142 replies to this topic

[Zakski]

Now this topic is primarily in favour of respawns in a team-based context. I have read a lot of previous posts on the matter and seen a lot of bias towards no respawns; that is fine, but don't come in here, just post "I Hate Respawns" and then leave, because quite frankly it helps no one and I will ignore you.

Right so first off, some thoughts on respawning. No respawning is fine in a free-for-all context where you don't have to answer to anyone except yourself. It would work well in arena deathmatches. In addition, if respawning was added, it would add complexity to the way 'mech damage and destruction could be handled (which I will talk about further down). Finally, if respawns are put in, the act of needing to respawn needs to have an impact on the battle and the way in which you respawn needs to happen in a semi-cannon believable way. One more thing, the option to change mechs between spawns should also be looked at.


Ok, so now onto the main event, as we have seen from the Community Warfare blog post, the game is strongly geared towards teamplay; in the majority of cases displayed in their beta concept, players will be fighting alongside fellow faction/merc corp players. I will assume that a significant proportion of this people will be playing as part of a team of people they know/are associated with rather than a pickup game. If they are catered for correctly, this sort of person will be more dedicated to the game and play it for longer, something that can only help the dev's business model.

Right, but "what does this have to do with respawns?", you say, well it is in the title "Don't Split the Team". The biggest mistake the devs could make, other than making the game boring, is making hard for a team of players to play together.

This is the heart of the reason why respawns are needed. If there no respawns and a Lone Wolf dies, he can just hop into another battle, if after battle 'mech damage is handled correctly. However if a Team Player dies and there are no respawns, he either waits for his team or splits it. Now I don't know about everyone but I would say ~5 mins is the longest I would wait for my team due to an in-game mechanic, any longer than that and would decide the game simply wasn't worth my time.

Now if respawns are implemented, I would suggest the system works differently in death matches and objective games. For objective matches, I would suggest respawns work on a timer/waved based approach with would make death mean something, but not make it the focal point of the match, just a means to an end, whether that be capture a hill, escort a HQ truck to a safe place or w/e. For deathmatches, though perhaps there should be rounds, where anyone who dies in a round should stay dead for the remainder of that round, make the rounds short enough and have some sort of stalemate condition after a certain time has passed. This makes staying alive much more important.

As for how to implement 'mech perma-death and after battle damage, thats a little out of my scope.

[Hayden]

While I'm against re-spawns on the grounds that they are "gamey" and discourage strategic play, I'm willing to offer up an idea. Building on OP's suggestion that reinforcements spawn in waves, maybe players should be allowed to pick (depending on how testing would go) 1-3 "reserve 'mechs" in addition to their primary. The caveat here would be that none of these reserves can be in the same weight class as another reserve or the primary. This would add a level of depth, because players would have to decide what kind of 'mechs to deploy in the beginning, as well as what to choose as the match wears on. There are two big issues with this notion as I have described it.

The first is that assault and heavy 'mechs would be much more heavily represented than they would be in canon. The second big issue is that the way I described things still limits a person's "lives" in a round, and if the unfortunate fellow dies too often, then we still have the same issue.

An alternative would be to give the player's their choice of several different stock light and medium 'mechs to use in re spawns, though this would trivialize the use of mediums and lights as 'mechs of choice. So, that leaves us with something of a conundrum. Hopefully the Dev team already has a tidy system already worked out

[alVolVloLy]

Good point about teams and friends playing together.

I'd hope that there is some sort of respawn style of play. Not necessarily on missions (although that would be fine by me) but at least a game type that allows for unlimited respawn.

[CaveMan]

I don't like respawns at all. So I'll get that out of the way up front.

I don't really like the different weight class respawn tickets either. If I've trained my character on heavy 'Mechs, I shouldn't be forced into another weight class I'm not experienced in 'just because'.

How about limiting respawns by total BV instead? Each side gets, say, 10,000 BV (or an appropriate number of points) for a lance. So if you blow all your BV on a pimped out Atlas first-go-round and then get headcapped 5 minutes in, you're stuck finishing the match in Chargers.

