386 replies to this topic

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

Nah but you do. The point of ticket based multipoint capture and hold is choosing different bases to respawn at, which drastically alters the game flow.

In MWO right now, if you look at activity heat maps, you'll see that players tend to congregate in select areas and approach from select directions.

Which is more to do with bad map design than because of the game being no-respawn.

Btw, did we ever get Polar Highland's heat map?

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

I, myself, I -do- want respawn because I prefer game modes that reward intelligent thinking over go to point, fight blob and win.

It doesn't really require anymore intelligence than playing conquest currently, you are being hyperbolic.



You are correct in that respawn and no-respawn are played differently.
In no-respawn, the objective is meant to encourage engagements and disallow for camping, that is really it, expecting anything more is asking for disappointment (see CS:GO).
In respawn, the objective is the only way to win (see TF2/Overwatch).

Edited by Quicksilver Kalasa, 08 September 2016 - 07:19 AM.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:08 AM, said:

Nah but you do. The point of ticket based multipoint capture and hold is choosing different bases to respawn at, which drastically alters the game flow.

In MWO right now, if you look at activity heat maps, you'll see that players tend to congregate in select areas and approach from select directions. With ticket-based multipoint, all of a sudden those spawn locations are constantly changing, thus removing the "blob" effect. For example, say a map has points arranged as thus:

A B C D

E F G H

I J K L


and currently, (x is team A, o is team , the board looks like:

X X O X

- O O X

O O X O

What you might find is folks respawning at G might attack B, D, H or K, while likewise, folks spawning at A might attack E or F, and folks spawning at K might opt to attack L or J instead of G.

You never know. And... the teammates never know where the rest are respawning at any given time, so the flow is often dynamic, the terrain being fought over is constantly different. "Samey" areas are avoided with frequency due to how the battlefield is always changing.

That kind of behavior is rarely replicated in no-respawn, whereas in multipoint respawn it would happen practically every single game.



Don't say many like you're an authority--you aren't, nor am I. I, myself, I -do- want respawn because I prefer game modes that reward intelligent thinking over go to point, fight blob and win.

One argument for respawn is it is faster--but is it? When you're dead, you're dead... thus more folks tend to rock hide. In respawn, you die, you get a new robit (as long as there are tickets), so keep going. Stomps still happen in respawn, the way they play, however, is -different-.

I wouldn't be surprised if the community was split on respawn. There's plenty here who played the older games which had it.

At no point do I claim to be an authority. I simply said a sizable part of the community is against respawn. Not the majority, etc.

And TBH, I don't care why you want respawn, you already have it, in FW. I DON'T want respawn, which is one reason I don't play FW.

Edited by Bishop Steiner, 08 September 2016 - 07:18 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

Which is more to do with bad map design than because of the game being no-respawn.

Btw, did we ever get Polar Highland's heat map?

I don't think so--to heat maps.

One huge thing they could do with the current game is to randomize spawn locations which intermingles lances between one another. And instead of having fixed random points, make them truly random which would allow for odd parts of the map and terrain to be experienced.

Thus, sometimes on large maps folks spawn extremely close to one another in a weird corner, or in weird configurations to one another, but farther apart.

Edited by Mister Blastman, 08 September 2016 - 07:21 AM.

[Cy Mitchell]

I think Russ was pretty clear that respawns would be handled by the FP drop decks and would not be coming to QP. I do not feel that all the game modes that are going to now be included in FP require respawn through the use of the FP drop decks but I do think that doing so would not be a deal breaker either. The drop decks tend to allow more epic encounters to be played out due to 48 available Mechs. Domination, Conquest and Assault would be more about completing the objectives than it would be about wholesale slaughter. That would be especially true if you got significant salvage bonuses (or isorla) for any enemy Mechs that were still alive (captured) when the objective was completed.

As I recall, respawn was present in MWLL and in some of the previous MechWarrior PC games multiplayer so it is not like there is no precedent for it. I am not an advocate of respawn in MWO but if it is restricted to FP then I think it is OK and may even enhance the new game modes there.

Edited by Rampage, 08 September 2016 - 07:22 AM.

[Mister Blastman]

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

At no point do I claim to be an authority. I simply said a sizable part of the community is against respawn. Not the majority, etc.

And TBH, I don't care why you want respawn, you already have it, in FW. I DON'T want respawn, which is one reason I don't play FW.

