142 replies to this topic

[Brakkyn]

Just forget about respawns in "real matches". Make meaningful, tactical decisions--because you only get one shot (pun not intended).

What chassis should I take? What variant? Should I take this light 'Mech built for long range, or that medium for short? This 'Mech has X electronics, but that 'Mech has Y weapon. Shouls I use a model with more autocannons or more lasers? Is it a cold map? I'll go with lasers. But it has missiles for backup...okay, that works, its an open map. Wait, it has short-range missiles...perhaps this variant with lasers and autocannons.

Those are the kind of decisions I feel we ought to be making. If you can get another, similar 'Mech, simply by dying, you're going to do it if you run out of ammo or lose all your weapons. Even if you redrop in a completely different 'Mech, you're still a fresh, undamaged machine that suddenly enters a battlefield where your enemies have already suffered damage. You shouldn't be able to stomp in, fully loaded, and mop up.

But I feel this way only for "real matches"--the ones that matter--the ones that make a difference. If you're in practice, training, or just a "fun" match with friends, then sure, have respawns.

[Dlardrageth]

You will still get the people whining for the respawns , no matter what. May it be their own incompetence having them blown up after 3 minutes in every match, may it be the mere idea of anything beyond an "epic" suicide charge overtaxing their intellectual capacity, may it be their attention span not being able to transcend the magical 5-minute-mark, those people will be there. And they will keep whining.

Now, assuming that a large number of players don't want the respawn mechanics offered by any "usual" given FPS. Assuming they don't want the game to be artifically dumbed down to accomodate the whiners. Assuming magically reappearing Mechs and pilots (Fairy with magical wand perhaps? ) would break immersion and fun for many pilots other than the whiners. Let's just have one game-mode for the respawn-freaks. Let them clobber themselves to death and coming back after 15 seconds again to do it all over.

I'm perfectly fine with that, does keep the dweebs out of matches I want to play. Because I could care less what and how they do as long as I'm not bothered with it. What do I care what someone else does in a "perma respawn" match? I frankly don't at all, because my interest in those matches is next to nil, and thus everybody gets his wish. The respawners can have "their" game mode to do... whatever, the rest can have another one to perform more tactical/challenging/risky/whatever gameplay. And PGI can accomodate both camps, thus keep its customer base wide and healthy. There's really no need at all for silly claims like:

Quote

Respawn for a teambased skirmish is required

It doesn't and when a part of your customers don't care about those, you either try to accomodate or risk to lose them. Respawns is one option out of many to pick from, and painting a boogey-man of a failing game won't change that. There's enough games out there without insta-respawn, and guess what, they still exist.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 16 December 2011 - 12:39 AM.

[verybad]

Considering the level of preference given respawn as oppose to norespawn in MW4 (and I like both for different reasons) I don't think no respawn is ever going to be able to claim a majority, or even a double digit preference. I think keeping it as an option for drops is the only way it will be used at all.

You can claim multiple respawn is the "less intelligent" version of a game, but regardless, it's more popular.

[Haeso]

Third person view is also more popular, should we put that in too? Hint: The answer is a resounding No! unless you intend to force everyone to use it or handicap themselves horrendously, in which case you should tell the guys doing the cockpit art they're wasting their time, eh?

As long as they design the game to be enjoyable including the no-respawn mechanic, be it able to play around in the 'Mech lab or help your team coordinate or perhaps an in-game map of the conquest stuff, maybe bring up the history of the planet they're fighting on for some background lore - there's plenty you can do to make death something other than "Sit there for ten to twenty minutes and reflect upon your failure." You could even let them go onto their next match if they're so inclined.

And that's all gravy - you don't need to do more than just a friendly death cam, there are just things they could do if they choose to. People still play games with no respawn and nothing to do between rounds but watch.

Also, the notion that less than ten percent of players prefer no respawn matches, that's incredibly far fetched, maybe in MW4 where there's so few people playing that using the less popular mode leads to no games at all it happens. But less than 10% are you joking? First of all, MW4 is pretty arcade compared to what most of us are hoping for, and with their references to simulator, I'm expecting something far more geared to fans of the series while still being accessible, rather than catering specifically to the lowest common denominator. Next, last I checked there were quite a few FPSes that feature only no respawn and they're rather popular. Perhaps you've heard of counter-strike? Even the pinnacle of arcade garbage Modern Warfare has modes with no respawn.

