95 replies to this topic

[Anjian]

Kiran Yagami, on 28 March 2017 - 06:04 AM, said:

Faction play is just longer skirmish. Using drop decks hurts new players more than it hurts anyone else, which isn't a good thing. Respawning in your current mech is the best way to go. And whoopty doo, Leeroy style charges become a thing. So what? Poorly executed Leeroy tactics always end in Leeroy saying, "well, at least I got chicken", which is a boon for the enemy team. At least now people won't be shivering in their boots, hiding behind a hill because one positioning mistake means you get to spectate for the rest of the match.

You can exclude new players.

I have already seen how a game with respawns handle new players, without need for repeat spawns on the same mech or vehicle.

Its as simple as giving them three mechs to begin with, like "starters". But of course, there is also nothing wrong of having repeats, or limited repeats, which is also a proven technique.

Edited by Anjian, 17 April 2017 - 05:32 AM.

[Insanity09]

So, I have a simple question.

What is the problem in quick play that respawns would address?

[SockSlayer]

I answered on the last question "the way that they are now". Although some who gets 10 kills and dies 5 times, should get less rewards than someone who get 10 kills, and dies 1 time.

[R Valentine]

Insanity09, on 17 April 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

So, I have a simple question. What is the problem in quick play that respawns would address?

It would take the focus off of killing. When there are no respawns, killing the enemy team is always the most reliable tactic. When they're all dead objectives are cake. If you can't kill them off the map then you have to do objectives the hard way, which is the way it should be.

[Anjian]

Insanity09, on 17 April 2017 - 01:10 PM, said:

So, I have a simple question.

What is the problem in quick play that respawns would address?

A more dynamic flow of the game, having flows of attack and counterattack, lessening stomps, keeping the outcome of the game a veritable on the edge till the last moment much more often, increasing player and team focus on objectives. This isn't a theory. This is an observable and proven experience that you have readily available to experience with so many games out there.

Armored Warfare's PvP happens to be similar to MWO's, equal number of tanks = mechs, no respawns, a few deaths on one side easily cascades to a stomp. Guess what, the game's PvP mode is dying. Do you ever wonder why they released a new game mode called Global Operations that has a very large map, complete with respawns?

Normally you would and should address a game with no respawns with a long TTK. That's why World of Warships works. The TTK for each ship is very long. WoWs is a game that I can't imagine having respawns. But most games have relatively short TTKs, and older games with significant power creep in their content makes TTKs even less so.

WoT is an example of a game that works originally good without respawns. But as power creep increased in the game over the years, the TTK goes down, especially at higher tiers, leading to higher player churn and exodus. Now they are introducing a new "Front Line" mode that happens to have respawns, at first for high tiers only.

Here is the thing, what is the most cancerous experience to a player. They don't like to spend time waiting on queues, connecting, only to have a very brief moment of time when they actually had some fun before they either got stomped or win by stomping, which is a game with no suspense at all. Any game must increase the "Play Time" you have for the player in the game, which is the moment the player is engaged against another player if its a PvP game, this Play Time in ratio against Travel Time, Queue Wait Time, Connecting Wait Time, Lobby Time and so on.

Attrition games encourages camping and less dynamic play. All one team needs to do is bunch up, camp, and snipe away at the loose, more aggressive members of the other team, then wear them out. As members are lost, the opposing team gets stomped as a result of cascade failure. For offense, the attacking team has to resort to one measure which is to mob up into a murder ball, or as WoT would call it, the Lemming Train. This is why murderballing happens here, happens in AW, in WoT, in WoWs, even if you call it with other names. But in games that feature respawns with objective minded captures and dominations, battles tend to occur dynamically in a wide front, with tidal ebbs and swings, such as what happens often in War Thunder, Fractured Space, War Robots, and so many other games including MOBAs and FPS.

Edited by Anjian, 17 April 2017 - 07:21 PM.

[Insanity09]

Ok, so the stated problem is that the TTK is too low for a game without respawns. I think this takes us a bit away from the OP purpose, but let's say it is part of the matter.

I would strongly suggest the core issue is simply the first part, TTK is too low. So, in the interest of simple (?) solutions first, adjust that and see if the situation improves. If not, then put respawns on the table as a solution.