FW is DOTA which is vomit-worthy, as far as I'm concerned. I won't touch anything resembling lane-based strategy. I'd rather be a plant manager at a manufacturing plant, as that's all it is.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

One huge thing they could do with the current game is to randomize spawn locations which intermingles lances between one another. And instead of having fixed random points, make them truly random which would allow for odd parts of the map and terrain to be experienced.

First, this doesn't need respawn to happen.
Second, it can lead to very bad experiences due to random spawn locations, people already complain when they are an assault and stuck in the worst lance, random spawn locations has the potential to exacerbate that issue.

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2016 - 07:21 AM, said:

First, this doesn't need respawn to happen.
Second, it can lead to very bad experiences due to random spawn locations, people already complain when they are an assault and stuck in the worst lance, random spawn locations has the potential to exacerbate that issue.

No, it doesn't need respawn at all. What I suggested was implying without it but I was not clear.

As for assault lances, assign a weighting to each lance composition to alleviate say assault lances spawning 2k meters away from everyone else in the desert, and likewise, tie that weighting with flags which mesh in with how sections of the map themselves are flagged due to terrain formats.

Sure, it'd require modifying the map header file (or whatever they might be called, I don't know, I'm not a developer nor have been for over a decade) with a matrix so the matchmaker can perform a comparative analysis before placement, but it is completely doable.

[Quicksilver Aberration]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

No, it doesn't need respawn at all. What I suggested was implying without it but I was not clear.

As for assault lances, assign a weighting to each lance composition to alleviate say assault lances spawning 2k meters away from everyone else in the desert, and likewise, tie that weighting with flags which mesh in with how sections of the map themselves are flagged due to terrain formats.

Sure, it'd require modifying the map header file (or whatever they might be called, I don't know, I'm not a developer nor have been for over a decade) with a matrix so the matchmaker can perform a comparative analysis before placement, but it is completely doable.

Sounds like a lot of complexity for almost no return, especially since this "spawn selector" would also have to have knowledge of objectives AND terrain to try and maintain some sort of balance on the map.

It would make more sense to just have various spawn layouts that way a gamemode has more than one spawn layout and has a bit more variety (Frozen desperately needs this) rather than trying to create this algorithm that tries to quantify things that map designers do.

[Bishop Steiner]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

No, it doesn't need respawn at all. What I suggested was implying without it but I was not clear.

As for assault lances, assign a weighting to each lance composition to alleviate say assault lances spawning 2k meters away from everyone else in the desert, and likewise, tie that weighting with flags which mesh in with how sections of the map themselves are flagged due to terrain formats.

Sure, it'd require modifying the map header file (or whatever they might be called, I don't know, I'm not a developer nor have been for over a decade) with a matrix so the matchmaker can perform a comparative analysis before placement, but it is completely doable.

Or the could drop the bulk of a unit in close proximity, Scout lance at a distance, and still randomize the location, or any number of things.

Spawn locations and objectives are two things they should spend more time working around with. And probably should make Dropdecks less symmetrical, too. Especially in FP. 3-3-3-3 is MEH-

[Mister Blastman]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2016 - 07:30 AM, said:

Sounds like a lot of complexity for almost no return, especially since this "spawn selector" would also have to have knowledge of objectives AND terrain to try and maintain some sort of balance on the map.

It would make more sense to just have various spawn layouts that way a gamemode has more than one spawn layout and has a bit more variety (Frozen desperately needs this) rather than trying to create this algorithm that tries to quantify things that map designers do.

Well we do have spawn layouts (sort of). I noticed in Alpine the spawn locations have varied the last few times I've drawn the map and it has lead to some interesting engagements. I'd rather not have complexity, to be honest. All I want is fun. And repeating the same game and routine every single drop is boring.

Random spawn locations would create variety, and sometimes, a drop would be like Mortal Kombat...



But we'd need a better functioning matchmaker with curve-graded PSR to separate the wheat from the chaff before that happens.

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2016 - 07:31 AM, said:

Or the could drop the bulk of a unit in close proximity, Scout lance at a distance, and still randomize the location, or any number of things.

Spawn locations and objectives are two things they should spend more time working around with. And probably should make Dropdecks less symmetrical, too. Especially in FP. 3-3-3-3 is MEH-

Yeah I think they could accomplish a lot by spending more time on spawn locations and drop formations. It'd be money well spent.

[Mechwarrior Buddah]

When it comes out for cbills, and we see the quirks, then it gets nerfed like they all do before cbill release, maybe.

