4 replies to this topic

[Troutmonkey]

(Yes I know there's other threads, but people keep getting confused with respawns == unlimited instant respawns, somehow )

Before launching into the public queue you would assign your public queue drop deck. Your drop deck would contain 4* mechs, and would be limited in some fashion for balance (ie limit of 2 mechs per weight class). This drop deck would be different and separate from your CW drop deck.

Some game modes would then allow you to drop in multiple mechs, while others would just allow you to choose one from your deck. On missions where multiple mechs were permitted, dynamic drop zones could be used to prevent spawn camping, and lengthy respawn timers would prevent zerging. Each time you drop you have to pick a mech which hasn't been destroyed.

1. Skirmish - No respawns. Pick 1 mech and launch
2. Conquest - Up to 3* drops
3. Assault - Up to 3* drops
4. Domination - Up to 3* drops

This solves a few things
1. Lets you pick mech for the map (much requested)
2. Effectively create a "Favourites" list (also much requested)
3. Stops every mode being "kill everyone and then try the objective", allowing other more interesting objective based game modes to be created
4. Slightly more forgiving for newbies instead of death followed by 5 minute waits.
5. Allows people to play a greater variety of mechs.

Have been playing War Thunder recently and this system works really well over there. Deaths are still very meaningful, but trying to win the game simply by killing everyone is no longer a viable strategy. In objective based modes killing the enemy should be secondary to achieving the primary objective. As long as killing everyone is quicker and easier than completing the objective everyone will continue to ignore them.

For those who argue "go play CW", no, I won't. CW is very group focused and completely lacks any real objectives. It's basically skirmish with respawns, which is exactly why it fails. Consequently, lack of respawns is exactly why objective based modes fail in MWO.

*Numbers subject to change

Edited by Troutmonkey, 07 March 2016 - 09:14 PM.

[Zerberus]

IMO Skirmish should have this if any of the modes, because it is the de facto TDM deathmatch mode where respawns belong.

Assault:No. If people can` t be arsed to defend their base, that´s their problem. Suiciding as a way to RTB? Just NO.

Conquest: maybe 1 respawn a la BF(outlined in another thread)

Domination: Can we at least wait until the mode is actually released before we try to bork it?

I like the idea of having 4 mechs to select from... But that raises a HUGE issue: What do you do when all 12 members of your team decide their Heavy is best for the map? Esp if they all have 4 heavies in their "Public deck".

Allow them to drop with 12 heavies? That begs teh question: what exactly do we have a matchmaker for, again?

Or do you arbitrarily force certain weight classes onto certain players? So, why exactly do I even have 4 to choose from if the game chooses for me?

I see this as excellent in theory (where one assumes an altruistic, cooperative society where people instinctively know what others are going to do and can communicate through telepathy during the voting screen),but hell to make work in the real world....

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 09:10 PM.

[Troutmonkey]

Zerberus, on 07 March 2016 - 08:59 PM, said:

IMO Skirmish should have this if any of the modes, because it is the de facto TDM deathmatch mode where respawns belong.

Assault:No. If people can` t be arsed to defend their base, that´s their problem. Suiciding as a way to RTB? Just NO.

Conquest: maybe 1 respawn a la BF(outlined in another thread)

Domination: Can we at least wait until the mode is actually released before we try to bork it?

Could add a respawn mode of Skirmish simply called Team Death Match. There needs to be a zero respawn skirmish because that's the most popular mode and the most vocal opposition comes from those players. Assault needs something right now to distinguish it from Skirmish, because right now they play exactly the same 99% of the time.

As for domination we don't need to play it to know that telling everyone to go to one point and cap it is just going to result in death balls. At least with limited respawns they could add a moving cap point.

[Zerberus]

Troutmonkey, on 07 March 2016 - 09:05 PM, said:

Could add a respawn mode of Skirmish simply called Team Death Match. There needs to be a zero respawn skirmish because that's the most popular mode and the most vocal opposition comes from those players. Assault needs something right now to distinguish it from Skirmish, because right now they play exactly the same 99% of the time.

Assault is already slated for a rework. The less any skirmish players have input on assault and conquest, the better the chances of it actually working this time, as opposed to their excellent ideas that trashed every mode BUT skirmish on the very day skirmish was introduced. Thankfully, the "features" they got the devs to waste time on have been rolled back.
Skirmish will become even more superfluous than it already is when Solaris is eventually introduced (read :Die instantly). Until then it´s just the Solaris training sandbox for people that don´t like objectives and tactical gameplay.

As far as the most vocal opposition to respawns coming form skirmish players, my impression is the exact opposite... from what I can see the people on the barricades fighting tooth and nail against any form of respawn in the current moides are predominantly the same players that have despised skirmish from the day it was suggested... In no small part because as CB veterans many of us knew exactly what would happen. And it did, wow were we surprised

Quote

As for domination we don't need to play it to know that telling everyone to go to one point and cap it is just going to result in death balls. At least with limited respawns they could add a moving cap point.

So, we take a 5 minute video, together with the knowledge that PGI has seen and acknowledged flaws in the mode and is already moving to rectify them, and simply assume that they are going to do absolutely nothing of the sort? 0.o

BTW if you add a "Moving cap point", you know what will happen? The exact same players that to this day whine about caps on assault and lights not deathballing on conquest will still not be able to find their throttle controls, and will therefore complain about having to move. Just like they complained about cap timers being too short but never considered actually moving to stop a cap.

After 5 years of listening to the exactly same BS from the same tactically inept players, I´d be fllabbergasted if these were not the very first con arguments to be posted to the forums.

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 09:27 PM.

[WarHippy]

No in the other thread, and no here as well. I do not want respawns of any kind in this game beyond what is in CW and maybe as an option in private matches.