I would further suggest that if the TTK is the real culprit, adding respawns won't actually fix anything (more detail in serious Wall of Text below)



the rest is a tldr section
On the subject of respawns being the fix, I offer these statements/questions.

Consider the TTK for a 1v1 fight between mechs of equal weight class. Is the typical outcome in that case is a quick death on one side with heavy damage on the other side? (barring suddenly finding your enemy's back or getting a lucky (skilled?) headshot in with an alpha)
Given that, with the exception of light versus light, such one on ones are unusual, I might suggest the TTK can be higher than many folks realize. At times it is simply a matter of somebody exposing themselves to withering fire from multiple enemies (either from a poor choice on their part, or a successful choice on the enemy's). A little torso twisting. or even a wobble, can spread damage around and prolong the fight in many cases.

However, let us accept the premise that TTK is just too darn low. Would adding respawns change that?

On large maps, your respawn could easily change the pain of waiting for the next match into the pain of running to get back to the fight. Possibly multiple times. Not to mention the wait to re-drop (I'm taking it as written the method would be much the same as it is in FW)
And, if you die quickly again (for any number of reasons)...sigh.

Small map or spawn camping occurring. My experience in FW is that the dominating side just sets up in a position to crush the losing side's respawns piecemeal. You get rapidly crushed in several mechs, instead of just one. It might be slightly better in QP, but I strongly suspect the same situation would prevail. Yay?
Yes, it is true there is sometimes a resurgence on the part of the team that suffered early losses (losing team beats up already damaged mechs, then gets crushed in turn, again, as the situation is reversed against them), but the overall outcome is not often altered.
A one sided fight is a one sided fight.
(I will comment here that my unit, at present, has little interest at present in FW, so I am often stuck in FW puglandia purgatory.)

There are ways to avoid the continual crushing, and lots of anti-spawn camp threads, but ultimately, it is just mitigating the problem, not turning the tables.

The point to all that? Respawns don't necessarily improve the game experience. More lives (mechs, whatever) don't matter much when each one just gives you a few seconds to go ,"I'm back to fight.... uggh, dead again". In many ways, that is far worse than just dying once.

Which scrolls back, quite handily, to the low TTK issue.
Ultimately, I think that factor needs tuning, not anything else.

On a related note: I wonder, since you don't actually have to wait until the match is over, you can leave the match and join another in a different mech, and at most times the solo queue garners a match within seconds.... is the wait time issue more of a group or FW queue issue? (where wait times do often stretch much longer)
If that is the case, I would have to say... more patience? Or, if you need the constant game, perhaps the solo queue is where you need to be?
That being said, I've played a number of online pvp games, in various forms. They all include some sort of matchmaking process, a wait to re-queue once you die, and usually a wait if you die (with limited spawns of some sort) but your side (for team games) is still fighting. On those metrics, I'm not seeing significant difference in the way things work in MWO,

What other respawn solutions are out there?

Limited per person respawns were dealt with above.

Another solution I've seen is a team kill counter. Each side gets a certain number of lives, shared across the entire team. Does it solve the problem? Not exactly. Easy kills can rapidly drag a team down, and those easy kills, of course, aren't getting much play time and especially not satisfying play time, which amounts to the same problem here. (I've suffered from this too many painful times in shooters)
For MWO the reward system would need a serious revamp if this were used.

In objective based games a common implementation is infinite lives. Each team just gets to keep respawning, forever, until time runs out or the objective is achieved. On one hand, this would force (allow) teams to go for the objective. However, it still doesn't prevent the problem with easy kills on a team causing a power imbalance. People would get more play time, though they still might suffer the Bang! Dead! issue (not satisfying), and ammo weapons might need a serious overhaul. And the reward revamp, again.

[Anjian]

Adding respawns increase the player time in the battle. That's what is important. Even if the TTK is short, what really matters is the length of the player's time in battle.

He or she should not use many minutes to queue, then connect, only to die in a few minutes, then wait for several minutes again to be in spectator mode.

From the moment the game play style looks like this, the game was already doomed in the beginning.

