97 replies to this topic

[ObeyTheLion]

Prototelis, on 19 April 2019 - 07:21 AM, said:

New players typically don't play FP, its spelled out the first time you click the FP button why you shouldn't play FP on new accounts.

Requiring multiple mechs in the most easily accessible mode is a serious barrier for new players.

Quick question. Can you place Trial 'mechs into drop decks to fill them up?
If so, then new players wouldn't have that much of a barrier keeping them away from playing the mode

Edited by ObeyTheLion, 19 April 2019 - 07:25 AM.

[Eatit]

I'm not saying replace current Quick Play. I said ADD a que like Quick Play.

I'm not talking about FW for solo's. I'm talking about Quick Play with Drop Decks. I suggested using the FW elements because they exist and wouldn't need to be created new. This is an easy win for PGI. It's not a huge investment and givea something new to 90% of the player base. That same 90% of the player base may be encouraged to spend money... Win/Win.

[Bud Crue]

ObeyTheLion, on 19 April 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

Quick question. Can you place Trial 'mechs into drop decks to fill them up?
If so, then new players wouldn't have that much of a barrier keeping them away from playing the mode

That would do wonders for NPE and retention. /s

[Eatit]

ObeyTheLion, on 19 April 2019 - 07:24 AM, said:

Quick question. Can you place Trial 'mechs into drop decks to fill them up?
If so, then new players wouldn't have that much of a barrier keeping them away from playing the mode

You sure can. I would expect newer players to be using trials just like they do in Quick Play. Just now they get respawns.

It's like playing 4 quick play matches with only waiting in the que one time. Less time spent waiting more time spent playing.

Edited by Eatit, 19 April 2019 - 07:28 AM.

[cougurt]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 07:26 AM, said:

I'm not saying replace current Quick Play. I said ADD a que like Quick Play.

I'm not talking about FW for solo's. I'm talking about Quick Play with Drop Decks. I suggested using the FW elements because they exist and wouldn't need to be created new. This is an easy win for PGI. It's not a huge investment and givea something new to 90% of the player base. That same 90% of the player base may be encouraged to spend money... Win/Win.

not going to happen since it would split up the queues even more.

[Dread Render]

Prototelis, on 19 April 2019 - 07:10 AM, said:

For better or worse, not knowing the map before you pick a mech actually encourages more variety. Try FP and you'll see that mech selection is quite a bit less varied than QP.

No it does Not... it only encourages people to DC.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 06:54 AM, said:

ObeytheLion,

What I proposed is very different than FW. It's just quick play with drop decks.

1. Solo Only
2. No Planet Taking
3. No Faction Choosing

This game is far too late for any changes, and the player base is already far too set in its play style.

You are looking for a new game.

Does drop decks discourage new players? No. I would say complexity and a clunky user interface are far more a greater deterrent --- this I actually ask from people.

Does drop decks and multispawn mean long games? No. In fact, you can finish a multispawn match in ten minutes or less.

Does respawn encourage camping? No. This is a matter of map and game mode design. You would need an objective game mode and OGMs are preferably respawn based.

Does drop decks and respawn discourage variety? No. I think what discourage variety in FP is the weight tonnage limit, and its never an issue on other games I have played with drop decks and respawn, other than the typical meta environment.

Drop decks tend to result in a multipurpose deck, in particular when confronted with an objective game based mode and the right map design.

However, the entire approach needs to be holistic or it falls apart, like FP did. In order for the whole scheme to work, you need a well designed objective game based mode with the right map design --- right map designs as in plural since you need a bunch of good maps --- and those are two things that PGI has both never managed. So the single spawn essentially team deathmatch --- the simplest of all PvP game modes --- becomes the fallback.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 07:37 AM.

[Eatit]

Agreed Dread,

It's way better to know what map you're going to play on so you can pick the right mech.

[Eatit]

Anjian, on 19 April 2019 - 07:35 AM, said:

This game is far too late for any changes, and the player base is already far too set in its play style.

You are looking for a new game.

Does drop decks discourage new players? No. I would say complexity and a clunky user interface are far more a greater deterrent --- this I actually ask from people.

Does drop decks and multispawn mean long games? No. In fact, you can finish a multispawn match in ten minutes or less.

