67 replies to this topic

[1453 R]

Why do so many people want to ruin the quickplay queue in this game with Call of Derpy freespawn nonsense?

Do you really hate having to try and stay alive, win fights, and at least pretend to be an actual MechWarrior concerned with his own skin and his valuable machine instead of just suicide-blitzing into the enemy formation with massed SRMs fifty times a game for MAXXIMUMM DEEPZ that much?

[kuma8877]

So, I've been giving this some thought and figured I'd throw some of my ideas on here since they seem pertinent to the way the discussion is moving (gamemodes, respawn and mech roles). Please feel free to critique, add or subtract. I don't have an agenda... just ideas.

How do we change the in game mindset from kill first to objective first within a given gamemode? With or without respawn/dropdeck mechanics? I try and only use what PGI has put on the table (completed maps, features and mechanics) and just rearrange them to minimize dev time and cost. I personally think that in order to change that mindset from kill to objective first, you actually need to shift it to Survival first. An example...

Using the new game mode as a starting point and respawns/dropdeck or REPAIR BAYS of some sort... Picture a timed game mode with multiple simultaneous, randomly selected, "window of opportunity" objectives that change over the course of the match for both teams. Absolutely no emphasis on winning by destroying the enemy base (it doesn't trigger a win condition) Sometimes they have different objectives, some times the same (that accrue team points). As some examples, holding resource points/defend a point, or collecting a certain number of our new energy cells from a "factory" or destroying/defending an asset of some sort.

Encourage personal Cbill and XP earnings scores per player, with higher payouts for objective involvement and success in points accrued. To encourage the survival aspect, the less # of mechs used from a dropdeck or trips to the repair bay, a higher score multiplier is applied, emphasizing and encouraging staying alive while completing objectives.

Thoughts? I can flesh it out more if it at all warrants it...

Edited by kuma8877, 28 March 2017 - 09:12 AM.

[kuma8877]

As a separate thought on how to make dropdecks/ respawn possible without going all COD, what about a repair/mechbay that only allows access to your dropdeck/new mech if you survive to get back to it to call in another? If you don't make it back to the mechbay... it's game over for you.

[1453 R]

kuma8877, on 28 March 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

So, I've been giving this some thought and figured I'd throw some of my ideas on here since they seem pertinent to the way the discussion is moving (gamemodes, respawn and mech roles). Please feel free to critique, add or subtract. I don't have an agenda... just ideas.

How do we change the in game mindset from kill first to objective first within a given gamemode? With or without respawn/dropdeck mechanics? I try and only use what PGI has put on the table (completed maps, features and mechanics) and just rearrange them to minimize dev time and cost. I personally think that in order to change that mindset from kill to objective first, you actually need to shift it to Survival first. An example...

Using the new game mode as a starting point and respawns/dropdeck or REPAIR BAYS of some sort... Picture a timed game mode with multiple simultaneous, randomly selected, "window of opportunity" objectives that change over the course of the match for both teams. Absolutely no emphasis on winning by destroying the enemy base (it doesn't trigger a win condition) Sometimes they have different objectives, some times the same (that accrue team points). As some examples, holding resource points/defend a point, or collecting a certain number of our new energy cells from a "factory" or destroying/defending an asset of some sort.

Encourage personal Cbill and XP earnings scores per player, with higher payouts for objective involvement and success in points accrued. To encourage the survival aspect, the less # of mechs used from a dropdeck or trips to the repair bay, a higher score multiplier is applied, emphasizing and encouraging staying alive while completing objectives.

Thoughts? I can flesh it out more if it at all warrants it...

Your system discourages combat. Engaging enemy 'Mechs is almost strictly disadvantageous since it reduces your end-game payout no matter how well you perform in your match-up. Acquiring objective points is an activity that can be completed without combat, especially as your Whack-A-Mole objective set-up massively disincentivizes anything like planning or formation play, or the use of anything that isn't light -'Mech speed, as light 'Mechs can nip in to a new objective, take it, and nip out without engaging to win the game, much as they do in Scout mode.

