and respawn as they may need to lead a normal life, but with nothing lost and nothing gained.

Absolutely no respawn for any battles or gameplay for advancement, rank, c-bills, salvage, prizes, status, and --- most definitely --- territory.

[Grimm Wulf]

I don't really mind respawning. And I don't really mind no respawning either. It compleatly depends.

As long as it's dependent on what type of game mode it is, or is not, available in. Or if it is possible to start custom games, where the person creating it should have the ability to dictate the rules for that game.

I think it would be a very bad idea to leave either one out of the game. I have a feeling that the chance that the game "fails" though, is higher if the game has no respawning, then if there is respawning in X amount of the game modes. Just based on that there probably are a whole lot more people who prefer respawning, then people who do not want respawning.

It's like the whole thing about PvE and PvP in regular MMO's... MMO's that only have PvP, and no PvE, tends to not be very long-lived, or at least not very successful, most of the time at least (there are alwys going to be the exceptions). The PvE gamers are such a huge portion of the entire MMO gaming community, that not including them is pretty much a dumb idea.

[Mason Grimm]

Melissia, on 26 November 2011 - 07:45 AM, said:

Actually, that's exactly what you seem to be suggesting.

Melissa, that was not my intention at all. First, if I wanted to suggest something I would have done so outright and second of all I think it would go without saying that nobody would force you to sit in the match. World of Tanks already has a model to deal with this. You exit the match if you don't want to watch it and grab a different tank/crew in your garage and go fight a different battle. I think the point I was trying to make in that option is that you are rendered combat ineffective; whether you choose to stay and watch or not is entirely up to you.

Let us not go looking for bones to pick oh and another favorite of mine is "Can't we all just get along"?

[mekabuser]

imo, no respawn is what you play if you want to league up. Otherwise, tactics devolve into omg stay alive at all costs which leads to engagements of 5 minutes withno ebb and flow and ultimately boring.
Secondly, with respawns there is flow to the battle. Sometimes a few people have to die in order to push the enemy from a position, to deny a position , or just to eliminate a serious threat at all costs. Respawns at their best give a greater opportunity for epic achievement on the `battlefield.
No respawn, especially!!!! with out repair is not conducive to good gameplay.
Havent played many games outside of MW, but imagine BF with out respawn, Its almost pointless and like I said, outside of league play would make gameplay in MWO boring and a serious drag to learn.

[Dlardrageth]

You got to take into account though that PGI - according to what info we got so far - doesn't want to develop just "yet another FPS". Thus the comparison to BF might not be quite accurate. Also I'd rather not have e.g. the spawn camping issues there were with BFBC2 which made some servers pretty much a no-go place if you wanted to do something else but spawn-camping.

And, as stated before, noone bars you from hopping into another Mech from your garage and entering another random PUB match while the first one you got killed out of ends. The "boring" argument actually works both ways. I find it kinda boring to kill the same guy in the same Mech on the same map in the same match for the third or fourth time.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 26 November 2011 - 01:03 PM.

[Kudzu]

Dlardrageth, on 26 November 2011 - 01:02 PM, said:

You got to take into account though that PGI - according to what info we got so far - doesn't want to develop just "yet another FPS". Thus the comparison to BF might not be quite accurate. Also I'd rather not have e.g. the spawn camping issues there were with BFBC2 which made some servers pretty much a no-go place if you wanted to do something else but spawn-camping.

And, as stated before, noone bars you from hopping into another Mech from your garage and entering another random PUB match while the first one you got killed out of ends. The "boring" argument actually works both ways. I find it kinda boring to kill the same guy in the same Mech on the same map in the same match for the third or fourth time.

Especially since it greatly reduces the need for the recon role.

[MaddMaxx]

Kudzu, on 26 November 2011 - 02:16 PM, said:

Especially since it greatly reduces the need for the recon role.

I am Liking this one twice.

[Kallian Ryke]

Adridos, on 23 November 2011 - 04:35 AM, said:

System of WoT is good. You get killed in battle, you can not use that tank, untill the battle ends. If you lose it, you have to pay extra to get that tank up and running again.

This guy brings up a good point. In all likelihood, WoT will become something of a technical base for MWO. I'm not saying WoT's concept of tiers are going to be implemented, that notion just doesn't fit in this setting, but there are numerous similarities between the two games.

A) you will have the capacity to own multiple mechs at once (not specifically announced, but really, it will be there). Both games are simulators: you pilot a mechanized vehicle with a myriad of options, upgrades, crew/pilot experience, and even micro transactions (skins are, at the very least, something MWO will feature at micro transaction cost). At the most basic level, you can describe both games as "A free-to-play simulator in which you gradually increase the capabilities of your vehicle and pilot." Thus, the developers have seen a game very similar to their own, and more importantly, they have seen the degree of success the game has had. Thus, the WoT gameplay mechanics in regards to matching have, to an extent, proven to work (and, more importantly, are enjoyable for the gamer).

