227 replies to this topic

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

Ive already explained how respawns would result in less boring, less vanilla games.

one-life gamemodes = everyone is scared of dying, too afraid to take risks and try new things, and always doing the exact same safe strategy of deathballing in preset locations on every map.

The game has deteriorated into that precisely because theres no respawns. As long as there are no respawns the game will be banal, stagnant, and repetitive. Thats an irrefutable fact. Especially since other game developers realized this DECADES ago when respawn was first invented.

or a game that appeals to crowds beside the CoD twitch, screw up and it really doesn't matter crowd. Since the majority of shooters already cater to that crowd, believe it or not, it' nice to have options that don't. Go figure.

But yes, let's continue to push the notion that every game HAS to be catered to the braindead adhd generation.

CelticCross, on 23 December 2015 - 10:23 AM, said:

With no respawns and objective-based gameplay, Counterstrike became one of the most successful online franchises ever.

Those things don't necessarily hold a game back.

just repeating for emphasis for the thinking impaired.

[Hotthedd]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

respawns exist in other games for a reason. and the reason is to avoid MWO's problems.

First off, I do not believe mid match re-spawning would alleviate bad teamwork, specifically leaving the assault lance vulnerable. In fact, I believe it would ENCOURAGE poor team play due to there not being as much of a downside to having your 'mech destroyed.
Secondly, I believe mid-match re-spawning exists in other games because of the impatient mindset of an entire generation of gamers.
Lastly, and it has been mentioned, there are plenty of options for people who have to have re-spawns. MW:O does not have to be just like almost every other FPS already on the market.

Barantor, on 23 December 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

...yet we have respawns in a whole mode that has the most lore and was promised the longest.

You are confusing instant respawns with the same thing that Faction Play does with it's system.

There is a middle ground of having the dropships just like we do now. It is a lot of work for PGI and I don't know if they see the value in it, so we have what we have.

CW. CW? You mean that ghost town of a game mode that PGI has to bribe players to play in order to fill the queues? Has the most LORE?!? Are we talking about the same game, or are you just comparing it to Quick Play that has zero lore?

I'm not confusing anything. Mid-match re-spawns, whether instant, ticket based, or even drop ship mode is immersion breaking and a lazy game mechanic.

Barantor, on 23 December 2015 - 10:32 AM, said:

Counterstrike happens in sequential rounds of play though, which is something that MWO doesn't really do either.

No MW:O doesn't do it, but it SHOULD have. Planetary conquests were CAMPAIGNS, not the crap we have as CW currently. Players should take a drop deck based on the fact that there would necessarily be a series of missions, each new mission objective based on the outcome of the previous mission, culminating in a tactical retreat for one team or the other. If you lose a 'mech in a battle, or it is too heavily damaged, you mus choose a fresh 'mech from your drop deck.

BTW, before CS did it, MW2 Mercenaries did.

[Bishop Steiner]

Hotthedd, on 23 December 2015 - 11:09 AM, said:

CW. CW? You mean that ghost town of a game mode that PGI has to bribe players to play in order to fill the queues? Has the most LORE?!? Are we talking about the same game, or are you just comparing it to Quick Play that has zero lore?

But Bro.

There's a map. With PLANETS! And people have like FactioN Freak Flags. It's very lore!!! It's so lore!!! So lore that Tukayyid has been fought for and lost twice, that the Clans use Mercenaries, and that we fight 12 v 12.

Much lore bro.

At this moment, aside from window dressing there is no lore in this game at all, aside from the barest bones that guide the mech lab.

[Khobai]

Quote

First off, I do not believe mid match re-spawning would alleviate bad teamwork, specifically leaving the assault lance vulnerable. In fact, I believe it would ENCOURAGE poor team play due to there not being as much of a downside to having your 'mech destroyed.

Except I never once claimed that respawns would alleviate bad teamwork. But it certainly wouldnt make teamwork worse than it is now either. Its virtually non-existent as is. Also there is a downside to your mech being destroyed, your team loses tickets equal to the mechs tonnage, if that happens too many times you still lose... the difference is killing the enemy team through attrition would become the secondary win condition rather than being the primary win condition. It allows the gamemode to focus more on objective based play.

Quote

CW. CW? You mean that ghost town of a game mode

have you even played CW lately? Ive had no problem finding games whatsoever. the queue times arnt bad at all either.

Also CW is not a true respawn gamemode. Ive already pointed out that CW is just an extension of skirmish. You still win CW primarily by killing the enemy team. It is essentially just a longer game of skirmish. What im proposing with ticket-based respawn gamemodes is something thats actually NOT skirmish for once.

