58 replies to this topic

[WarHippy]

Put this in the other thread we don't need yet another nonsense thread on something the majority do not want in this game regardless of how you attempt to dress it up.

My answer was no in the other thread and it is still no now in this thread and the other thread someone made on this topic because they decided they wanted a special soapbox to speak outside of the existing thread.

[Impyrium]

Thunder Child, on 07 March 2016 - 09:27 PM, said:

The issue I have with respawns is that many proponents of Respawn that I have read so far just want what we have now, but with Respawns.
So, we end up with CoD with giant robots. Because, apart from one or two people (who would have done it anyway) going for the objectives, everyone will just setup a Deathball and farm kills till the timer runs out. Because that is what pays out.
This is why I am against the generic "Must have Respawnz NAIO!" crowd.

However, if an intelligent game mode with decent sized maps could be established *cough*MW:LL*cough* that requires teams to achieve multiple objectives to get payouts, and don't get rewarded for damage or kills (or, minimal rewards at best), then respawns would be great, because then players are actually trying to achieve their goals, rather than just die gloriously while taking two other players with them. There would have to be some penalties in play, for example each death would reduce the victory count, requiring players to still try to stay alive or work twice as hard to win.

This, in essence, is what CW could have been.

So yes, if implemented properly in completely new game modes, respawns could be a good thing.
But just throwing them into what we have now? You'd probably lose a good portion of the Whales.

This is essentially my point. I don't want to see it in our current game modes. It's too huge of a shakeup and change for something we've had for years, and the current game modes work fine with it. It's what they're designed around.

I just feel it ultimately limits the way MWO is played into a glorified Counter Strike (IMO), rather than an objective based shooter, which feels a bit more appropriate for a MW game. Plus I always figure there's nothing wrong with more variety.

WarHippy, on 07 March 2016 - 09:48 PM, said:

Put this in the other thread we don't need yet another nonsense thread on something the majority do not want in this game regardless of how you attempt to dress it up.

My answer was no in the other thread and it is still no now in this thread and the other thread someone made on this topic because they decided they wanted a special soapbox to speak outside of the existing thread.

My apologies, I'll refrain from creating a thread about a topic you don't agree with.

[WarHippy]

Dingo Red, on 07 March 2016 - 10:06 PM, said:

My apologies, I'll refrain from creating a thread about a topic you don't agree with.

I don't have a problem with you creating a thread about anything you want. What I have a problem with is you creating yet another thread on a topic that is already being discussed. This was the third thread I read yesterday on this topic with yours and the other one referring back to the original thread. You knew the other thread existed yet chose to create yet another thread instead of posting in the existing one. And for what purpose? To have your own soapbox, or just to further clutter the forums with duplicate threads?

[Impyrium]

WarHippy, on 08 March 2016 - 09:37 AM, said:

I don't have a problem with you creating a thread about anything you want. What I have a problem with is you creating yet another thread on a topic that is already being discussed. This was the third thread I read yesterday on this topic with yours and the other one referring back to the original thread. You knew the other thread existed yet chose to create yet another thread instead of posting in the existing one. And for what purpose? To have your own soapbox, or just to further clutter the forums with duplicate threads?

Regardless of how you want to spin it, I wanted a way to express my own view which is now clearly different to the other two threads. If you don't like someone doing that, then don't read the forums.

[Meathook]

Dino Might, on 07 March 2016 - 09:03 PM, said:

How many people who hate the idea of respawns played MWLL? Seems like some new game modes with respawns could be neat. Too many people have one preconceived notion of how it would work, and usually it's the detractors who think up a strawman scenario to argue against.

Reality is that the mechanic could be good, could be bad. All depends on the implementation.

+1. Of course respawns would need new maps and a different gamemode, but we need that anyway, since the current implementations of both can hardly be taken serious at their current state. Probably won't happen though as everytime someone says "respawn" clueless trolls seem to come out of every shadow

Anyone who's played MWLL can hardly be satisfied with the current MWO maps and modes in any way.

Edited by Meathook, 08 March 2016 - 03:09 PM.

[Sigilum Sanctum]

This subject is like that Wardens and Crusader **** all over again.