Edited by Haeso, 16 December 2011 - 12:30 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Well, I don't get the impression so far that MWO is to be just a revamp of MW4, so numbers/stats from there are probably not that significant. I don't say respawn modes are less intelligent gameplay per say, but they sure can foster it. Especially if respawning will have no consequence (in terms of rewards etc.) at all. Why bother to avoid a death (which would be somewhat realistic after all), if there's no benefit to it?

[Zakski]

Gorith, on 15 December 2011 - 05:43 PM, said:

So we can constantly counter each other in midfield till someone breaks through? You do realize that type of play artificially extends match duration in games right?

I cannot see objective games lasting 20 mins, unless the match is extended mechanically in some way, whether, that be respawns, map size or simply the fact that lasers might as well be flashlights for the damage they do to other mechs.

IceSerpent, on 15 December 2011 - 08:54 PM, said:

Have to disagree with you here - respawn is definitely not required and that is a fact.

The length of the fight would be roughly the same in either case - it depends on the total number of mechs involved in the assault. If you raid with a company, you could either have (for example) one longer battle with 3 waves of 4 (wave respawn) or 3 separate, shorter 4 vs 4 battles (no respawn). Problem with respawn is that it makes mechs that need ammo for their primary weapon much less effective - why go after that Longbow if I know for a fact that it will run out of missiles and turn into a large paper weight by the time 2nd wave respawns? The Warhammer next to it suddenly becomes a primary target instead. Respawn also makes a lot of surprise tactics unusable, because it allows you to see what your opponent is doing and react to it, while without respawn if you get caught by surprise, you're in serious trouble most of the time.

If the opponents die and then respawn to counter you they are still a wave down. If you are still using the same tactics and same positions as when you annihilated their first wave you deserve to lose your advantage, snipers change positions after a few shots for a reason. If there are limited waves,no respawns, always respawns or w/e , you would still go for the longbow, unless it has no ammo. Why are we even trying to take on 2 'mechs at once anyway?

Haeso, on 16 December 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

As long as they design the game to be enjoyable including the no-respawn mechanic, be it able to play around in the 'Mech lab or help your team coordinate or perhaps an in-game map of the conquest stuff, maybe bring up the history of the planet they're fighting on for some background lore - there's plenty you can do to make death something other than "Sit there for ten to twenty minutes and reflect upon your failure." You could even let them go onto their next match if they're so inclined.

And that's all gravy - you don't need to do more than just a friendly death cam, there are just things they could do if they choose to. People still play games with no respawn and nothing to do between rounds but watch.

Firstly, going into the next match splits the team, which is not desirable, Secondly those games that you mention end FAST, like roguespear pointed out, not 20 minutes like the devs are aiming for.

Edited by Zakski, 16 December 2011 - 01:04 AM.

[Mchawkeye]

verybad, on 16 December 2011 - 12:13 AM, said:

Considering the level of preference given respawn as oppose to norespawn in MW4 (and I like both for different reasons) I don't think no respawn is ever going to be able to claim a majority, or even a double digit preference. I think keeping it as an option for drops is the only way it will be used at all.

You can claim multiple respawn is the "less intelligent" version of a game, but regardless, it's more popular.

that could well be because respawn matches were the default. people always tend towards default. Look at MW games, the majority is always in the basic team/merc death match varieties. even though hardcore is absolutely more fun (well, that's my opinion at least).

If you design a game from the ground up to be no respawn, people will gravitate towards it. some think that's how the game is meant to be played, others are just lazy.

That said, I really don't care if the spawn or not. if we do respawn, it'll be for a good reason. I'd prefer not to, of course, but I'm sure they think everything though. Any detail I do or do not want doesn't make this experience a deal breaker.

The only actual reason I'd stop playing is if the game was ****.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Gorith, on 15 December 2011 - 03:52 PM, said:

Thats why EVE is a dead game that no one plays right?

Now enough of being a smart ***. Someone said waiting because you died early is a big deal. Honestly waiting 15-30 mins because you got caught early with your pants down isn't a big deal just fire up hulu or netflix watch the most recent episode of your fav show while waiting or read forums or any number of other things while you wait. Honestly if 15-30 mins is a big deal to you do you really have time to be gaming anyway?