[Evgeny Bear]

Well respawns often motivates players to rather do Suecide or stupid stuff because they have in mind "ohh I will respawn 5 secs later"
So I rather would favour a single live, to force the players to think tactical and rather retreat than just rush and die.
This also would be acomplished by loose equipment when damaged (not the full mech)
I mean in World of Tanks everyone goes kamikaze and dont think, because their tank got cloned.

Only respawn would be cool with trainings in simolator mode, where you can do faults by learning and respawn to test other tactics.

[TheRulesLawyer]

I totally agree, and its the sole reason why I think we need either really short (5 min) matches or respawns. Splitting up friends playing together sucks. They do it in WoT and it stinks. Most nights my buddies and I would get on and only manage a couple battles together because someone would always die early and then wander off while waiting and it was difficult to gather everyone up again.

I'd rather see no respawn from a tactical aspect, but from a having fun with my buddies aspect, its needed.

[Unclecid]

i have no problem with respawns in a timed deathmatch type of game.

but in battles where one has a mission i feel there should not be any.

you have the mech you are riding for the durations of the mission and once its down thats it.

[alVolVloLy]

Not that it makes a who lot of difference, since it's MW4 and this is a new game, but all the same.

Currently, on most evenings there are 1 or 2 servers playing no respawn compared to around 5 or so that are playing timed, unlimited respawn games. Granted, the game is dying slow death, but respawn was always more popular than no respawn, at least on open servers.

There really isn't any reason that there can't be both styles, no sense in alienating anybody.

[Brakkyn]

I don't have an issue where someone can take whatever 'Mech they want and drop into a random game with random people and randomly blow each other up. But that most certainly should not be the core of the actual game--just a way to pass time between legitimate drops.

Otherwise, when that missile boat runs out of ammunition, he'll just charge an enemy, blow himself up, and get a fresh 'Mech on respawn. No risk equals no reward in the games that "don't matter" i.e. nothing you do in a "free drop" matters in the actual game.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Brakkyn, on 14 December 2011 - 02:38 PM, said:

I don't have an issue where someone can take whatever 'Mech they want and drop into a random game with random people and randomly blow each other up. But that most certainly should not be the core of the actual game--just a way to pass time between legitimate drops.

Otherwise, when that missile boat runs out of ammunition, he'll just charge an enemy, blow himself up, and get a fresh 'Mech on respawn. No risk equals no reward in the games that "don't matter" i.e. nothing you do in a "free drop" matters in the actual game.

I get those issues, but how do you make play with a group compatible with that mechanic? Simplest option would be allowing destroyed players to spawn in with another mech from their stable. Of course another mech means more repair costs.... It would help mitigate those matches where one person gets unlucky and killed in the first couple minutes.

[Mchawkeye]

I just think respawn destroys any sense of tactics; if you can keep throwing mechs at the problem, lets load up on Atlas's and wade on in there.

Brute force will always win when numbers are a non issue.

Brute force is not what this game is about.

The whole point of operating as a team is that we work together to cover each others backsides and stay alive. the groups that don't do this will get picked off.

[Unclecid]

ok here an idea i got replaying MW4 vengeance this afternoon.

as some may remember in MW4V when on some of the longer missions you would come across mech bays in which one could get a quick armour repiar ammo replenish in the midst of battle...either yourself or ordering a lancemate.


so hows about this....in MWO instead of respawns we have mech bays mobile or stationary.

all they can do is repair armour and reload ammo...no repairs to weapons or internals.

you run outta ammo or about to be cored...let you lancemates know so they can cover you as you run for the bay.

repair bays would be immune to damage and have a area around in which no damage can be taken.

stationary ones would be in set areas on maps like bases and whatnot and mobile one could follow you unit at a preset distance.

[CaveMan]

The "MOAR REALZM" crowd craps its pants when people talk about mechbays.

Personally I'd WAY rather have those than respawns.

The only real problem with mechbays is people hiding out in them instead of fighting. That can be resolved by having a limited number of bay tickets per team. If some jackass is using up all your bay tickets every time he gets slightly damaged, kick him.

