58 replies to this topic

[Impyrium]

Edit: And in case this wasn't clear, I am not part of the 'I want respawns in our current gameplay' crowd. I just want it considered for future game modes as a way of expanding the very limited way MWO is played.

Right, so, I had held off posting this sometime back because I felt it wasn't worth it but a certain other thread recently posted and the reaction of... a lot of people has made me frustrated again. So beware, wall of text incoming.

There's a word a lot of MWO players are scared of. That word is respawns. It's hideous, isn't it? Taboo, even. Certainly it shouldn't be used near such a hardcore game like MechWarrior: Online.

WRONG.

Mkay, you're going to need to come into this thread with an open mind and I implore you to ditch the auto-hate a lot of mechanics like this tend to cop.

A lot of people seem to hate the idea of respawns because they feel that it would cause the game to become even more arcade-like, and I've seen 'CoD' thrown about more than once. That's a legitimate concern and obviously we want to avoid that. However, it's a huuuuuuuuge misconception to assume that it is in fact the respawns that would create such a mentality. Let me explain to you what actually creates an arcade rambo-filled shooter: the lack of objectives and the lack of penalties for dying.

In a game like CoD, the objective is to run about madly and score as many kills as possible. There is no penalty for death for the actual player, as the respawn happens near instantly. If for example you took MWO's skirmish mode and applied respawns and a win condition of the most kills by the end of the match, then yes, you would then have the arcade-like gameplay that many are afraid of.

But that's not what we're asking for.

MWO's skirmish mode works well with the permadeath mechanic. It promotes a very specific style of gameplay. It is not more 'hardcore' as such, so if you think that, please stop, but rather creates a very careful gameplay where each move is extremely important as the death of a single player can create a inevitable landslide. It does take a lot of learning to play well and highly encourages teamwork.

However, it generally only lends to that single style of gameplay. Permadeath is an objective in itself, and while it's there it will always be the most viable game mode objective. You just can't design a game mode where map objectives are more viable. Go on, I challenge you to try. The latest game mode, Domination, is a strong example. It's obvious that PGI is trying so incredibly hard to push map objectives while keeping permadeath, but it's just not working. Five minute wait on a team's destruction, anyone?

So what happens if you introduced the ability to respawn? It completely opens up the ability to create game modes that are far more indepth in objectives than skirmish. A team can no longer just rely on killing the other team to win, and so instead of killing being the objective, it becomes a means to an end. It would not be any less 'hardcore' than what we have, but it would promote a very different style of gameplay that could potentially encourage map tactics and maneuvering even more.

With a game mode with decent objectives, then those objectives would be the aim, and players would still need to play intelligently if they expected to win. Death would still result in the a team losing 1/12 of its firepower, and a respawn timer and travel time would mean a team would be disadvantaged. Dying would still be as dangerous as it is now, but instead of the game mode ending, the other team would gain a massive advantage and the other team would have a chance to perhaps regroup and counter-attack.

So I apologize for the wall of text, but I really hope players can see the potential of having a few game modes with respawns. We obviously don't want a deathmatch, but we do want a game mode that requires some gameplay beyond killing and deathballs.

Edited by Dingo Red, 07 March 2016 - 10:02 PM.

[Zerberus]

Well thought out.. I don´t think a second thread was necesary, but who cares, everyone does whatever they want anyway.

For th record: I am NOT opposed to respawns as such. I am opposed to respawns in the currently available gamemodes on teh currently available maps.

But one thing I feel i need to point out....

Dingo Red, on 07 March 2016 - 05:36 PM, said:

...
If for example you took MWO's skirmish mode and applied respawns and a win condition of the most kills by the end of the match, then yes, you would then have the arcade-like gameplay that many are afraid of.

But that's not what we're asking for.

1. "Most kills when time ends" is already a win condition for skirmish. Simply add respawns and you have exactly the gameplay that you correctly assume many are "afraid of" (I would prefer the term "sick and tired of" or "disgusted with after many decades of online gaming", but I digress)
2. Au contraire, that is in fact EXACTLY what many are advocating, and that is the problem that many of us have.

And yes, I would actually rather watch MW die than watchi it turn into another twitchy CoD clone. Wha? Seriously? WHY?

Because it deserves better than for it´s last words to be "Why did we stray ever further into arcade territory when our target demographic since 1984 always wanted the exact opposite?"