And I also agree that planetary conquests are supposed to be multi-mission campaigns. CW just doesnt have the "epic" feel to it that it should.

Quote

But yes, let's continue to push the notion that every game HAS to be catered to the braindead adhd generation.

You realize that respawns existed even in the golden era of gaming in the 90s right? How ignorant are you? Respawning as a game mechanic has been around for nearly 30 years... its not associated with the braindead adhd generation. The only one making that unfounded correlation is YOU. Whether you like it or not respawning has been a cornerstone mechanic of multiplayer games for nearly 30 years for a reason.

Instant gratification in games is the most prominent trait associated with the current braindead ADHD generation. Hence the rise of microtransactions and paytowin content in games.

Also if you dont like respawn gamemodes, you wouldnt be forced to play it, skirmish would still be in the game.... so basically you just sound like a **** that wants to deny everyone else. Whereas I just want people to have another option besides skirmish.

Edited by Khobai, 23 December 2015 - 11:45 AM.

[WarHippy]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 09:54 AM, said:

respawns exist in other games for a reason. and the reason is to avoid MWO's problems.

This isn't other games, and not every game is a good candidate for respawns. The problems you list for MWO will not be fixed by adding respawn, nor is MWO a good candidate for having respawns.

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 10:18 AM, said:

Ive already explained how respawns would result in less boring, less vanilla games.

one-life gamemodes = everyone is scared of dying, too afraid to take risks and try new things, and always doing the exact same safe strategy of deathballing in preset locations on every map.

The game has deteriorated into that precisely because theres no respawns. As long as there are no respawns the game will be banal, stagnant, and repetitive. Thats an irrefutable fact. Especially since other game developers realized this DECADES ago when respawn was first invented.

Counter-Strike says Hi and laughs at your irrefutable facts that in reality are just your own biased opinions.

[Barantor]

Khobai I think they can't differentiate between respawn like TF2 with the type of thing you are suggesting.

To all the comments about Faction Play not having lore? It has more than anything else so we might as well grab onto it and not let go right? Otherwise it is just as generic as Hawken yeah?

Faction Play isn't in a good place, I think there needs to be some massive changes. Respawn mode was popular in MW4, the last official MW game, but it could be made better and make more sense. Quick Play is boring for a lot of people that try this game, we play it because it is quick, not because it is good. I want both, sue me.

We all want a better game.

[LordNothing]

assaults require more forethought than heavies. so be more alert then usual when the match starts so you can throttle up and head to the barycenter of the team as soon as your mechfeet hit the ground.

if they nascar (which is caused by the totally avoidable situation of some idiot mistaking scouting for leadership), dont chase the tail, chase the head. focus all attentions on survival. i know all those big guns are screaming 'shoot me' at you but resist them and find a good spot from which to engage.

you also have another weapon in your arsenal, other assaults. which are great at shooting lights off of you. an assault by its self might fal victim to the wolf pack, but two assaults might some of them out before they die. light fighting in an assault is usually not easy but its not impossible either. find a wall, and back up to it so they cant get behind you. take time and aim, your armor is thick and the firepower of lights is minimal. dont overheat, that is what lights want, you do that he will walk around you and shoot your weak spots.

most importantly press r. this might break your team's sheep out of their nascar frenzy as it gives players something to do other than run in a circle for no apparent reason. lerm boats love doritos, they will offer some fire support sending them squirrels scrambling for cover (this is a great time for a kill shot). you might get some mediums and lights show up shortly there after, not for you but because they want an easy kill.

[Bishop Steiner]

Barantor, on 23 December 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

We all want a different game.

I think would be more accurate.

Respawn in the manner it's done in CW is workable, but still just a bandaid to cover up how poorly optimized things are, and how low player populations are. If PGI could make Cryengine support 36v36 they would have done that. They can't, so to get the "reinforcements" feel, they went with a respawn mechanic.

Quickplay does not need that. The reason people are afraid to not camp, (aside from comments that may be made about character defects) is related to game play mechanics involved with focus fire, convergence, etc.

Respawn either means people will go rambo with no real concern for results, or just hide with multiple lives. Whether a limited respawn mechanic or a twitch keep going til the timer runs out, neither fixes the actual problem or enhances or distinguishes gameplay.

Having to think before you do because a bad choice has actual consequences is the heart of the best actual gameplay in this game, and plenty of us still find enough good games doing that WITHOUT respawn to recognize that it will not change the underlying issues.

[Hotthedd]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Except I never once claimed that respawns would alleviate bad teamwork.

The thread is about bad teamwork. You brought up re-spawns as an answer.

