97 replies to this topic

[Curccu]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 10:00 AM, said:

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

But that would be a good thing right?

[Anjian]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 10:00 AM, said:

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

No one will be convinced to join other games, but it is good to study how the dynamics of how other games work. You raised an issue that is not present in MWO but just happens to be present with other games, right? That would require that you study those other games to see why and why not it would work on MWO.

Another thing to realize that the design and framework of a PvP game is by itself an evolving art and science, with a continuous trail of trial and error.

If you want a game with respawns on a match that can be executed within a shorter period of time, travel times from spawn to combat area and capture points must be short. This means smaller maps. The length of TTK affects preference towards single spawn or respawns --- high TTK favors single spawn, while low TTK favors respawn. Objective game modes favor respawns while simpler death matches may favor single spawns.

I find it funny you want to push aside World of Tanks but World of Tanks happens to be the world most successful team based PvP game based on single spawns that isn't a battle royale. That alone happens to be worth extensive study on how the game ticks. One can say the majority of PvP games, including the most successful ones, feature respawns especially in particular the MOBA genre.

Edited by Anjian, 19 April 2019 - 10:17 AM.

[Eatit]

Curccu, on 19 April 2019 - 10:06 AM, said:

But that would be a good thing right?

Not in my mind. I think this is a good topic that should be looked at by as many players as possible. Others don't want people to see it because they don't agree with it.

Those people that don't want others to see it also believe its a good topic and are afraid that if others see it they will also agree. That's why they don't want others to see it.

If they were correct and it was a bad topic they would be happy for others to see it and agree with them.

[LordNothing]

if fp gets that match maker isnt that almost the same thing?

though to be fair quick play isnt as quick as it used to be. 2 minutes waiting, then a minute of voting then 2 minutes loading, then another minute waiting for everyone else to load/connect. this is followed by about 4-8 minutes of gameplay. if you are working on leveling a mech and some ******** in a light mech draws the match out and you need that mech back, add another 7-11 minutes of wait time. thats the problem with one life multiplayer games, it just takes a lot of set up time for not a huge amount of actual gameplay.

fp has the same thing but provided you fight in waves and dont potato you end up getting a lot more game time out of a single match. its a much better option than playing qp serially. one after another after another and all that wait time stacks up and makes the game boring. fp matchmaker might draw more players into fp to maximize fun and minimize wait time. sometimes i wish there was a join anything button so i can get slotted into any games that are currently forming which has the least possible wait time.

Edited by LordNothing, 19 April 2019 - 10:42 AM.

[Prototelis]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 10:13 AM, said:

Those people that don't want others to see it also believe its a good topic and are afraid that if others see it they will also agree. That's why they don't want others to see it.

Wut.

[Eatit]

They want to hide it because they know it's good and are afraid that others will see it.

[Prototelis]

Hahahaha.

This is hardly an original idea.

In Fact it gets brought up every couple of months, is mostly dissented, and then forgotten.

[TheArisen]

This is one of those ideas that sounds good but when you examine it it's not.
- New players have to use trial mechs to fill out a deck
- It's redundant, FP already lets us play on the QP maps with drop decks
- It won't function as just another QP mode and in reality would just make long matches in what is supposed to be "quick" play. What if I only have time for a regular single mech match but not enough for a 4 mech dropdeck match? This really means it'd have to be seperate from QP and that means in addition to being redundant it splits the player base.
- It's really just a watered down version of FP.

[Omniseed]

I have a different and better QP drop deck idea.

Have a brief lobby or selection screen after map selection so that players can choose which of the readied mechs they would like to drop with. Pick the map, then pick which pre-selected mech you want to actually hit the ground in.

It could be limited to four mechs of the same weight class to keep the matchmaker straight, while still letting pilots choose which range or speed or heat profile they would like for the map they got.

[TheArisen]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 10:25 AM, said:

They want to hide it because they know it's good and are afraid that others will see it.

Look man I don't want to be rude but just go look at your OP, zero likes. At best you've got very little support for this idea. No one is afraid of this idea because we all know PGI won't do it.

It's good that you're thinking of ways to improve the game but this idea just hasn't been received as well as you want.

[R Valentine]

The dumbest part of this game has always been that you don't know what mech you're bringing to any given map. If not a drop deck, then let us know the map before we choose our mech. We don't want 4 mechs per match. We just want to be able to bring the right mech to the right map. Ain't that hard.

[Prototelis]

^play faction

[Chortles]

Whenever Polar Highlands gets picked as the map, I always assume that LRM, ATM, and long ranged players picked it. If you were able to choose your mech after map selection, everyone would just choose the meta strategy for that map. Gameplay would be stale because you would expect the same thing every time on every map.

As Prototelis mentioned earlier, this would be bad for new players with no proper drop decks or someone who wants to level a new mech. Imagine you only have or only want to play a short/medium ranged assault and the players pick Polar or Alpine. The current mechanic would already be bad for that assault because the people who voted for that map are probably long ranged. If you add drop decks, the number of long ranged players on the opposing team would increase if not be maxed at 12. So either the player is screwed if they stick with the mech or forced to switch to a mech they don't want to play and that wouldn't be fun now would it?

[HammerMaster]

Chortles, on 19 April 2019 - 11:56 AM, said:

Whenever Polar Highlands gets picked as the map, I always assume that LRM, ATM, and long ranged players picked it.  If you were able to choose your mech after map selection, everyone would just choose the meta strategy for that map.  Gameplay would be stale because you would expect the same thing every time on every map.