Does respawn encourage camping? No. This is a matter of map and game mode design. You would need an objective game mode and OGMs are preferably respawn based.

Does drop decks and respawn discourage variety? No. I think what discourage variety in FP is the weight tonnage limit, and its never an issue on other games I have played with drop decks and respawn, other than the typical meta environment.

Drop decks tend to result in a multipurpose deck, in particular when confronted with an objective game based mode and the right map design.

However, the entire approach needs to be holistic or it falls apart, like FP did. In order for the whole scheme to work, you need a well designed objective game based mode with the right map design --- right map designs as in plural since you need a bunch of good maps --- and those are two things that PGI has both never managed. So the single spawn essentially team deathmatch --- the simplest of all PvP game modes --- becomes the fallback.

Anjian,

That is a very pessimistic outlook. I think PGI can easily create this and I think a ton of people would enjoy it. It's not a new game, it's the same game with respawns.

[HammerMaster]

Respawns!?

Edited by HammerMaster, 19 April 2019 - 07:44 AM.

[Dread Render]

it seems there are people who wait for a post just so they can come against it.
...regardless of logic.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 07:39 AM, said:

Anjian,

That is a very pessimistic outlook. I think PGI can easily create this and I think a ton of people would enjoy it. It's not a new game, it's the same game with respawns.

No PGI doesn't. That's why for the last few years, this forum is filled with threads about more maps, map designs, no objective game modes, and the eternal NASCAR complaint. You simply cannot have NASCAR in an objective game mode with multiple respawns and drop decks. The map design, to start with, must make all the mechs relevant --- whether you are a sniper or a brawler --- the game mode and map design makes all different playing styles relevant. Otherwise, people will DC.

Believe me, there is already a game that does what you are saying successfully. But its not PGI and its not MWO.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 07:49 AM.

[Eatit]

Anjian,

I can think of plenty of successful games that are basically quick play with respawns. Why if it works for them wouldn't it work for MWO?

You have stated some opinions about MWO that suggest you don't like it. Yet here you are on the forum of it posting arguments. I don't think anything that I might suggest would please you. We can agree to disagree. That works for me.

HammerMaster, on 19 April 2019 - 07:42 AM, said:

Respawns!?

Come on now HammerMaster. You know it would be fun for a while. At least it would be a change of pace.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 07:55 AM, said:

Anjian,

I can think of plenty of successful games that are basically quick play with respawns. Why if it works for them wouldn't it work for MWO?

You have stated some opinions about MWO that suggest you don't like it. Yet here you are on the forum of it posting arguments. I don't think anything that I might suggest would please you. We can agree to disagree. That works for me.

I actually enjoy MWO because of the nostalgia, but I am aware that its also a bit dated, and its inability to develop the right game mode with the right map design kept an OKAY game from becoming GREAT. This game was on the verge of greatness, but could not make that leap.

It would work for MWO yes, but there is a big barrier that prevents it --- PGI. Its a people problem, not a design problem. People that can't design or figure out how to design a proper objective game mode and the required maps to match those.

I spent some time to play and research games that have successful quick or easy play modes with multiple respawns, and map design is one of those factors. Objective game mode is another important factor as it counters camping and promotes strategy and tactics, as well varying builds.

It can work for MWO yes, but you would have make new maps or fix or redesign existing ones, redo the spawn points, redo the capture points, set time limits for the matches, likely eliminate weight limits, make both brawler and sniper both relevant in the same map and game mode.

[Eatit]

Anjian, on 19 April 2019 - 08:04 AM, said:

I actually enjoy MWO because of the nostalgia, but I am aware that its also a bit dated, and its inability to develop the right game mode with the right map design kept an OKAY game from becoming GREAT. This game was on the verge of greatness, but could not make that leap.

It would work for MWO yes, but there is a big barrier that prevents it --- PGI. Its a people problem, not a design problem. People that can't design or figure out how to design a proper objective game mode and the required maps to match those.

I spent some time to play and research games that have successful quick or easy play modes with multiple respawns, and map design is one of those factors. Objective game mode is another important factor as it counters camping and promotes strategy and tactics, as well varying builds.

It can work for MWO yes, but you would have make new maps or fix or redesign existing ones, redo the spawn points, redo the capture points, set time limits for the matches, likely eliminate weight limits, make both brawler and sniper both relevant in the same map and game mode.