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

have you even played CW lately? Ive had no problem finding games whatsoever. the queue times arnt bad at all either.

I have. (There were cookies)
Let's hope the new influx of Steam players decide to stick around playing CW.
...or let's don't, it's hard to tell with all the complaint threads about new players not knowing how to play CW as a team.

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Also CW is not a true respawn gamemode. Ive already pointed out that CW is just an extension of skirmish. You still win CW primarily by killing the enemy team. It is essentially just a longer game of skirmish. What im proposing with ticket-based respawn gamemodes is something thats actually NOT skirmish for once.

It isn't true re-spawn, correct. Because if after years of waiting CW was only base attack with true re-spawns the game would already be dead. The outcry would have been epic.

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

And I also agree that planetary conquests are supposed to be multi-mission campaigns. CW just doesnt have the "epic" feel to it that it should.

And on that we agree! Also there would be no need for re-spawns in that mode.

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Also if you dont like respawn gamemodes, you wouldnt be forced to play it, skirmish would still be in the game.... so basically you just sound like a **** that wants to deny everyone else. Whereas I just want people to have another option besides skirmish.

I know this wasn't to me, but a couple of things:
We were promised that we wouldn't be forced to play with/against 3PV. That was not entirely true, so forgive us if we take that with a grain of salt.
And even with your proposed solution of having skirmish still in the game, that forces many players out of the endgame. I know I wouldn't stick around for that.

[Morggo]

Barantor, on 23 December 2015 - 11:58 AM, said:

Khobai I think they can't differentiate between respawn like TF2 with the type of thing you are suggesting.

I won't speak for others, but for myself yes, yes I can differentiate them.
The breakdown in all this is others cannot grasp the very simple concept we're saying... I'll try it this way:

1. Did you just die?
2. If yes, your match is over. Go spectate, learn from your mistake and try again next match.

That is what some people like.

Notice there was no mention of "grab a ticket and come back for more" or anything resembling you alive piloting a mech in the match you just died in. You like the opportunity to try different things in the same match. Cool man, dig it. IF they added some sort or flavor of respawn you're all set! Yay! I like to try other tactics too... except I wait til the next match to give it a go. It does happen, at least for me. I have mentioned before I've recently been in matches where someone gets on comms as we're dropping and offers up some new or different tactic. Some failed but a couple were brilliant.

[Bishop Steiner]

Khobai, on 23 December 2015 - 11:23 AM, said:

Except I never once claimed that respawns would alleviate bad teamwork.

so then it really serves no purpose other than to satisfy adhd kiddies who make impatient bad choices. cool story.

[Tordin]

Valdherre Tor, on 22 December 2015 - 06:44 AM, said:

bigger engine = problem solved

Dude. They are supposed to be slow for the amount of weapons and armor they can bring. Thats the point of being an assault. Except a few cases, like the Banshee, Zeus, Warhawk, Executioner. You have to be the assaults sidekick and kick metal behinds together.

I like playing all the classes from ttime to time. Different roles you know! Assaults are the glue, the command, the safe center all others can gather around to protect and get rewarded with the assaults wrecking the enemies that tried to kill YOU!

The most hilarious thing is that some light pilots come crying when they went to far from the main group and said it was their fault not coming in time to help... Yeah, not all can go 140 km/ h to help a single Light going bananas over in some obscure deathpit.

"Play safe, play around Assaults!"
"Now with 80 - 100t more kickass!"

[Mystere]

Hotthedd, on 23 December 2015 - 12:22 PM, said:

We were promised that we wouldn't be forced to play with/against 3PV. That was not entirely true, so forgive us if we take that with a grain of salt.

Are people still seriously butt hurt about this? PGI could in fact go further, but the "3PV never again!" crowd just won't allow it I guess.

[Hotthedd]

Mystere, on 23 December 2015 - 12:35 PM, said:

Are people still seriously butt hurt about this? PGI could in fact go further, but the "3PV never again!" crowd just won't allow it I guess.

I guess it depends on your definition of "Butt hurt".

If you mean: "Not entirely trusting of PGI when they promise you won't have to deal with something", then, yeah, I guess some people are.

[Barantor]

Bishop Steiner, on 23 December 2015 - 12:29 PM, said:

so then it really serves no purpose other than to satisfy adhd kiddies who make impatient bad choices. cool story.

You like to shove everyone in the same boat on that one... geez.

Have you ever played BF2 Bishop? It was a great game that they simplified with the more recent titles IMO. It had a series of ticket counters that went down faster unless you maintained control of certain points, it makes conquest look like a joke and it had respawns. You only had as many respawns as you had tickets though and if you ran out of tickets you lost, period. It promoted teamplay and careful tactics. You couldn't hole up or you lost, but charging in over and over without much thought didn't do anything for you either. There were 'normal' tactics for some maps, but if you did something unexpected the risk and reward could be great.