[OznerpaG]

2 mechs/120t or 3 mechs/160t on the bigger maps (tourmaline especially) could be fun, as long as the re-spawns were always relocated to be far from any enemy player to prevent spawn camping

not going to happen though - that will involve a big rework that doesn't add income for PGI

[Malleus011]

My objection to respawning - in any game mode, including CW - is that Battletech and Mechwarrior aren't game universes that support that kind of mechanic. The Mechwarrior and his Battlemech are powerful, valuable combat units; even a 20 ton Locust is a significant battlefield presence (especially with no other 'mechs on the opposing side). No matter what the era, an individual Battlemech is a force to be reckoned with. Respawn cheapens that loss to the point of meaninglessness.

In Battletech, the loss of a 'mech would be a huge blow to a mechwarrior, often ending their combat careers and costing the pilot and his family a tremendous amount of wealth and status. Even in later eras when Battlemechs became easier to replace, a Mechwarrior would rarely be sent right back out into combat in another machine, if one was even available.

Should the argument be made that you are respawning as another pilot in another 'mech - that's likely what PGI intends the CW respawn mechanic to represent - then you are cheapening the value of the Battlemech by treating them as disposable and their destruction as of little significance, like the loss of a single infantryman to a division. In Battletech, 'mechs simply aren't lost in such enormous numbers so rapidly without consequence.

Each CW battle represents the loss of over a battalion of 'mechs to the losing side. The most powerful mercenary units of the Inner Sphere only *had* about fifteen battalions. One weekend of losses in CW would utterly destroy Wolf's Dragoons or McCarron's Armored Cavalry.

If anything, 'A Battletech Game' should treat the loss of a Battlemech in combat with greater consequences, such as Repair and Rearm, or chassis cooldown, or other features, instead of cheapening the loss of a 'mech into a ten second wait while you load up the next one.

[Meathook]

Malleus011, on 08 March 2016 - 03:20 PM, said:

My objection to respawning - in any game mode, including CW - is that Battletech and Mechwarrior aren't game universes that support that kind of mechanic. The Mechwarrior and his Battlemech are powerful, valuable combat units; even a 20 ton Locust is a significant battlefield presence (especially with no other 'mechs on the opposing side). No matter what the era, an individual Battlemech is a force to be reckoned with. Respawn cheapens that loss to the point of meaninglessness.

In Battletech, the loss of a 'mech would be a huge blow to a mechwarrior, often ending their combat careers and costing the pilot and his family a tremendous amount of wealth and status. Even in later eras when Battlemechs became easier to replace, a Mechwarrior would rarely be sent right back out into combat in another machine, if one was even available.

Should the argument be made that you are respawning as another pilot in another 'mech - that's likely what PGI intends the CW respawn mechanic to represent - then you are cheapening the value of the Battlemech by treating them as disposable and their destruction as of little significance, like the loss of a single infantryman to a division. In Battletech, 'mechs simply aren't lost in such enormous numbers so rapidly without consequence.

Each CW battle represents the loss of over a battalion of 'mechs to the losing side. The most powerful mercenary units of the Inner Sphere only *had* about fifteen battalions. One weekend of losses in CW would utterly destroy Wolf's Dragoons or McCarron's Armored Cavalry.

If anything, 'A Battletech Game' should treat the loss of a Battlemech in combat with greater consequences, such as Repair and Rearm, or chassis cooldown, or other features, instead of cheapening the loss of a 'mech into a ten second wait while you load up the next one.

Alright, then how about lossing your mech for good, if it is destroyed? Would give a loss of a mech way more meaning. Account wipe if you forgot to eject before loosing said mech?

But let's be serious here, I cannot agree with you on this. I don't know why everyone thinks "respawn" = "lololol Imma be back in 10 seconds". Take MWLL again, I have seen people play way more cautious WITH respawn, than in MWO. Loosing your mech meant a huge finacial loss for that round that would take your progression towards heavier mechs a few steps back. Loosing your mech meant something BECAUSE you could respawn and still be in a game that had any meaning to you instead of "gg", quit match and entering that mind numbing circle again and again and again.