Will pay to win elements be present? I don't know. But if the developers have their heads screwed on right (and we have evidence to say they do - their desire to do right by this reboot of the series), the matching system will likely be very similar to World of Tanks. That is to say, as Adridos stated, once your mech is destroyed you are done for the match. You can then leave the match, and hop into another while waiting for the first to end, eliminating having to wait for drawn out matches to end to pilot a mech again. This means a player who enjoys respawns can battle near-continuously (though in separate matches), and those who dislike respawns are not troubled in the slightest. By this same token, option three in the poll is eliminated as well. I haven't seen any indication that it will be possible to join games mid-battle, as new textures (the new mech you would be bringing) would have to be loaded by all players. This would cause a pause in the game every time someone new joined, disrupting gameplay to a degree that is easily abused by players.

And to the OP, I suggest that you make a poll that allows people to choose their own side rather than the ones you force upon them. IE: 1) I support respawns. 2) I am against respawns. 3) I am indifferent. In your poll, option one is against respawn, option two is indifferent, and option three is saying, essentially "I really dislike those who abuse system in order to respawn". There is no voting option for those who actually support respawning. Not allowing voters to show a cross section of the community nullifies any possible impact this could have on the development process.
<edit>
Actually, in hindsight, that last paragraph is a little harsh. Upon re-reading the poll, I realize that it was just the wording that confused me. After reading through the thread, "Dont Mind them." seemed more indifferent than supportive to me. I would suggest clarity of options, but it isn't absolutely necessary.

Edited by Kallian Ryke, 26 November 2011 - 04:29 PM.

[Ilithi Dragon]

I have fun playing WoT, but I so hate that game...

The base system that it has for respawns, though, is functional and would be recommendable for the BT universe in a MMO setting, but Melissia did have a fair point about players getting stuck unable to play.

Yes, in WoT you can always go grab another tank to play in, but the problem is, and Melissia's point, is that you don't always have another tank to grab. ESPECIALLY if you're new to the game, because you only start out with the one tank and you have to earn XP and credits to be able to unlock and then purchase other tanks. Now, it doesn't take very long for a player to earn enough XP and creds to get a second tank, but even then it's usually a case of "selling this POS tank so I can get something that is actually useful sooner," leaving new players once again stuck with a single tank. And if you get blown up early in the game, or even mid-game in a very long match (and they do last quite a while at times), it really sucks because you have to wait 10-20 minutes before you can continue playing.

That's a problem because not everybody has unlimited amounts of time to spend on the game. Many people set aside a small block of time to play the game in-between work, school, parenting, etc. and they DON'T HAVE THE TIME to wait 10-20 minutes to continue playing just because they had the misfortune of getting knocked out early. New players also get frustrated, as Melissia pointed out, because they want to play the game and not play for three minutes and then have to wait 10-20 minutes to continue playing because their first time out they ran into someone ten times better than they are because they're a newbie.


Many have suggested many solutions, and the best solution I've seen suggested (and that I suggested on the previous page) is to make it a server-side option. For ranked/persistent-world matches, spawning should be restricted or limited, with no respawns at all or giving you the ability to hump it back to base and grab another mech, if there's another mech in the bay. For non-ranked/player-hosted servers, the option to allow respawns (and variable respawn times), like in MW4, should be included.

Now, this requires that there be player-hosted servers/matches in addition to the company-hosted persistent world server (which it sounds like will be the case because of the intended timelining of the story), which may not be the case. If there is just the company-hosted server, however, SOME option for respawning should be included.

[Kudzu]

ilithi dragon, on 26 November 2011 - 05:38 PM, said:

Yes, in WoT you can always go grab another tank to play in, but the problem is, and Melissia's point, is that you don't always have another tank to grab. ESPECIALLY if you're new to the game, because you only start out with the one tank and you have to earn XP and credits to be able to unlock and then purchase other tanks. Now, it doesn't take very long for a player to earn enough XP and creds to get a second tank, but even then it's usually a case of "selling this POS tank so I can get something that is actually useful sooner," leaving new players once again stuck with a single tank. And if you get blown up early in the game, or even mid-game in a very long match (and they do last quite a while at times), it really sucks because you have to wait 10-20 minutes before you can continue playing.

It's been awhile since I played, but IIRC you start with 3 tanks-- American, Russian, and German.

Quote

SOME option for respawning should be included.

I still think the better option is to have multiple mechs available. Respawning really takes away a lot from the game in general.