I realize you're trying to be sarcastic, but Eve is a dead game that not many people play. Its very much a niche market and not something to aspire to.

Many of us have real lives and don't have unlimited time for gaming so sitting around for 15-30 minutes of that limited time *is* a big deal. Also waiting around and not playing isn't fun even if you have all the time in the world.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Haeso, on 15 December 2011 - 06:41 PM, said:

By all means, he'll need it. The burn rate of this industry is absurd. I know two types of people in this industry, people who are kept working by their passion for games, and those who've lost all of it and are almost mechanical in how they work and interact with others. The rest quit. I can't think of any industry with more turnover, only places I can think of would be stores that hire kids if you count summer jobs and such.

Its a very rough industry. Game devs ride their employees hard and put them away wet. Part of the issues is there is always a rabid group of 20 somethings willing for work insane hours for peanuts just to be working in the games industry. I did it for close to 15 years, and it seems to be rare to see many people on the team much over 30. Not to mention the number of people getting game oriented degrees that actually end up with jobs is super super small. I kind of have to laugh at the senior game teams with 50% of them "game designers".

[TheRulesLawyer]

Haeso, on 16 December 2011 - 12:26 AM, said:

. Next, last I checked there were quite a few FPSes that feature only no respawn and they're rather popular. Perhaps you've heard of counter-strike? Even the pinnacle of arcade garbage Modern Warfare has modes with no respawn.

It worth noting that round time is very short on those. There is a big difference between a 5 minute no-respawn round and the estimated 20 minute time of MWO.

[IceSerpent]

Zakski, on 16 December 2011 - 12:59 AM, said:

If the opponents die and then respawn to counter you they are still a wave down. If you are still using the same tactics and same positions as when you annihilated their first wave you deserve to lose your advantage, snipers change positions after a few shots for a reason. If there are limited waves,no respawns, always respawns or w/e , you would still go for the longbow, unless it has no ammo. Why are we even trying to take on 2 'mechs at once anyway?

You are missing the point. Let's say all my mechs have energy weapons as their primary "punch" and you have a longbow in the mix.

1st wave (4v4): I go after your 3 other mechs and leave longbow alone, let's say I take out those 3 and you take out all 4 of mine, but your missile boat runs out of ammo in the process.

2nd wave (4v4): I have 4 fresh machines and you have 3 fresh ones plus that longbow that is effectively dead because it's out of ammo. The fight suddenly turns into 4v3 unless you self-destruct that missile boat.

In other words, when you have a mech that needs ammo in order to be effective, it automagically becomes "dead" after the 1st wave even if nobody was shooting at it. Therefore, variants that rely on energy weapons instead become much "better" in this setup, as they can fight and remain dangerous through any number of respawns.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Dlardrageth, on 15 December 2011 - 04:28 PM, said:

I can see, and to some degree acknowledge the issue of someone dropping out of a match who want to play with his/her buddies. And having to wait a few for them. But heck, it is a mere 20 minutes at maximum! And that would only be assuming there is no other way whatsoever to spend the time. and just to prevent this PGI would have to turn the whole game into a perma-respawn-fest? I don't think so...

Honestly that's a lot of time. Anyhow I'd perfer a no-respawn game I think. I just don't know how to achieve it without making it suck for people playing together. Given the choice of long waits between matches with friends and respawn, I'll go with respawn being the lesser of the two evils.

I'm still hoping for suggestions rather than a discussion of the merits of respawning.

[CeeKay Boques]

Please stop with the "People who want to play with respawn are "weak greasy fingered gamers" instead "smart tactical grognards" rhetoric. You are not "more daring". Just less imaginative. Also, Counterstrike and its tiny maps are the exact opposite of what I hope for this game.

Both RS and NR have thier place. I've played NBT and loved it. Also MWL, SL, etc. Both have thier upsides and downsides.