The real issue is that this phrase:

kuma8877, on 28 March 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

...
How do we change the in game mindset from kill first to objective first within a given gamemode?
...

Is sort of difficult to justify. Why should combat - 'kill first' - be discouraged? Map objectives should serve as a way to shape the game, offer different ways of playing and encouraging varied playstyles, and punish unsporting play ("let's everybody camp under the dish on HPG!"), but the game is shooting giant robots whilst inside your own giant robot. Punishing players with reduced payouts for daring to shoot robots and be shot in turn is counterproductive.

[MechaBattler]

I prefer Quick Play to be just that. Quick. I don't want to wait 20 minutes for a match to end.

[WarHippy]

Anjian, on 28 March 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

Are you associating respawn games only with FPS?

MWO is essentially a FPS so that is what it gets compared to.

Anjian, on 28 March 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

The online component of Mechwarrior 4, the most revered of all Mechwarrior games, is respawn based.

Correction, it had respawn as a option. As for being the most revered of all Mechwarrior games that is highly debatable and not a claim I would agree with at all.

Mystere, on 28 March 2017 - 08:55 AM, said:

It can be reasonably argued that well-designed game modes that also use respawns can also make for a much more strategic and engaging game.

Can you give me a good example of a well designed respawn game that was more strategic and engaging than a properly made game without respawn? In all my years of gaming the only one that comes to mind that might was the original Ground Control and that was a RTS without a resource system and actually made sense the way it was implemented. Respawn games can absolutely be fun, but it is almost always mindless fun where the winner is ultimately decided by what way the tide is flowing rather than any actual strategy beyond group up and attack objective.

[kuma8877]

Well, I'm not looking to discourage combat, I like shooting big stompy bots as much as the next guy/gal. I'm just trying to allow more tactical flow over the course of the match. Reasons for tactical retreats and such. With occasional objectives being given to both teams, this would encourage face to face combat time, without it being the only long term path to victory in the match (push the opposition off the resource point for example).

Kill first could still be a thing and should to some degree, securing a kill on the field could eliminate access to their dropdeck, but now at the same time, so is surviving engagement yourself.

Again, just ideas, thanks for your feedback.

[Athom83]

Kiran Yagami, on 28 March 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

Why would I jump in a light mech? Nothing precludes me from killing the enemies first, then capping. That's the whole point. The presence of objectives doesn't make me want to do them, and since there's usually adequate time in a match to both kill and cap, why wouldn't I kill first and then cap? Then I get rewards for both killing and capping and capping is a breeze. No one there to stop me.

I've had many teams who thought the same. They only went after enemy mechs and ignored the objectives. Every single one of those was a loss.

Kiran Yagami, on 28 March 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

No, I don't want finite respawns. I want infinite.

Then go play CoD: Mechfinte Warfare or BF:3050.

Kiran Yagami, on 28 March 2017 - 08:12 AM, said:

I don't get why you think Leeroy is going to be any different no matter what system he plays in. He isn't going to play any better or worse with respawns. I don't care about Leeroy. He's going to do what he does. You can't control players and you can't change them. Don't try. You can only change the game.

Its not how Leroy plays himself, its his affect on the team. If he is in a medium, and successfully rushes and kills an assault before going down, in the current system it means something while it means **** all in the "infinite respawn" system.

Anjian, on 28 March 2017 - 08:23 AM, said:

`snip`

The reasons Fractures Space respawns work in the context of the game is that it takes an absolute ****ton of time to respawn. Several minutes in the later stages of the battle where a 1 player difference can mean "gg". Games usually end with one team all sitting in respawn while the entire enemy team is sitting in the home base cap.

