146 replies to this topic

[Stone Wall]

Just add respawning. People will engage more often, even right off the bat. Instead we currently have 5-10 minute stand offs at 1500m. Last time I checked this series was called MechWarrior, not Stand and WaitWarrior.

More action, more experience for players, teams regrouping would be a thing.

Maybe add the options to the voting screen? If people hate respawning, let them vote before the match. In MW3 we had multiple options to check before a match. In this game, 20 years later, we have no options but picking a game mode and a map. In MW3, we had camps that would play Unlimited Ammo On with Ice Maps. Other people chose to play games with only lasers. Some chose to play with only the Stock Mechs enabled.

How can a game 20 years old with only 2 patches have more options than the current gen?

Edited by Stone Wall, 06 July 2016 - 03:15 AM.

[Raubwurst]

A universe where much effort was put into letting it look like a realistic future has no room for "unlimited ammo" and "respawn"...

This would only lead to even more arcadic feeling...

[Vellron2005]

Stone Wall, on 06 July 2016 - 03:15 AM, said:

How can a game 20 years old with only 2 patches have more options than the current gen?

It's called "modern design"

My freind, games 20 years ago were made for kids of 20 years ago, that are now grownups. Today's games are made for today's kids.. and today's kids have an attention span the length of an infomercial.. so about 30 seconds.

They want less choice, less to think about, and basically, a one-click-win game like the ones you can play on a cellphone.

It seems to me that games 20 years ago had not only more options, but also alot more "depth", fluff, atmosphere and generaly all the goodies that would make a player stop and smell the proverbial roses.

You won't find much of that nowadays.

And here's the kicker - if you do find that nowadays, you will find it usually in big, best-selling "game of the year" type games.

Don't think MWO is one of those..

Edited by Vellron2005, 06 July 2016 - 03:42 AM.

[Alistair Winter]

Personally, I never saw the difference between respawn and the current situation.

• We drop 1 kilometer away from the enemy, in dropships from both sides that fly past each other as they leave the battlefield. As if all dropships are part of the same friendly taxi service.
  
• We're fighting on mixed teams with Kurita, Liao and Clan Wolf fighting Clan Wolf, Liao and Kurita. Factions mean nada.
  
• A typical match lasts 4-5 minutes, but you can die after 2 minutes, disconnect and join a different match inside 60 seconds.
  
• No C-bill penalty for dying, disconnecting and joining a new match. No repairs, no rearm, no danger of actually being wounded in battle.
  
• Oh, and the part of MWO that is supposed to have most immersion, with actual faction vs faction battles and armed dropships, Invasion Mode, already has respawns.

For me, respawn in QP is not a big deal at all. It doesn't remove any immersion, because I get no immersion from the endless cycle of "drop, die, disconnect, repeat" anyway.

[Vellron2005]

Raubwurst, on 06 July 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

A universe where much effort was put into letting it look like a realistic future has no room for "unlimited ammo" and "respawn"...

This would only lead to even more arcadic feeling...

I have to agree, the game's design is (or should be) based on realism and simulation of realistic combat.. but then again, you have missiles that fail to hit target and lose tracking, autocannons that fire ridiculously slowly, targeting computers that weigh 7 tons and improve targeting only slightly, and many other technical irregularities that throw realism out the window..

(for comparison, the computer that landed Apollo 11 on the Moon did not weigh several tons, and had the computing power of a modern-day calculator. In MWO, a 7-ton targeting computer should be able to stick an LRM up your target's arse, and use your ERLL to shave it's balls... but you know.. it's a game..

So yeah..

And add to that that the whole game is basically a big "deathmatch" mode... arcadic feeling is prevalent..

[kesmai]

Yes.
Errr. I mean No.
Hmmmm.
Yeah. Just forget it.

[Bud Crue]

Raubwurst, on 06 July 2016 - 03:33 AM, said:

A universe where much effort was put into letting it look like a realistic future has no room for "unlimited ammo" and "respawn"...

This would only lead to even more arcadic feeling...

Well, we are getting "goodie crates" in August according to Russ. If there is "room" for that kind of arcade crap, may as well throw in repawn and the rest of it too.

[Raubwurst]

Bud Crue, on 06 July 2016 - 04:26 AM, said:

Well, we are getting "goodie crates" in August according to Russ. If there is "room" for that kind of arcade crap, may as well throw in repawn and the rest of it too.