WHAT teh F are you talking about , Zerb? Stoned again? No

The fact of the matter is that in 10,15, 20 years, the first of the old guard will start hanging up their neurohelmets and going to the big dropship in the sky. And if the game has not succeeded in differentiating itself from all the quake wannabes (incl CoD), then that wil be the final nail in it´s coffin and the permanent end of the MW /BT video game run... simply because soon after there won´t be anyone around who remembers it anymore, much less anyone who loved it enough to do what PGI did and say "**** YOU! We´ll do it ourselves, then"

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 06:09 PM.

[Impyrium]

Zerberus, on 07 March 2016 - 05:59 PM, said:

Well thought out.. I don´t think a second thread was necesary, but who cares, everyone does whatever they want anyway.

For th record: I am NOT opposed to respawns as such. I am opposed to respawns in the currently available gamemodes on teh currently available maps.

But one thing I feel i need to point out....

1. "Most kills when time ends" is already a win condition for skirmish. Simply add respawns and you have exactly the gameplay that you correctly assume many are "afraid of" (I would prefer the term "sick and tired of" or "disgusted with after many decades of online gaming", but I digress)
2. Au contraire, that is in fact EXACTLY what many are advocating, and that is the problem that many of us have.

And yes, I would actually rather watch MW die than watchi it turn into another twitchy CoD clone. Wha? Seriously? WHY?

Because it deserves better than for it´s last words to be "Why did we stray ever further into arcade territory when our target demographic since 1984 always wanted the exact opposite?"

Honestly the majority of the individuals I've seen speak about respawns don't want them in the current game modes. I don't think anyone's talking about replacing MWO's current gameplay, just adding to it.

King Alen, on 07 March 2016 - 05:53 PM, said:

Your were unable to change my opinion.

Mind explaining why though, just out of curiosity?

[Zerberus]

Dingo Red, on 07 March 2016 - 06:08 PM, said:

Honestly the majority of the individuals I've seen speak about respawns don't want them in the current game modes. I don't think anyone's talking about replacing MWO's current gameplay, just adding to it.

And yet in the other thread we have numerous people specifically stateing thart conquest and assault can not work properly without respawns. Skirmish interestingly enough not so much....

And that´s the problem that many of us have in that other thread... many are NOT advocating new game modes designed with Respawns in mind, but simply adding respawns in a as such undefined capacity into the existing game modes... heck, even the OP specifically advocates them for both assault and the coming domination game mode.

But that´s already well across the line that was drawn in 2011. And that line is where almost all of us that are against respawns in current gameplay are firmly standing.

[Armorine]

i like the idea. currently everything is a variation of death match. id like to see this implemented on dominion as i feel it would fit in well there. dont really want it on any other game modes though, certainly not on skirmish. i really want more variation though

Edited by Armorine, 07 March 2016 - 06:17 PM.

[thehiddenedge]

I'm not against limited respawns, a la CW drop deck, but I am completely against unlimited respawns. I still prefer what we have at the moment though.

For example conquest makes more sense for limited respawns. If it takes you more time to eliminate the enemy team than it does to actually collect enough resources, then there is more incentive to have part of your team capping objectives. At the same time, I don't want to see builds with loads of weapons and 1 ton of ammo, because that's what respawning encourages. This game is already getting to be child's play, please don't try to make it any worse.

[nehebkau]

IF you want respawns, play CW you get 4 respawns per match... oh wait CW requires that you put some effort into training yourself, leveling mechs and working with other people...


nm

[Zerberus]

thehiddenedge, on 07 March 2016 - 06:18 PM, said:

I'm not against limited respawns, a la CW drop deck, but I am completely against unlimited respawns. I still prefer what we have at the moment though.

For example conquest makes more sense for limited respawns. If it takes you more time to eliminate the enemy team than it does to actually collect enough resources, then there is more incentive to have part of your team capping objectives. At the same time, I don't want to see builds with loads of weapons and 1 ton of ammo, because that's what respawning encourages. This game is already getting to be child's play, please don't try to make it any worse.

Conquest is the one specific gamemode (outside of skirmish) where I think a single respawn per player might make sense... assuming we can select our respawn point as any currently controlled cap point a la BF. Otherwise, I don´t see it making all that much sense there, either.... where´s the point in respawning on the other side of the map and either getting chewed up by spawncampers or not even getting to the action before the match is over?

But I´m still not a fan.... where´s the point of working to knock out an enemy assault mech when as soon as he dies he respawns with 100% health and ammo 200 yards away at Theta? He takes you out, and you get to walk again... IMO all it really does when teh dust settles is unnecessarily prolong the match.

Edited by Zerberus, 07 March 2016 - 06:27 PM.