Edited by CaveMan, 14 December 2011 - 04:42 PM.

[Zakski]

Mchawkeye, on 14 December 2011 - 02:56 PM, said:

I just think respawn destroys any sense of tactics; if you can keep throwing mechs at the problem, lets load up on Atlas's and wade on in there.

Brute force will always win when numbers are a non issue.

Brute force is not what this game is about.

The whole point of operating as a team is that we work together to cover each others backsides and stay alive. the groups that don't do this will get picked off.

This more depends on balancing of the mech weight classes than if respawns are included or not. TF2, to use a recentish multiplayer game, has respawns, but in most cases everyone does not run around as a heavy, because each class is good at different things. If the devs get the differences between 'mechs right we will see a variety. If they don't, even if there are no respawns, everyone will use an atlas as its the only way to have a chance.

[BL00D RAVEN]

Have you played call of duty when there are no respawns then the chickens all group up and hide.

The respawns sould work off of a point value system i think so then each mech cost ____ to respawn and the team has ______ points to use for mechs.

[Gorith]

There should be no respawn getting blown up should have larger consequences than I'm down for a minute or so. Something that you feel something that penalizes you for failing. respawn makes it where people don't fight tooth and nail to survive.

Also just hiding in a building in a group would get you killed... unlike FPS where your AK47 can't demonish that building... my PPCs and LRMs can... now you have a building falling on you and once thats cleared your team is surrounded and being pummeled from all sides while the smoke clears...

But all this doesn't ,atter since we have no clue HOW the matches are played out. If the matches are just brawls that take 2-3 mins per round than respawn i guess works. however if they use the much more fun mechanic of have massive maps with objectives depending on defender/attacker (similar to those found in the PC games) that take 30m-1h per round (or end when one side achieves victory) then respawn encourages "ill just suicide my uber scout mech get the intel we need then swap to an assault" or similar shenanigans.

[CaveMan]

BL00D RAVEN, on 14 December 2011 - 05:53 PM, said:

Have you played call of duty when there are no respawns then the chickens all group up and hide.

The respawns sould work off of a point value system i think so then each mech cost ____ to respawn and the team has ______ points to use for mechs.

Oh, really? They take cover instead of going all leeroy jenkins when there are consequences to dying? Really?

Color me shocked.

[Kudzu]

Respawns means scouting, ammo, and tactics are worthless.

[Blastcaps]

one idea i've had is add a starbase/launchpad (or drop ships each player in the match has 1 life, but you can have reinforcements available via the starbase/launchpad/drop ships, starbases/launchpad would be a planetary feature/objective to be captured and controlled allowing for a higher level of reinforcements to be available, while dropships would add less reinforcements available and also be destroyable/defendable and have each side start with an initial amount of reinforcement points that gets reduced as the match continues, kinda like the clan's bidding system allows the winning bidder to be able to use upto the previous next best bid reinforcement wise within a lot of the different story books where it's mentioned about the bidding system the clans use.

[Mchawkeye]

Zakski, on 14 December 2011 - 04:59 PM, said:

This more depends on balancing of the mech weight classes than if respawns are included or not. TF2, to use a recentish multiplayer game, has respawns, but in most cases everyone does not run around as a heavy, because each class is good at different things. If the devs get the differences between 'mechs right we will see a variety. If they don't, even if there are no respawns, everyone will use an atlas as its the only way to have a chance.

Sure, they have to balance the weight classes; since they are determined to do that. and thanks to the patch system, even if things are a bit off it'll be reasonably quick to fix.

TF2 is an arcade game. I see why you would make the comparison, but it's an arcade game. this will be a simulator; aside from my other issues with respawning (which are conflicted I will admit) doing that would crap on any sense of immersion and realism they have strived to achieve.
It has to matter if you die. beyond your earnings at the end. respawns encourage a once-more-unto-the-breech-forlorn-hope style of game play "***** it, I'll be back in a minute". It's a tactical game. People have to be wary. choices have to be life or death. or there is no point in so much of what they propose.