War Thunder has several modes, some with respawns while other don't. They each have their own formulas, plus sides, and negatives. In your post you largely describe the Arcade mode. In realistic Aircraft, you only have that one life. In realistic tanks, it has a steep cost to respawn (with playing the objective giving the most points to respawn) with a limited amount of "lives" you have (you can increase by purchasing more slots and back-ups for vehicles with premium currency). In the full Simulator aircraft mode you have 1 life. In tank SImulator, you pick one vehicle to spawn as and that's it (with a possible respawn based on type. Light tanks, Meduim tanks, and Light TDs get a respawn while Heavy tanks and Heavy TDs don't). And you also assume that 50% to 80% of your team doesn't die in the first 5 minutes of the match and leave (which happens 95% of matches). Most games do end with the majority (if not all) of one/both teams destroyed. And only that is because the last one alive on the losing team carried his failure of a team so hard he has thousands of spawn points, with a full "drop deck" of 8 vehicles all with back-ups that just keeps respawning despite him being the last one remaining as your crew will lock for 5 minutes if you don't (where you can't play a game with that vehicle or swap out the vehicle from the deck).

For AW, you attribute the game dying to the game itself and not the failures of that ******ed publisher. The game is solid, has several modes (including a major PvP mode with respawns), and has quite a few people wanting to play. The reason its dying is because the publisher absolutely refuses to advertise for the game until it is "complete" (the game is currently in v0.18.xx). Plus, most of the active players aren't on the live server, but on the closed dev one (like the PTSs PGI does), testing the upcoming "Balance 2.0" which will mark the games "full launch" (to get their publishers to start advertising). Once that update happens, server population will likely rival (if not overtake) the population of WoT.

However, I do understand what you're trying to say at points when its concerning the objective. The reason games like Fractured Space and War Thunder does the objective vs kills well is that playing the objective doesn't lead to an instant win like it does in AW, WoT, etc. I can even think of quite a few modes for MWO that would be unique, have respawns, and a fun objective play but should probably be FW only.

kuma8877, on 28 March 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

How do we change the in game mindset from kill first to objective first within a given gamemode? With or without respawn/dropdeck mechanics?

The only way to do that is to add in a cost to losing your mech without doing anything.

kuma8877, on 28 March 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Using the new game mode as a starting point and respawns/dropdeck or REPAIR BAYS of some sort... Picture a timed game mode with multiple simultaneous, randomly selected, "window of opportunity" objectives that change over the course of the match for both teams. Absolutely no emphasis on winning by destroying the enemy base (it doesn't trigger a win condition) Sometimes they have different objectives, some times the same (that accrue team points). As some examples, holding resource points/defend a point, or collecting a certain number of our new energy cells from a "factory" or destroying/defending an asset of some sort.

If I remember correctly, this was the original idea for Assault/Invasion (minus repair bays) but was changed to keep things fast paced and not Skirmish 2.5.

kuma8877, on 28 March 2017 - 09:09 AM, said:

Encourage personal Cbill and XP earnings scores per player, with higher payouts for objective involvement and success in points accrued. To encourage the survival aspect, the less # of mechs used from a dropdeck or trips to the repair bay, a higher score multiplier is applied, emphasizing and encouraging staying alive while completing objectives.

The whole economy of MWO isn't in balance yet. With the new mode and techs, it will likely change in the near-future.

WarHippy, on 28 March 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

Can you give me a good example of a well designed respawn game that was more strategic and engaging than a properly made game without respawn?

Verdun.

[Mystere]

WarHippy, on 28 March 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

Can you give me a good example of a well designed respawn game that was more strategic and engaging than a properly made game without respawn? In all my years of gaming the only one that comes to mind that might was the original Ground Control and that was a RTS without a resource system and actually made sense the way it was implemented. Respawn games can absolutely be fun, but it is almost always mindless fun where the winner is ultimately decided by what way the tide is flowing rather than any actual strategy beyond group up and attack objective.

That's easy: War Thunder. Arcade mode is better (i.e. more fun) than any of MWO's single-life QP modes.

Bombers actually bomb objectives, and fighters actually escort bombers, chase away pesky enemy fighters, and/or bring down enemy bombers.

[WarHippy]

Athom83, on 28 March 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

Verdun.

I will have to look into it more, but from a cursory glance it looks interesting. I still wouldn't say it out does anything to exemplify being more strategic than say Counter-Strike.

[WarHippy]

Mystere, on 28 March 2017 - 10:26 AM, said:

That's easy: War Thunder. Arcade mode is better (i.e. more fun) than any of MWO's single-life QP modes.