From personal experience, not guessing or conjecture:

No respawn is more stressful up until the moment of contact. It is also played much more cowardly. You may call this tactics, as you try to quietly get to the best sniping spot before the enemy, and then wait. Because usually that's how it went. It was also all or nothing. "Roles" didn't really matter, because everyone had to be on the same page. You might have one scout, telling the rest where of the similiar equipped machines where the enemy was. Either it was an LBX Rush or a ERLarge/PPC/Gauss snipe fest. Because you only got one shot, so you had to decide "are we going to overwhelm them, or out shoot them?" Rarely a mix. Then, the braver team had to find the cowardly snipers, and try to overcome that advantage. When you did, it was exhilirating.

Respawn feels like a war. Its calmer, you can overcome things, things can change in the middle of battle. You can make tactical adjustments. You can regroup. You can flank. All the war terminology seems to come into play. Ther's no regrouping or tactical changes in NR beyond the moment of contact unless one of the teams, again, runs away and hides. The moment that one mech goes down, its a slippery slope of overwhelming firepower. It can be overcome, but often as soon as the match is 8 to 5 , we know where its going.

I'm not surprised that many of the "No Respawn is the way of the future, respawn sucks" crowd do not like MechWarrior 4. This lends itself to the fact that they are BT guys waiting for their salvation game, and do not play MechWarrior! So they really don't know the difference between PT_Sunder and Coolant's themepark. And therefore, dont' really know what respawn or no respawn is actually like in a Mechwarrior game, in depth. They just know that they don't get their mini back when he falls over on his hex.

I played league Mechwarrior for 5 years, traveled across the country to meet my Clan on the beach under the stars. That's the magic that MechWarrior can bring, respawn or no respawn. Don't be so closed minded. My MechWarrior brings all the boys to the yard. I could teach you.

But I'd have to charge.

[Kudzu]

Technoviking, on 16 December 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

Respawn feels like a war.

If you've developed a magical respawn machine I'm sure there would be several armies interested in buying it.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Technoviking, on 16 December 2011 - 10:30 AM, said:

My MechWarrior brings all the boys to the yard. I could teach you.

But I'd have to charge.

Holla!

[Havoc2]

Kudzu, on 16 December 2011 - 10:47 AM, said:

If you've developed a magical respawn machine I'm sure there would be several armies interested in buying it.

You may have also heard it referred to as "waves", "reinforcements" or "the rest".

No respawn has its place, but those matches last either 5 minutes or 5 hours. Spending 2 hours in an assault 'Mech trying to track down the other team because they have run to a corner of a massive map and hidden is not my idea of a good time.

[TheRulesLawyer]

}{avoc, on 16 December 2011 - 10:56 AM, said:

No respawn has its place, but those matches last either 5 minutes or 5 hours. Spending 2 hours in an assault 'Mech trying to track down the other team because they have run to a corner of a massive map and hidden is not my idea of a good time.

Yah. If its no respawn its critical to have a short match timer to force people into contact if they want to win. Otherwise the camping gets out of hand.

[Omigir]

Sugestion: Respown cost C-bills. Ammo costs roll over. Meaning you self distruct to get new amo, you still pay for the restock/the life.
This way you dont burn through spawns in order to keep ammo fresh. Also, your not as likely to go into battle with just 1 ton of ammo execting to just die and refill.

(Where I am not for respawn, its a sugestion for a machanic that might make it tolerable.)

[Omigir]

TheRulesLawyer, on 16 December 2011 - 11:03 AM, said:

Yah. If its no respawn its critical to have a short match timer to force people into contact if they want to win. Otherwise the camping gets out of hand.

Funny story in COD, in the hardcore matches where you can die and wait a timmer before your at it again. (no more then like 15 seconds if you miss a wave) Camping is rampent. Allot of people camp. Most of the people camp. Partly becuase maybe that only a few shots kill and you can kill some one as they run by more often or not before said running target can turn, aquire and fire. On that same mark, i just shoot rockets into corners after i got killed there and solve said problem.

But in regular matches, where you can respawn instantly, few people camp. This is becuase a person is harder to kill in regular and there is always a map up. So its hard to pin down, do people camp in hard core becuase its easy to kill them, hard to find them or becuase they are afraid of dying?

[Mchawkeye]

Of course, we have to realise that these are still mechs, and not humans. it's going to take more than one shot to duff up a mech.
it might take a while to take out a mech in and off it self; and if you are an effective part of a team, there should be plenty of back up if it starts going really badly.