Instant respawns are stupid, no disputing that, but painting any respawn system with a very broad brush doesn't promote any sort of change either. They did ok with the dropship mechanic and I love they incorporated it into some of the quickplay maps, but I think it can be used just as easily for normal assault/skirmish as well with respawns

I would rather play longer than have quick matches over and over. Faction Play doesn't even do that for me because it usually comes down to attrition of 12 rather than any other system.

"ADHD Kiddies" ... CS:GO does that just as well lol. I'll call you "Grumpy Grognard" Bishop .

P.S. We still need to have that match sometime.

[RussianWolf]

Bishop Steiner, on 22 December 2015 - 01:31 PM, said:

that also means you did it long enough ago to not know how they would feel in the current, post agility nerf world, to level up.

Maybe. But you really ahve two choices. 1) try to follow your team and get swarmed under by the bad guys and die quickly to no avail. or 2) turn and set them up for as much hurt as you can dish out befor you fall with the hope that your team hits their rear and pulls them off you in time.

Your call.

When I was recently leveling my stock Urbies, I would often get dropped on Crimson at the drop furthest from the tunnel on the cove side. No way I was making it to the tunnel before I was spotted (happened more times than I care to recall) so I started rushign the saddle. Did I die? Every single time. But I was at least in a posisiton to deal as much damage as a stock urbie can deal before I fell.

[Khobai]

Quote

Khobai I think they can't differentiate between respawn like TF2 with the type of thing you are suggesting.

That seems to be the problem exactly. They dont fully understand what im talking about with a ticket-based respawn system. They just see the word respawn and associate it with CoD or TF2. When in reality the ticket-based respawn system ive proposed is nothing like either of those games. Its more like what MWLL had, which was MWO's predecessor.

MWLL had a ticket based system where each team got a finite number of tickets. When you died your team lost tickets and then you respawned. If your team ran out of tickets you lost. Death still had consequences since it cost your team tickets (in MWO's case, to help balance light vs heavy mechs, youd lose tickets equal to the mech's tonnage)

But there would also be an odd number of capture objectives (either 3 or 5), and controlling a capture objective would bleed the enemy team of tickets at a fixed rate of 1 per second or so. The capture objectives are what force action on the part of both teams (because theres an odd number, one team always has to be behind). In MWLL the capture objectives also doubled as forward bases and let you respawn closer to the frontline, which meant less downtime.

So itd mostly be an objective based gamemode, where the primary objective is running the enemy team out of tickets, and theres multiple ways of doing that: by capturing bases to bleed them or by killing enemy mechs. Its considerably different from conquest because you cant afford to ignore the objectives. In conquest you can just focus entirely on killing the enemy team, effectively making it skirmish. Actually every single gamemode in MWO is effectively skirmish, because the easiest and most rewarding way to win is to kill the enemy team, and winning other ways is frowned upon because the payouts are less.

Again, I just want to play something that isnt skirmish. So why are you being d*cks about it? I dont want to take your skirmish gamemode away... All I want is a new gamemode where the primary goal isnt to deathball in the same spot and kill all enemy mechs. Ive explained why that **** gets boring real fast. Its not fun at all because every single game plays out exactly the same.

Edited by Khobai, 23 December 2015 - 01:59 PM.

[KuroNyra]

KinLuu, on 23 December 2015 - 04:55 AM, said:

But it is always the slug player that complains.

you would be surprised.

[Sandpit]

MrJeffers, on 22 December 2015 - 07:24 AM, said:

A simple 'Form up on the assault lance' in chat at the beginning of the match usually works wonders.

it works for nothing for the players in this very thread arguing and complaining about slow mechs. Those are the players we're talking to. Yes it works, except for players like the OP, which is specifically who we're talking about

[RussianWolf]

Sandpit, on 23 December 2015 - 03:02 PM, said:

it works for nothing for the players in this very thread arguing and complaining about slow mechs. Those are the players we're talking to. Yes it works, except for players like the OP, which is specifically who we're talking about

When I was leveling my stock urbies, I announced at the beginning of each match my best speed. In all but I think 2 cases, the team sped off away from me. The couple times they moderated their speed to include me, we had great matches where the urbie was able to deal large amounts of damage. One match in particular, I wound up being the last mech on my side and killed the last two mechs on their side (one was a disco so don't get too excited). They didn't protect me , but they did make sure that they didn't leave a man behind that might be able to help overall.