Bombers actually bomb objectives, and fighters actually escort bombers, chase away pesky enemy fighters, and/or bring down enemy bombers.

I suspect War Thunder being a better made game by better developers has more to do with it being more fun than simply having respawns. I would also point out that "Bombers actually bomb objectives, and fighters actually escort bombers, chase away pesky enemy fighters, and/or bring down enemy bombers." can be done without respawns and would be a great deal more appealing to me if it was like that.

[Anjian]

WarHippy, on 28 March 2017 - 09:44 AM, said:

MWO is essentially a FPS so that is what it gets compared to.
Correction, it had respawn as a option. As for being the most revered of all Mechwarrior games that is highly debatable and not a claim I would agree with at all.
Can you give me a good example of a well designed respawn game that was more strategic and engaging than a properly made game without respawn? In all my years of gaming the only one that comes to mind that might was the original Ground Control and that was a RTS without a resource system and actually made sense the way it was implemented. Respawn games can absolutely be fun, but it is almost always mindless fun where the winner is ultimately decided by what way the tide is flowing rather than any actual strategy beyond group up and attack objective.

As one who played MW4 online for at least two to three years, I don't ever recall anyone playing it without the respawn option, which is by far the most popular.

World of Tanks nor World of Warships don't really succeed to me in depth as strategic games, since any goal can be accomplished by killing the opposition which is often most efficiently done by camping and sniping. I personally prefer playing War Thunder to these two, though it needs to be said that WoWs would never fit a respawn format due to the extensively LONG TTK per vehicle. It takes a lot of hits to sink a ship, and in WoWs, you can have 20 minute games where both teams are surviving. Long TTKs is the best condition for a non respawn game.

Fractured Space, which featured respawns, offers also more strategic and tactical depth, though the respawn feature is also part of being with MOBA characteristics, which currently are the most popular online PvP games in the world right now (League of Legends, DoTA 2, etc,.)

I have yet to find any...any, non respawn game that is more engaging and immersive than equivalent games with respawns.

Do you honestly ever played wargames with respawns around an objective? The turning of a tide is determined by smaller engagements across a wide front. Which is what it should be.

The one thing I noticed about games with respawns is that that there is little --- if any, murder balling in them. Whereas games without spawns, are full of lemming chains and trains, mobs and murderballs.

[Anjian]

WarHippy, on 28 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I suspect War Thunder being a better made game by better developers has more to do with it being more fun than simply having respawns. I would also point out that "Bombers actually bomb objectives, and fighters actually escort bombers, chase away pesky enemy fighters, and/or bring down enemy bombers." can be done without respawns and would be a great deal more appealing to me if it was like that.

It can be done, in realistic and simulation mode. But guess what, the arcade mode, with respawns, are overwhelmingly far more popular. Guess which brings in the bread for War Thunder.

And besides, even in realistic mode, the game allows for respawn tickets. And here is another thing, in those modes, the TTK for aircraft and tanks are much higher, and its takes much more effort to make a single kill. The game is much more slower as a result.

The respawns are tied to TTK. Long TTK like World of Warships, don't need respawns. Moderate TTK like in tanks, could do with 3 respawns like in War Thunder. Short TTK, like in aircraft, needed more respawns, which is why the limit for aircraft is higher, five, six, in War Thunder.

[Bishop Steiner]

Elizander, on 28 March 2017 - 03:51 AM, said:

If they add respawn to quick play and everyone can use 4 mechs then they can switch from selling 3 of the same to 4 different kinds that fit the drop deck tonnage ranges for quick play.

I think they can keep the round duration the same or at worst bump it up to 20 minutes, but most matches don't last 15 minutes anyway. I'd rather that 'quick' play matches not take 30 minutes, but I'll probably deal with a 30 minute match if that makes it better.

The thing is they'd need to set an absolute floor for Drop Deck tonnage say - never go below 240 or 250 tons and set the drop deck packs at that weight limit or else you're gonna get complaints of purchased drop decks being invalidated. All drop deck packs must be usable in a drop deck at all times despite tonnage changes so don't change it below that standard.

As for extras... I don't know. Maybe set it so that drop deck packs give an extra 10%-20% c-bills, xp and loyalty when used together. Go figure something out.