Why does it have to be all or nothing? This is a huge step in the right direction. You have to craw before you walk, walk before you run. PGI isn't a AAA developer. They have to learn along the way like everyone else. I give them HUGE PROPS for the work they've already done. This game has been around for a long time. To me it's the best F2P game I've played.

I think they can do it and you don't. That's OK we can disagree it's all good.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 08:10 AM, said:

Why does it have to be all or nothing? This is a huge step in the right direction. You have to craw before you walk, walk before you run. PGI isn't a AAA developer. They have to learn along the way like everyone else. I give them HUGE PROPS for the work they've already done. This game has been around for a long time. To me it's the best F2P game I've played.

I think they can do it and you don't. That's OK we can disagree it's all good.

That's right. I don't think they can make it all work together. They modeled this game after one game --- that one game isn't Mechwarrior 4, which by the way, on its casual multiplayer mode, has respawns --- but on World of Tanks. MWO is essentially, the World of Tanks concept with mechs. To change everything --- like War Thunder's Arcade Mode --- the game has to be overhauled. I already made a list of things that would have to be changed.

World of Tanks themselves did introduce respawns, but guess what, it came with a whole new game mode and maps specifically for that game mode.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 08:23 AM.

[Eatit]

I've played World of Tanks and that game has nothing on this game. It couldn't hold my attention for more than a month. This game has had my attention for 5 years.

WoT is in my mind just a cash grab that could care less about it's players. MWO isn't that way at all. There is no pay to win here and they do seem to care about what the players want. They, like everyone else can't please all the people all the time. I don't agree with everything they've done but I try not to question it too much. I wasn't involved in the process so I have no information. Monday morning quarterbacking their decisions seems bad to me. I don't have any award winning games under my belt.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 08:21 AM, said:

I've played World of Tanks and that game has nothing on this game. It couldn't hold my attention for more than a month. This game has had my attention for 5 years.

WoT is in my mind just a cash grab that could care less about it's players. MWO isn't that way at all. There is no pay to win here and they do seem to care about what the players want. They, like everyone else can't please all the people all the time. I don't agree with everything they've done but I try not to question it too much. I wasn't involved in the process so I have no information. Monday morning quarterbacking their decisions seems bad to me. I don't have any award winning games under my belt.

That's a matter of taste. World of Tanks have people online simultaneously reaching peaks of over 800,000. They must be doing something right. Pay to win, or not pay to win, is a separate issue from having the talent to design games. EA is perhaps the worst when it comes to money grabbing, but they certainly have the triple A rated talent to design games. Talent it turns out, isn't cheap.

I play a lot of games, not just PvP, but also RPGs, strategy games and so on.

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 08:45 AM, said:

My favorite strategy game is Combat Mission Beyond Overlord and the newer Combat Mission titles. It's pretty fun, the graphics are bad and the AI is questionable but the game play is fun.

I've seen more ads for Wot and WoWS than I have any other game. It's no surprise that they have a lot of players. People want to get on board. It's just not my cup of tea.

WoWS is a pretty awesome game. The graphics, the modeling and the physics are incredible, triple A rated. To model the ships, they have to obtain the historical blueprints of the ships from the museums, and if not, even from the existing and remaining sister ships of its kind from museums. This Russian destroyer for instance, the only surviving members of its class are now museum ships in China, two of them are also in the game. Wargaming has to send a delegation to China to visit the actual ship themselves and study it carefully.




WoWs for example, its very hard to conceive having respawns because it was built from the ground up as a single spawn game. That means maps, game modes, etc,. Not to mention the long TTK and traveling times. I do find it a bit passive at times for example.

This other game on the other hand, is built with drop decks, respawns, and objective game modes in mind from the ground up. Small map, 6 vs.6, with a drop deck of 5 mechs each, all burned within 10 minutes in very aggressive but highly tactical play. TTK is short and so is the travel times from the spawn to the engagement areas. Beacon Rush means you can use a captured point to spawn your next mech, so capturing a point puts it closer to enemy territory. This can lead to some very intense battles.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 09:47 AM.

[Eatit]

Posting ads for those games will get the thread locked, please delete.