You keep saying that respawns doesn't improve the game experience. Sorry but it does in practice. I enjoyed games that had respawns more than this game, quite frankly. If CW wasn't dominated by premades like they do now, I enjoyed CW more than the QP. I spent at least much of my MWO time during Phase 1 and Phase 2 CW, almost in CW only.

Lately War Thunder had their April event with modern tanks and helos fighting in the Middle East, objective based and respawns. The event was so much fun, I could not get back to MWO (hasn't played MWO since, and not even the regular War Thunder arcade mode on tanks with 3 spawns.) Its like once you tasted better food, better wine, better rooms, you can't go back to the usual crap you live by.

And while games with respawns are not perfect by themselves, their net advantages simply outweigh that of those without respawns when TTK is considered.

War Thunder for instance, would be unplayable if they don't have respawns. Planes do not have limits to their respawns other than what is on your preset and backups, while tanks get three on the arcade mode. This has something to do with the TTK of planes vs. tanks, as planes blow up more easily. World of Warplanes doesn't have respawns. Though there are also other factors contributing to War Thunder's success, having respawns is certainly one of them. This also explains why their tank game, which has many faults in itself, is able to survive and flourish despite the polish put into Armored Warfare which doesn't have respawns.

Of course, by game design, you can choose limited or preset respawns such as in War Thunder and War Robots, while games like Fractured Space has infinite number of respawns are only won by winning the main objective or the time runs out.

Now you can choose to fix TTK in MWO, maybe like the way it was before long time ago. But MWO has gone down the road for too long, it maybe irreversable after years of quirks, boosts and rebalance. I feel that the TTK in MWO is best suited for a limited respawn preset, probably about three mechs, compressed in a 10 to 15 minute time period.

You keep saying a one sided fight is a one sided fight.

With respawns however, its only a one sided fight until the fat lady sings. How many times have I played a game in another game with respawns that in normal MWO terms felt like a sure win or stomp for our team, or for their team, only to be turned around in the last phase of the game. Just how many times...countless times.

Don't use your CW experience to condemn respawns as a working concept. Your bad experience there is also the result of zero matchmaking, and generally overall poor game design. As for my experience in CW, I find the game to be fatally flawed for obvious reasons, but I still had many of my best and most enjoyable, most immersive matches in this game in that mode.

Edited by Anjian, 17 April 2017 - 11:40 PM.

[Insanity09]

I have played in FW where I and others, upon respawning, were killed in seconds, before I/we could even turn around to face the opponents shooting. That did absolutely nothing to improve my game experience, I would rather have packed it up and ceded them the win.
I have played where major parts of our team were packed into the drop zone, and in trying to break out, got cut to pieces (think 1-2 kills vs 9-10 kills). No joy at all.
Bottled up in the drop zone, conversely, I have seen the enemy pour in, wipe out the spawners, then back out until the drop ships came in and left again. Repeat. Pure torture.

Those few seconds of life may improve the game for you. It is a matter of preference. For me, it sucks rocks when it happens.

My point about one sided fights, which seems to have been missed, perhaps intentionally, is that if your team is severely outmatched, all the respawns in the world won't change that. You are still playing against the same folks that whipped your first mechs (fresh vs fresh), and while you might catch up a bit later (damaged vs your fresh 2nd wave), you are still playing catch up, a turn around victory is highly unliklely if the first round went horribly. Yes, you get more playing time, but you could get effectively just as much in a new match, and the opponents in a new match might be a closer match for you, possibly allowing you to win eventually. I like winning. I don't mind losing in a good fight. I despise being crushed utterly.


Alternatively, those times where it isn't a total stomp or is going well for my side, and I just have to run back to wherever the action is from the spawn? Well, honestly, gameplay-wise, it feels little different from starting a new match (as compared to QP), though perhaps a little quicker, I grant. I hope for those matches in FW.

To sum up.
For a segment of the community there would be no real value in respawns in QP/GP, and at worst it would make the game even less fun. (while I speak only for myself, I have seen others express similar sentiments)
With the root problem being low TTK, not lack of respawns per se, it would seem to make sense to adjust TTK first, then pursue other solutions if need be (which might include respawns in QP/GP).

[Anjian]

If a team is outmatched, that is a problem of matchmaking, not respawning. Respawning isn't going to fix that problem.