As an extra note, non-paying players would be able to make multiple accounts for drop decks without worrying about progress lost from not being able to transfer modules over from multiple accounts once the 3-to-master rule is gone along with modules. 1 account - 1 drop deck and no need to worry about mech bays limiting your pokemech fun. The only limit is you can't mix and match mechs from different accounts which is still a good enough reason to keep it all in 1 account and buy some mech bays.

I must say if they ever add Respawn to QP, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only person to uninstall and never look back.
This game has been out for nearly 5 years in one form or another. It is a NON respawn game, please stop trying to make it into CoD with Gundams. Either accept this game for what it demonstrably is or go play a game that is what you want.

I am sick beyond words of the respawn ********.

[Mystere]

WarHippy, on 28 March 2017 - 10:33 AM, said:

I suspect War Thunder being a better made game by better developers has more to do with it being more fun than simply having respawns. I would also point out that "Bombers actually bomb objectives, and fighters actually escort bombers, chase away pesky enemy fighters, and/or bring down enemy bombers." can be done without respawns and would be a great deal more appealing to me if it was like that.

Oh, WT has single-life game modes too. But, being able to rejoin an on-going battle as "reinforcement" has its own unique element of fun.

Edited by Mystere, 28 March 2017 - 11:57 AM.

[WarHippy]

Mystere, on 28 March 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

Oh, WT has single-life game modes too. But, being able to rejoin an on-going battle as "reinforcement" has it's own unique element of fun.

I can agree with that. I just see no reason for it to be here let alone in QP. However, something like that might work well in FP.

[Anjian]

Athom83, on 28 March 2017 - 09:56 AM, said:

I've had many teams who thought the same. They only went after enemy mechs and ignored the objectives. Every single one of those was a loss.

Then go play CoD: Mechfinte Warfare or BF:3050.

Its not how Leroy plays himself, its his affect on the team. If he is in a medium, and successfully rushes and kills an assault before going down, in the current system it means something while it means **** all in the "infinite respawn" system.


The reasons Fractures Space respawns work in the context of the game is that it takes an absolute ****ton of time to respawn. Several minutes in the later stages of the battle where a 1 player difference can mean "gg". Games usually end with one team all sitting in respawn while the entire enemy team is sitting in the home base cap.

For a Fractured Space game to end, which means your team to win it has to be on the home base cap, you need two things:

You need to capture the jump points that will lead directly to the enemy home base and make sure the enemy doesn't capture those points leading to yours.

Second, capturing gamma so you can upgrade faster and get better DPS and survivability out of your ships. That's how you put the enemy team out and into the limbo area.

Again, two objectives in the game that must be relentlessly taken.

Quote

War Thunder has several modes, some with respawns while other don't. They each have their own formulas, plus sides, and negatives. In your post you largely describe the Arcade mode. In realistic Aircraft, you only have that one life. In realistic tanks, it has a steep cost to respawn (with playing the objective giving the most points to respawn) with a limited amount of "lives" you have (you can increase by purchasing more slots and back-ups for vehicles with premium currency). In the full Simulator aircraft mode you have 1 life. In tank SImulator, you pick one vehicle to spawn as and that's it (with a possible respawn based on type. Light tanks, Meduim tanks, and Light TDs get a respawn while Heavy tanks and Heavy TDs don't). And you also assume that 50% to 80% of your team doesn't die in the first 5 minutes of the match and leave (which happens 95% of matches). Most games do end with the majority (if not all) of one/both teams destroyed. And only that is because the last one alive on the losing team carried his failure of a team so hard he has thousands of spawn points, with a full "drop deck" of 8 vehicles all with back-ups that just keeps respawning despite him being the last one remaining as your crew will lock for 5 minutes if you don't (where you can't play a game with that vehicle or swap out the vehicle from the deck).

By far the most popular mode is Arcade, while RB and SB have long long waiting queues for the lack of players. Simulator has so little players, it has been turned into an "event".