As Prototelis mentioned earlier, this would be bad for new players with no proper drop decks or someone who wants to level a new mech.  Imagine you only have or only want to play a short/medium ranged assault and the players pick Polar or Alpine.  The current mechanic would already be bad for that assault because the people who voted for that map are probably long ranged.  If you add drop decks, the number of long ranged players on the opposing team would increase if not be maxed at 12.  So either the player is screwed if they stick with the mech or forced to switch to a mech they don't want to play and that wouldn't be fun now would it?

Oh BS. I'm just as likely to choose Polar running my Legend Killer as my Warhawk just to not do Crimson because Nascar is no less bad than the "accepted" lemming tactic of not using 23,000 sqkm of map rather than 100 meters of that blasted tunnel. Loadouts is a lame excuse.
Cry.
Me.
A.
River.

Edited by HammerMaster, 19 April 2019 - 12:22 PM.

[Y E O N N E]

You can't predict what an individual will do, but groups of people? Yes you can.

[Xaat Xuun]

half read first post. and nothing else

if you want a drop deck for quick play, then just go to Faction play

what I would like to happen for quick play, is the ability to select the mech for the map and mode.

only way I could see that to work, would be something like , you choose the weight class you want to play, and once match maker makes the match (which now how will that work, I DON'T KNOW), you choose your mech in the Weight class you selected. 60 sec should be long enough to pick one mech, from a Light,Medium,Heavy or Assault mech bay.

again if you want a drop deck of mechs, then just go to faction Play

Edited by Xaat Xuun, 19 April 2019 - 12:30 PM.

[Prototelis]

If you want to pick the mech for the map and mode play faction. You'll find that certain maps favor certain mechs, which if fine for an "endgame" mode.

Mech selection before map selection in quickplay is honestly one of the best decisions the developer has made, it encourages variety.

[Curccu]

Eatit, on 19 April 2019 - 10:13 AM, said:

Not in my mind. I think this is a good topic that should be looked at by as many players as possible. Others don't want people to see it because they don't agree with it.

Those people that don't want others to see it also believe its a good topic and are afraid that if others see it they will also agree. That's why they don't want others to see it.

If they were correct and it was a bad topic they would be happy for others to see it and agree with them.

LOL... nice logic you got there, gotta say I don't agree with you. Silly topic IMO for same reasons that people have said already.

[Xeno Phalcon]

FP being such a failure is probably the only reason I would agree with a QP dropdeck, but at a reduced count - such as just two mechs and maybe even in a smaller vs pool (IE back down to the 8v8s) but pushing yet another mode into the mostly-failed pile dosn't sound like a good plan either.

[Lykaon]

There are a number of issues that are not easily seen that can and do arise when a major element of a game mechanic is radically altered.

Here are some examples of potential issues.

Weapon balance can be heavily effected. A weapon loadout that would be absolute lunacy in a single spawn game may become absurdly effective in a multi spawn (respawn) style of game play.

Here is an example... Let's say Rocket launchers become a serious meta choice. A few very light and very fast mechs can easily remove and cripple much much larger machines. The ability to respawn means that rocket lights will become a major influence on how the game is played. Let's assume this build choice becomes so dominant that assault mechs become vastly reduced in effectiveness because they just get rocket ganked in seconds by 20 ton murder machines. Then we have an additional issue with rockets being an Inner Sphere only option and with this we have a glut of nerf posts and now RLs need a rework. Or it could be something else that is even more absurd like 6x ER-PPC direwolves or some other absurd build that leverages the attrition game over a single spawn strategy.

On the flipside builds that work just fine in our current quick play may become undesireable with respawns. Something like an ECM gauss sniper that normally has enough ammo to pull through a whole match now needs significantly more ammo to retain the edge in it's play style. The switch to respawns makes a mech like this into a disposable ammo cart for gauss rifles. Shoot until empty suicide then respawn repeat. The issue is this type of gameplay is heavily effected by positioning and having to reposition on every respawn is not only very difficult but unlikely to be effective. An entire playstyle and build choice is now altered and may call into question core mechanic of weapon systems. ie. if gauss rifles always get forced into a brawl why have a charge mechanic? or why not just use AC20s instead?

Map design becomes a critical issue with respawns since with respawns we also get places where spawing occurs and when that happens spawn camping ALWAYS occurs. This would mean that we currently have a tiny handful of maps where respwan points are even a consideration in map design (the Invasion style maps) and even these frequently can result in spawn camps.

Player population and diffusion of players across to many match maker buckets will impede timely or effective matches. The mechanics used in matchmaking if more effective with large player samplings and becomes progressively less effective the smaller the player sampling becomes. In essence adding another point where players are diverted from a primary match maker pool deminishes the quality of ALL matches being made.

New player resource divide become a bigger issue. Veteran players will have a significantly larger pool of varied mech builds and fully mastered and skilled mechs than the new players. And it doesn't end there. There is also a magnification of the experience devide between new and veteran players. When currently a new player that has selected a sub optimized or outright bad chassis (due to the steep learning curve in MWo) they represent a slight setback to their team mates. that setback is magnified by respawning several times. You can suck only once now but with respawns you get to keep on sucking. This becomes very discouraging to new players.

And again we have the flip side being an issue as well. I am tier 1 but in reality not really a tier one when compared to the top ranked players in MWo. Our tier system is inadiquate to properly represent skill levels for the match maker. Currently a truely elite player can only carry a team with one mech. Respawns however allow repeat performances of high skill play.

Essentially minor variances in single drop games become hugely magnified in respawn games.



What it comes down to is what seems like an easy slap in change (respawns) in reality becomes a much bigger issue than initially assumed.

Also, faction warfare is getting a rework so perhaps a respwn game mode will become more accessable.