Without respawns those games are too short to have any meaning, to have any room for tactical decicions, to have any room for objectives apart from destroying the other 12 mechs. Just look at our current gamemodes.

[Khobai]

Quote

My objection to respawning - in any game mode, including CW - is that Battletech and Mechwarrior aren't game universes that support that kind of mechanic.

Except they do support those mechanics. reinforcements via hot drops are absolutely a thing in battletech/mechwarrior. theres a whole section on it in the strategic operations book. typically battlemechs are orbitally inserted using ceramic cocoons rather than risking dropships though, its the battletech equivalent of paratroopers.

Quote

In Battletech, the loss of a 'mech would be a huge blow to a mechwarrior, often ending their combat careers and costing the pilot and his family a tremendous amount of wealth and status.

Then how do you explain the fact that I personally own over 100 mechs? lmao. MWO is already so far gone from canon in so many ways that nitpicking specific ways it violates canon makes NO SENSE.

You dont need to justify respawns from a canon perspective because canon has already been discarded by MWO. The only justification required is that the gamemode is fun.

Quote

Respawn cheapens that loss to the point of meaninglessness.

and not having respawns makes it so one or two bad players/afkers/disconnecters completely ruin a game. it leads to games where the first team that gets down on kills is unable to recover from that initial loss. no respawns also encourages negative behaviors like deathballing and nascaring because players are petrified of permadeath. It detracts from player freedom and player ability to play the game how they want.

also were not talking about respawn without consequence. were talking about ticket based respawn where dying costs your team tickets. death is not meaningless, your team can still lose from dying too much. And in such a gamemode the strategic objective is of such value that both sides are willing to commit a large number of forces to capturing it. repawns also get rid of deathballing, nascaring, and give players a much larger degree of freedom to play how they want without fear of permadeath.

furthermore the inclusion of respawns doesnt mean the exclusion of one-life gamemodes. both can exist concurrently. so opposition to respawns just makes you look like an @sshat that wants to deny other people from having a respawn gamemode for no basis other than spite.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2016 - 04:13 PM.

[Trauglodyte]

The #1 reason why respawns shouldn't happen is this:



This game has too many of them and the last thing that we need is said morons getting to rush to the front of a fight and die within the first 30s of a match 4 times, stand out in the middle of no where getting LRMed to death 4 times, going afk 4 times, d/cing 4 time, etc. etc. We definitely don't need the detritus of the gaming world getting an additional 3 lives with which they can troll their own team just because they're selfish and self entitled. No thank you!

[Khobai]

Quote

This game has too many of them and the last thing that we need is said morons getting to rush to the front of a fight and die within the first 30s of a match 4 times, stand out in the middle of no where getting LRMed to death 4 times, going afk 4 times, d/cing 4 time, etc. etc. We definitely don't need the detritus of the gaming world getting an additional 3 lives with which they can troll their own team just because they're selfish and self entitled. No thank you!

If anything this is a compelling argument for why the game SHOULD have respawns.

So those people dont ruin the game by permadying on their first and only life.

[Parmeggido]

I am loathe to enter this realm of discussion, but I've thought about it a bit, and formed my own conclusions. It's complicated. That's the first thing I believe we should all agree on. Part of the problem is, if we look at the game modes we have, many of them were designed and implemented in other games with respawns in mind. Attempting to port them directly into MWO just doesn't quite work. Assault could be seen as a form of capture the flag, or king of the hill, and both of those depend heavily on a respawn mechanic. Otherwise you have the MWO problem of: How much time is the right amount for the base cap? Should there be static defenses? How many mechs should need to be on base to keep the enemies from being able to respond from halfway across the map? And we've been through all those changes, and nothing has felt quite right, because, in my opinion, these are respawn dependent modes that are difficult to balance outside that environment.

However, we have, as has been mentioned, a mode that shows at least an approximation of how respawns work in MWO. In CW, it can readily be seen what happens when players try to reinforce vs regrouping, or what happens when team A gets a solid lead on team B. If you reinforce, you're liable to get shredded as the enemies finish off your damaged allies and you plow alone into an enemy firing line. Regroup, and whichever side has the lead tends to keep it, as they damage successive waves with already used mechs, building upon their advantage. With the MWO style of play, where mechs generally take more than one or two shots to destroy, there is much less chance for a losing team to even things out, vs a game with much lower TTK, where a single good player on a kill spree can turn a match, which, while it can happen in MWO, is much rarer.