The problem of FP is having no matchmaking system at all.

If you have a proper matchmaking system, things might be different.

But of course, you cannot guarantee all experiences will be perfect. Human failure is human failure after all. There are always Leavers and Quiters. But Leavers and Quiters tend to affect the outcome of a game more strongly when you don't have respawns, as opposed to having respawns.

If anything the system should be reversed. That there should be NO respawn on FP/CW which is the more hard core mode, while having respawns on QP, which is the more arcadey, casual mode.

[General Solo]

Leave QP alone plaese
Its the most successfull mode we have by a long shot, for reasons
Aint broke don't fix it

Maybe if PGI did with FW what they did with QP
Have a Solo queue and a Group que
Might fix a few problems

[Anjian]

None of the queues are really successful. Its the difference between weak (QP) and a disaster (FP).

[ice trey]

Every instance where PGI has made a game mode that "Kill-em-all" wasn't the primary objective, the community complained.

"Objectives? In MY military-themed game? What is this garbage?! Anything that gets in the way of me killing everything ruins my fun and will make me quit forever."

Paraphrasing a little, but that's the gist of it.

[Anjian]

ice trey, on 18 April 2017 - 05:12 AM, said:

Every instance where PGI has made a game mode that "Kill-em-all" wasn't the primary objective, the community complained.

"Objectives? In MY military-themed game? What is this garbage?! Anything that gets in the way of me killing everything ruins my fun and will make me quit forever."

Paraphrasing a little, but that's the gist of it.

That's why successful game developers --- something I learned since I played EVE Online --- don't really listen to their players, and to be successful, you have to push through with your personal vision no matter what the players say.

[General Solo]

Quick Play 30,000+ players vs around 10,000 for FW
Successful to me

[Anjian]

OZHomerOZ, on 18 April 2017 - 06:14 PM, said:

Quick Play 30,000+ players vs around 10,000 for FW
Successful to me

Hardly by MMO standards, that's a dismal failure on both.

Here is another game.

More than 1.5 million daily active users on War Robots, whose only game mode is Beacon Capture, supported with three to five respawns. They doubled their DAU in six months.

The basic format of the mode is five beacons, you have two each that are closer to each team's spawn, and a decisive one right in the middle of the map that is fairly open. Each team quickly captures the beacons closer to their spawn points, and then proceeds to decisively engage for the central beacon. If one team captures three beacons, the counter starts to run down faster against one team. Beacons can be captured and recaptured; its like Conquest + Domination with very measured distances. If your team has already captured three beacons, you head to the enemy area to capture the other two to cement your domination of the map. Most games are won by capturing most beacons, and its actually a rare one to win a game by killing all enemy robots. 6 vs. 6, with three to five respawns per person, using a preset drop deck, which means up to 30 robots are involved in a 10 minute contest.

That is what I consider to be a successful game mode design.

Respawns allow new strategies to come into play.

1. Sacrifice --- Trading your mech for extra capture or damage to the enemy.
2. Choice --- Choosing the next mech more appropriate to the environment and the fluid tactical situation.
3. Return to the spawn point quickly to rally for defense. (Ejecting from your mech, then choose a new mech).
4. Principle of Reinforcement, Counter attack and Wave in warfare.

Edited by Anjian, 18 April 2017 - 07:22 PM.

[Livaria]

If there is going to be respawns in quick play, I only want one respawn per player. You pick a mech, and you have one extra chance to fulfill your goal. 15 minutes, is not enough time for constant respawning. They might even have to increase the game time to 20 minutes if this sort of thing is ever going to happen.

Edited by Livaria, 18 April 2017 - 09:00 PM.

[General Solo]

Anjian, on 18 April 2017 - 07:04 PM, said:

Hardly by MMO standards, that's a dismal failure on both.

Here is another game.

More than 1.5 million daily active users on War Robots, whose only game mode is Beacon Capture, supported with three to five respawns. They doubled their DAU in six months.

This Failure is paying for MW5 and probably a bigger boat for Russ
Woo Hoo

Wonder what the numbers for War Robots will be when its 5 years old

Edited by OZHomerOZ, 18 April 2017 - 09:48 PM.