If anything, the massive population difference between Arcade and Realistic, which still features spawn tickets, tells you what the market really wants. I played realistic, I don't find it as fun, and Arcade is certainly much more quicker and lethal. Things go pop faster in Arcade, therefore, that means a lower TTK, which means it has to be supported by respawns. TTK is still longer in Realistic because doing things overall seems harder and less assisted.

Quote

For AW, you attribute the game dying to the game itself and not the failures of that ******ed publisher. The game is solid, has several modes (including a major PvP mode with respawns), and has quite a few people wanting to play. The reason its dying is because the publisher absolutely refuses to advertise for the game until it is "complete" (the game is currently in v0.18.xx). Plus, most of the active players aren't on the live server, but on the closed dev one (like the PTSs PGI does), testing the upcoming "Balance 2.0" which will mark the games "full launch" (to get their publishers to start advertising). Once that update happens, server population will likely rival (if not overtake) the population of WoT.

You must be dreaming. The game is simply not solid. I tried the PvP, I tried the Global Operations which had the respawns. The balance is majorly FU'ed. It has great graphics and a stable client yes. The reason why they brought out GO which has respawns is because of the incessant stomps that happen in PvP, which is causing the player base to quit that mode and just play PvE instead.

Quote

However, I do understand what you're trying to say at points when its concerning the objective. The reason games like Fractured Space and War Thunder does the objective vs kills well is that playing the objective doesn't lead to an instant win like it does in AW, WoT, etc. I can even think of quite a few modes for MWO that would be unique, have respawns, and a fun objective play but should probably be FW only.

Objective games is still about kills. In fact, you get a LOT MORE kills on objective games than non respawns. You stay longer in the game, you shoot a lot more, you kill a lot more, and there is simply much more mayhem. A War Thunder game has many players with 5 to 10 kills, sometimes in the teens. And you get to ace games much more often. In a WoT, WoWs or even an MWO QP game, 5 is quite an achievement.

So there is satisfaction in both --- the challenge to create tactics and strategy, the part of the brain that looks for depth, and at the same time you satisfy that part of you that just likes to blow up a lot of things.

If anything, whereas objective vs. kills seems in opposition with a non respawn game, on a game with respawn, objective and killing are both synergistic and supportive of each other --- they are both simultaneously necessary for winning.

[Mystere]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 March 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

I must say if they ever add Respawn to QP, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only person to uninstall and never look back.
This game has been out for nearly 5 years in one form or another. It is a NON respawn game, please stop trying to make it into CoD with Gundams. Either accept this game for what it demonstrably is or go play a game that is what you want.

I am sick beyond words of the respawn ********.

Sometimes, to save a game, drastic changes need to be done.

[R Valentine]

Bishop Steiner, on 28 March 2017 - 10:51 AM, said:

I must say if they ever add Respawn to QP, I'm pretty sure I won't be the only person to uninstall and never look back.
This game has been out for nearly 5 years in one form or another. It is a NON respawn game, please stop trying to make it into CoD with Gundams. Either accept this game for what it demonstrably is or go play a game that is what you want.

I am sick beyond words of the respawn ********.

The game already is CoD with Gundams. Mechs are ridiculously agile in MWO. Far more so than in any other Mechwarrior game. TTK is very low. Far more so than in any other Mechwarrior game. Convergence is ridiculously precise and accurate. For more so than in any other Mechwarrior game. There is no lore, period. No campaign. No story. The game has more in common with Counter Strike or CoD than it does with other Mechwarrior games. You should know. You've been playing it for FIVE YEARS. And while we're on that subject, we've had no skill tree for five years. Should we leave it that way too? I mean, if it all it takes is chronology then we should leave everything that's been in the game since release no matter how bad. And Counter Strike has no respawns. Congratulations. You're already an FPS. You just like to pretend otherwise.

[C E Dwyer]

If P.G.I want to sell drop deck packs for Faction warfare I'm perfectly fine with that.

There is a point to it in F.W

That kind of respawn crap should be kept far away from quick play because it's supposed to be quick.

I'm getting sick and tired of people trying to ruin the most popular style of play because they can't or won't play in F.W.

There is a lack of population there for a reason, there was even less population when they had a solo queue.