Well... ähhh.... hmm... I don't know a single argument which I could throw at you... I suppose you are right... damn supply crates *shakes fist at the sky*

[Hotthedd]

It has already been said, but, no. Absolutely not. The worst part of MW:O right now in my opinion is the re-spawning in FW, but at least it has to be a new 'mech. Re-spawn mode would be the last straw for me.

[Karl Streiger]

Respawn in MWLL was nice.... and dying wasn't a good option there either. Of course the maps were bigger with repair bases and no linear level design

but simply respawn in QP - no. Simple no

Edited by Karl Streiger, 06 July 2016 - 05:22 AM.

[Mechteric]

There is respawn, in Faction Warfare. I suggest you go there

[ScarecrowES]

In reality, only one mode in Quick Play was ever designed around gameplay that supports single spawns - skirmish. Not coincidentally, skirmish is also the only mode that truly works in QP... hence why every other mode is simply played as skirmish 2.0.

Conquest, Domination, and Assault are all game types that, historically, are built around respawns. Respawns are necessary to provide the tug of war that those games require to be functional.

Look at nearly every other game out there rhat has these same modes and you'll find respawns. Of the few that don't, note that those games also feature players playing objective game modes like deathmatch. Even World of Tanks is guilty of this.

My opinion is, and has always been, MWO should either focus on modes that work with single spawns... like various asymmetric objective types... or add respawns or dropdecks to modes like Conquest.

[Escef]

I dunno, maybe when PvE hits (possible in 5 to 8 months, but that's very optimistic) an "arcade like" scenario might be made available at some point.

[Gladius Vittoris]

yeaaaa, let's make our cs/fps mwo even more $h1t than it is now....

wonderful!

Edited by Gladius Vittoris, 06 July 2016 - 08:19 AM.

[Hotthedd]

ScarecrowES, on 06 July 2016 - 08:08 AM, said:

In reality, only one mode in Quick Play was ever designed around gameplay that supports single spawns - skirmish. Not coincidentally, skirmish is also the only mode that truly works in QP... hence why every other mode is simply played as skirmish 2.0.

Conquest, Domination, and Assault are all game types that, historically, are built around respawns. Respawns are necessary to provide the tug of war that those games require to be functional.

Look at nearly every other game out there rhat has these same modes and you'll find respawns. Of the few that don't, note that those games also feature players playing objective game modes like deathmatch. Even World of Tanks is guilty of this.

My opinion is, and has always been, MWO should either focus on modes that work with single spawns... like various asymmetric objective types... or add respawns or dropdecks to modes like Conquest.

Conquest, Assault, and Domination all work fine without respawns.
Adding re-spawns just dumbs it down so that there is no real consequence for making a mistake.

[Kanil]

ScarecrowES, on 06 July 2016 - 08:08 AM, said:

Conquest, Domination, and Assault are all game types that, historically, are built around respawns. Respawns are necessary to provide the tug of war that those games require to be functional.

This, right here. If killing everyone remains a valid way to win every game, then most every game will be won by killing everyone.

[TheVent]

Excuse me if I'm out of line here, but what the **** do we need PVE for?

[davoodoo]

I wouldnt rush to say that modern game design is superior.
Not when doom and wolfenstein new order are out...And not when modernised doom multiplayer is terrible halo inspired mess.

There are things that modern design did good and there are things that it did wrong.
However objective based team matches without respawn isnt modern design, it was popularised by cs in 1999.

Edited by davoodoo, 06 July 2016 - 08:35 AM.

[Threat Doc]

Get a better computer, Gladius, it's not the game.

Many others have said what needed to be said, with NO being the prevalent and most correct answer, period. However, as Alistair Winter has pointed out, and he's usually in the top 10 of doing so, there is much this game is missing that could make it so much better. Unfortunately, Stone Wall, there are fools such as yourself who just want to continue pushing this game in the wrong direction.

TheVent, on 06 July 2016 - 08:31 AM, said:

Excuse me if I'm out of line here, but what the **** do we need PVE for?

Because there are some of us who actually enjoy playing in the BattleTech universe, and would like to do something more intelligent than drop, kill everything, wash, rinse, repeat so many times in a day. Stupid is as stupid does.

[TheVent]

I admit with 100% honesty that PVE is a good idea and a good goal to move towards in the future, but with the way people are currently bitching about this game I don't think it's worth the dev's time at the moment. Maybe if it was team based but I'm definitely not logging onto MWO to play by myself unless I'm getting some heavy reward currency or something from it.