[Anjian]

Livaria, on 18 April 2017 - 08:54 PM, said:

If there is going to be respawns in quick play, I only want one respawn per player. You pick a mech, and you have one extra chance to fulfill your goal. 15 minutes, is not enough time for constant respawning. They might even have to increase the game time to 20 minutes if this sort of thing is ever going to happen.

I have seen games that do only 10 minutes and consume 5 spawns. In any case, you can set a game limit for 10 minutes, regardless if you never lost your first mech, or consumed five mechs in that 10 minutes, the game ends regardless what state you are in. I have experienced game getting ended right in the middle while I was killing an opponent.

I would say, around three spawns --- your original mech, plus two back ups, is a good place to start with --- with a 15 minute timer. Whatever the state the game is in 15 minutes, it ends there, period. The one with the most points wins. BTW, I have never experienced a draw in an objective based game. Not ever. Even if its a close match, just a few points of difference can decide the winner.

[Anjian]

OZHomerOZ, on 18 April 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

This Failure is paying for MW5 and probably a bigger boat for Russ
Woo Hoo

Wonder what the numbers for War Robots will be when its 5 years old

Depends if the devs would flub it all up. Its actually celebrating its 3rd anniversary. Like right now, everyone is at arms over the new W/L rate MM over the Deck based one. WL MM is like what you have on MWO right now, also in WoT, WoWs and Overwatch, where the MM looks to equalize your win rate at 50%. Previously you have a garage or equipment based MM similar to War Thunder, but that MM is prone to seal clubbing (matchmaking by vehicular tier as opposed by player win lose rate). I guess that some people grew addicted of seal clubbing using Gepards with Magnums, now found themselves facing much harder opposition.

But since 2016, the game have grown stupendously. 200k plus DAUs at the start of 2016, reaching 750k DAU by September of 2016, reaching 1.5 million DAU by January. The number of downloads hit 20 million last September 2016 and over 45 million by December of 2016. Revenue hits over a million dollars a month and its not in the business of selling a new mech a month.

It blows my mind why this game is so successful in a way no other mech game ever can, by whole light years. Yet it has no backstory, no franchise IP, a total unknown, there is like 20 to 30 mechs only in the game, half of whom look ugly (a few do like nice though). And yet it is very fun to play, despite the PvP is absolutely brutal to the core often times. There is no coop, it only has a handful of maps, and only one game mode. There is plenty of pop tarting, really powerful sniping weapons, nightmarish missiles, energy weapons with no heat BS and things like that, energy and physical shields --- and respawns ---- practically all the stuff that is sanitized from MWO, all things that are considered mortal sins for the Mechwarrior player --- all growing in relish like thick jungle undergrowth. The game also feels strongly P2W.

But its booming...with a stupendous growth rate.

The reasons why some games are so successful and yet defy conventional wisdom really interests me to find out what makes them tick. And its because our whole notion of what makes a game a success as a whole needs to be restudied and restructured from the ground up.

https://api.pixonic....ographic_en.jpg

Edited by Anjian, 18 April 2017 - 10:21 PM.

[Livaria]

Anjian, on 18 April 2017 - 09:47 PM, said:

I have seen games that do only 10 minutes and consume 5 spawns. In any case, you can set a game limit for 10 minutes, regardless if you never lost your first mech, or consumed five mechs in that 10 minutes, the game ends regardless what state you are in. I have experienced game getting ended right in the middle while I was killing an opponent.

I would say, around three spawns --- your original mech, plus two back ups, is a good place to start with --- with a 15 minute timer. Whatever the state the game is in 15 minutes, it ends there, period. The one with the most points wins. BTW, I have never experienced a draw in an objective based game. Not ever. Even if its a close match, just a few points of difference can decide the winner.

And I have seen the exact opposite. Games can drag on as well, so need to accomodate both don't we?

How about for objective victory is 12 minutes. But if neither side gains an objective advantage over another. Then sudden death should occour. Someone has to either tip the objective scale in their favor, or clear all enemies off the map.

If we add in more than 1 respawn; Quick play is no longer quickplay. It is faction play without contested planets.

Edited by Livaria, 18 April 2017 - 11:38 PM.