With that in mind, take a moment to consider the new game mode PGI is about to let loose upon us. It's obviously a king of the hill style mode. This will mean there will be a constrained area for both teams to fight over, much smaller than what is usually available for positioning. There is a timer that has to be run out for the game to end, and if people from both sides are in the capture zone, or if someone inside is being shot, that timer stops, and it's been set at a fairly massive 5 minutes. Without respawns, this means the only realistic way to win is to kill the entire enemy team, and then cap. With respawns, you constantly attempt to push into an enemy firing line that will shred you if you reinforce, or have additional cap time if you regroup, because there's no way to rocket launcher the group of enemies off the cap and try to turn it around. As you can probably guess, I have little hope for this new game mode. It doesn't sound like it would really work without respawns, but due to MWO's other major characteristics, respawns don't really seem like the answer either.

So, what is there to do? Traditional game modes don't really seem to translate to Mechwarrior style gameplay, where each individual can have such a wildly different set of abilities, including speed. Even if we had modes such as Capture the Flag, how would we deal with the speed differences between lights and pretty much everything else? If we slowed them down, how would we deal with their fragility? The only game modes I really see being viable in our current game environment are either asynchronous or non traditional. I don't see respawns fixing this game, and neither do I believe porting in game modes that have depended on them as being the way forward. PGI will need to think outside the usual FPS box to really make something that works with what they've created, and as far as I'm concerned, respawns are just a distraction in that context.

As always, these are simply my own rambling opinions, and you are free to disagree with them at your leisure.

[GrimRiver]

I think they should add respawns but for everytime you die 20 seconds will be added to your countdown timer.

Or have it as a pool system where every teammate(s) death will add 10 seconds to your total teams respawn cooldown.

As it stands now this CS:GO 1 life thing creates a certain playstyles(The hide and poke, hillhump, too afraid to push).

MOBA's and other strategy type games use this increased respawn system to great effect, it punishes but not too hard and give the player another chance to come up with a better plan without having to leave the match to find another game.

Technically MWO already has respawns with the drop deck system in CW, so it's not too far fetched.

[jaxjace]

until respawns are in conquest and all other objective games will be second to skirmish, end of ******* story.

[Trauglodyte]

But Khobai, those people screw the game up by even playing. Having them screw it up 4x as much isn't the answer.

[Aiden Skye]

With re-spawns you are just asking for Alpha warrior online. Direstars anyone? I could just build mechs for massive alphas, no armor or heat-mitigation, mash override and alpha's for all. If I want to come back from the dead I rather play CW.

[Khobai]

exactly without respawns every gamemode just devolves into skirmish. its pointless to even have other gamemodes besides skirmish.

even CW can be considered a variation of skirmish because the easiest (and most rewarding) way to win is to first kill the enemy team and run them out of lives then kill the objective.

Quote

But Khobai, those people screw the game up by even playing. Having them screw it up 4x as much isn't the answer.

but your team still has a chance of pulling out a win if good players get multiple lives too.

if the objective matters more than killing the enemy team, it may still be possible for the good players on your team to complete the objective, despite the bad players getting killed.

that is the essence of objective based play.

Edited by Khobai, 08 March 2016 - 04:21 PM.

[Fiona Marshe]

Polar Highlands is the *smallest* of the current maps that Respawn would be minimally viable.

The map sizes and current objectives just don't support the concept.

Also, the interface would need to bring back the 'ready dropship' on the front screen.

[GrimRiver]

W A R K H A N, on 08 March 2016 - 04:15 PM, said:

With re-spawns you are just asking for Alpha warrior online. Direstars anyone? I could just build mechs for massive alphas, no armor or heat-mitigation, mash override and alpha's for all. If I want to come back from the dead I rather play CW.

Not with my system I posted last^

Every death is punished with added time to cooldown.

Edited by GrimRiver, 08 March 2016 - 04:27 PM.