Bishop Steiner, on 08 September 2016 - 07:18 AM, said:

At no point do I claim to be an authority. I simply said a sizable part of the community is against respawn.

I remember the hell THAT caused on the forums when it was brought up lol

[Discount Dan]

No
Because it would play HPG 20 % of the time anyway and I don't see a Bushwhacker on that particular map

[Mystere]

Quicksilver Kalasa, on 08 September 2016 - 07:15 AM, said:

Which is more to do with bad map design than because of the game being no-respawn.

I firmly believe there are no such things as bad maps, only terrible potatoes who will potato no matter what.

[Imperius]

I just have no faith anymore in the "long term" of this game.

First I want an offline but online capable PVE experience so if and when the PVP servers lights go off we can still stomp around in what we paid for.

The second big item came about because let's face it for the first item to be even remotely decent they are going to need a more solid foundation to work with. Updating or switching engines is pretty much a must for adding things like replay and area spectating (if they truly want to attempt at e-sports). The replay feature alone would help media creators in the community create higher quality lore videos.

For god sake they don't even advertise the mechs anymore

[WarHippy]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:19 AM, said:

FW is DOTA which is vomit-worthy, as far as I'm concerned. I won't touch anything resembling lane-based strategy. I'd rather be a plant manager at a manufacturing plant, as that's all it is.

That is fine to feel that way, but keep in mind there are a lot of people that have a similar vomitus response to respawn.

[Lanzman]

Are we still talking about the Bushwacker or has the conversation moved on?

My 2 cents - I always liked the Bushwacker in tabletop and liked the original artwork for it as well. I've no interest in Clan mechs at all, so all my purchases (real money and C-bills) have been and will be IS mechs. Right now, for mediums I have Griffins, Phoenix Hawks, Blackjacks, and one lonely Cicada that was a loyalty reward or something. I seem to perform best in the Blackjacks for whatever reason. All that said, I will not be buying the Bushwacker. I wanted either a Wasp/Stinger two-fer or the Dervish for the next IS mech release. Not interested in the Bushwacker.

If we expand the arsenal of available weapons, then like someone already said let's add Thunderbolt missiles and Rotary Autocannon. Oh, and Swarm/Thunder LRMs would be cool. Being able to lay a minefield in the saddle on Crimson Strait would be amusing.

[MadcatX]

I always told myself that the Bushwacker would be the one I'd buy because I loved just how weird and asymmetrical the torso/arms are.

I would have been fine with it not getting the Alex do-over. Right now it sorta just looks like a Marauder and the arms were brought in. Kind of lost it's uniqueness and thus my interest.

[0bsidion]

MadcatX, on 08 September 2016 - 11:13 AM, said:

I always told myself that the Bushwacker would be the one I'd buy because I loved just how weird and asymmetrical the torso/arms are.

I would have been fine with it not getting the Alex do-over. Right now it sorta just looks like a Marauder and the arms were brought in. Kind of lost it's uniqueness and thus my interest.

If you think it looks like the MAD maybe it's time to visit the optometrist.
MAD orthos:


BSW orthos:

It's OK not to like the MWO BSW art, but at least have the decency to not like it for reasons based on reality. I agree with you that in this particular instance I'd have preferred they hadn't deviated from the original art quite so much. The orthos gives me some hope it's not a complete wash though.

[Dr Hobo]

Mister Blastman, on 08 September 2016 - 07:24 AM, said:

No, it doesn't need respawn at all. What I suggested was implying without it but I was not clear.

As for assault lances, assign a weighting to each lance composition to alleviate say assault lances spawning 2k meters away from everyone else in the desert, and likewise, tie that weighting with flags which mesh in with how sections of the map themselves are flagged due to terrain formats.

Sure, it'd require modifying the map header file (or whatever they might be called, I don't know, I'm not a developer nor have been for over a decade) with a matrix so the matchmaker can perform a comparative analysis before placement, but it is completely doable.

They could pull it off given the map has enough cover to prevent insta death spawn kills.

I.e hot dropping a mech with the rocket packs.

I think it would be fun. A 30 minute ticket match with unlimited respawns would be interesting. Especially if the maps are bigg enough with enough spawn locations to pick from it could be interesting.

Then add in capturable repair bays and BAM new game mode,onslaught.

[Levi Porphyrogenitus]

I've been looking forward to the Bushwacker. The only issue will be whether I can afford it or not.

As for how good it should be, based on my experiences with the Crab I think it'll be a great mech.