[MadcatX]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

IF you want respawns, play CW you get 4 respawns per match... oh wait CW requires that you put some effort into training yourself, leveling mechs and working with other people...


nm

Actually we might just end up getting a respawn system without players getting better, equipping/leveling their mechs and without teamwork when the CW queue split happens.

Not saying it's actually a good thing, but can see it happening.

[Troutmonkey]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

IF you want respawns, play CW you get 4 respawns per match... oh wait CW requires that you put some effort into training yourself, leveling mechs and working with other people...


nm

One of the big problems with CW is there's only one asymmetric game mode. If they add in some symmetric modes like conquest or dominion than it could be more balanced and interesting. Right now defenders have all the advantages and it's no fun taking turns at losing.

Having say 2-3 mech respawns could really help public queue game modes be about the objective. It could also allow for far more interesting objectives. For example conquest right now is "kill everyone and then cap". If killing everyone became significantly more difficult than the objective become more important. Been playing War Thunder recently and the way they do conquest is 1 cap point and 3 respawns each. If a team ignores the cap and tries to just kill everyone they will lose 90% of the time. Without respawns the new Dominion mode is basically going to be "Deathball into the objective"

Edited by Troutmonkey, 07 March 2016 - 06:50 PM.

[Armorine]

basicaly gonna be death ball??? thats all its gonna be. nothing else.

[FupDup]

Relevant:



Also, I'm expecting this thread to take an immediate 90-degree nosedive to hell once the most passionate people get here...


Obligatory Disclaimer: Don't interpret this as saying "Guise we must has respawns nao," it's just meant to point out that a huge number of the anti-RS people do the opposite of what the video above recommends...

Edited by FupDup, 07 March 2016 - 07:48 PM.

[Tarogato]

nehebkau, on 07 March 2016 - 06:21 PM, said:

IF you want respawns, play CW you get 4 respawns per match... oh wait CW requires that you put some effort into training yourself, leveling mechs and working with other people...


nm

In many ways CW is the most casual mode. I know you've played on the FRR hub, you know what I'm talking about.

[Cybercobra]

respawns are fine if they fit the gamemode, some work best with no respawns, perhaps some gamemodes work better with the limited respawn system, perhaps some work better with the dropship style limited respawn system, perhaps some work better with unlimited respawn, it all depends on the gamemode.

and i agree allowing surtain gamemodes to have respawns opens up the veriaty you can have immensly, imagine for example the clan war gamemode with no respawns, it would just be 1 quick fight and thats it, it would be duller than it already is.

[sycocys]

1. Respawns don't work for crap in the one mode that has them.
2. They will work even worse on all the quick play maps other than Polar.
3. You don't need respawns to create better game modes, just less idiots that completely lose their sht when they have to actually think about something more than simply shooting the red doritos.

[Aresye]

My primary argument for respawn revolves around the new player experience. I've tried to get many of my friends into this game, and none of them have stuck around. Not because it's "hard" or has a high learning curve. No, the reason most of them haven't stuck around is because it's absolutely infuriating trying to grind out CBills/XP in an environment where a single mistake is rewarded with crappy payout, a trip back to the mech lab, having to search, find a game, vote for a map, load the map, sit in the pre-game lobby waiting for a disconnect, and then finally...get another chance.

Another chance in which they will often make another stupid mistake, because they're new and still don't understand the game, so it's back to the mech lab. Repeat, repeat, repeat.

Every now and then a new player might put up with this long enough to start getting the hang of things, and they'll stick around. The vast majority do not.

It's easy to argue against respawn because we already understand the game. We love the IP and are therefore willing to put up with some BS at the beginning because we know it'll eventually be worth it. That's great for us and all, but Joe New Player doesn't know the IP. He saw a mech game on steam and thought it looked cool. You really think he's going to stick around after he dies for the 4th game in a row and still doesn't understand why it happened?

[sycocys]

Aresye - consider for a moment, these same new players dropping in with 4 mechs (or whatever amount of respawns) - making a bad move and getting annihilated. Then doing that over and over and over and over again, still getting crap rewards as well as zero time to actually consider or watch for what they are doing wrong.

Or dealing with the inevitable spawn camping that will be completely unavoidable. Think CW is frustrating for pugs and new players? Wait until they have exactly 0 chance to drop back into the match, at least the terribleness that is CW respawns gives them 1 additional chance before being completely overrun.

Think about these things, because if you add in respawns to quick play then this is what the new normal experience WILL be.

[Dino Might]

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.

Edited by Dino Might, 07 March 2016 - 09:07 PM.

[Sandpit]

I still stand by my earlier statements, no respawns please

[Thunder Child]

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.