600 replies to this topic

[SquareSphere]

Nik Reaper, on 11 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

!WARNING TEXT WALL!
Hi all, ok I just read 7 pages of going back and front over this and it is truly a globaly unsettable issue and someone will become unhappy with the final decision. Now here is some food for thought... and boy it will be controversial.... the first part will be the intro needed as a background in order to make the point later down.

You weren't kidding about walls of text, use paragraphs with a hard return or two

But yes, the underlining factor is that only hardcore MW/BT fans are probably not enough needed to keep a game (especially F2P) profitable and worth continued support.

[Dlardrageth]

Renegade Mitchell, on 11 January 2012 - 12:35 PM, said:

He and I basically said the same thing. He just worded his better. Got that Mr. I ONLY PLAYED A COUPE MW4 MATCHES. lol

Hm, failing at reading comprehension 101 again? Check again, kiddo, I wrote "I did play a couple" not "only a COUPE". Guess your teacher can explain you the difference there, I cannot be bothered. But hey, nice attempt on the misquote, I'll give you 2/10 for effort. I did actually play a whole lot of MW4 multiplayer games, prolly well over a hundred, can't recall exact numbers. More than I care for in retrospective, tbh. Lots of wasted time there.

Also somewhat revealing how deeply you got into the argumentative side of things, instead of "LOLtrollZ, I can type in caps" etc. Way to make your point. Which was that there are a lot of matches where people for some reason cannot find each other on the map during 20 minutes. Yeah, right...

And after that, don't expect me to take your word on... "He and I basically said the same thing", considering how much of a problem you have already with that easy phrase of mine. So how about you take your "MW4 league games", fold them and stick them together with your excellent reading comprehension where they belong? Into my ignore list? Buh-bye...

[FireForEffect]

SquareSphere, on 11 January 2012 - 12:54 PM, said:

But yes, the underlining factor is that only hardcore MW/BT fans are probably not enough needed to keep a game (especially F2P) profitable and worth continued support.

Damn those pesky, dedicated, long-term battletech players and their disposable incomes - let's focus on the people who aren't here yet but who might come over from WoW or WoT if we make it familiar enough for them. Mechs are like tanks and some of them even have axes. Yay!

You either go mainstream or niche - either appeal to the masses or the dedicated few. PGI aren't going to make a mainstream game better than the mainstream companies as they just don't have the resources. Better to make a damn good niche game and grow from there than try to play in the big mass-market space and get owned.

Edited by FireForEffect, 11 January 2012 - 01:04 PM.

[renegade mitchell]

Dlardrageth, on 11 January 2012 - 12:59 PM, said:

Hm, failing at reading comprehension 101 again? Check again, kiddo, I wrote "I did play a couple" not "only a COUPE". Guess your teacher can explain you the difference there, I cannot be bothered. But hey, nice attempt on the misquote, I'll give you 2/10 for effort. I did actually play a whole lot of MW4 multiplayer games, prolly well over a hundred, can't recall exact numbers. More than I care for in retrospective, tbh. Lots of wasted time there.

Also somewhat revealing how deeply you got into the argumentative side of things, instead of "LOLtrollZ, I can type in caps" etc. Way to make your point. Which was that there are a lot of matches where people for some reason cannot find each other on the map during 20 minutes. Yeah, right...

And after that, don't expect me to take your word on... "He and I basically said the same thing", considering how much of a problem you have already with that easy phrase of mine. So how about you take your "MW4 league games", fold them and stick them together with your excellent reading comprehension where they belong? Into my ignore list? Buh-bye...

Most likely older then you boy. So run along before I take an LRM and shove it so far up your a s s you will need surgery to remove it. Have a nice day.

EDIT: Here's a warning about inappropriate language. Have a nice day.

Edited by Garth Erlam, 13 January 2012 - 08:44 AM.

[Xavier Truscott]

The game they are designing, isn't really suitable for respawns in the planetary battles sense. The whole concept of having an assigned commander, information warfare, and the roles of various classes of mechs is pretty much wiped out if you kill all the enemy scouts only for them to respawn and come back 30 seconds later. Your commander having his face in the battlemap and somehow scouts missed the mechs creeping up on him and they take him out.....but wait, all that fantastic maneuvering they did to find and kill your commander adds up to about 30 seconds commander downtime.

Using respawns in this type of game would make them nothing more then just another deathmatch on a bigger map.

I'm all for a solaris setup representing a virtual arena to practice with having multiple respawns, just doesn't make sense in battles that are for contesting planets.

Also, i'm a bit too lazy too look it up and quote atm, but as i recall, the devs said that they were designing a match to take 10 to 20 mins, never saw a mention that it was timed matches at all.

[Ravn]

Nik Reaper, on 11 January 2012 - 12:48 PM, said:

!WARNING TEXT WALL!

LOL. Just because you warn us of a text wall doesn't make it right. Next time, consider an abstract at the beginning to summarize.

[Bernardo Sinibaldi]

I think we have to factor in the external metagame aspects too. How about those Merc company commanders who get their kicks picking the right contract, making sure they have the resources to complete them and keeping their fingers crossed that the unit doesn't get too chewed up. Even as an independent Merc, I want to be balancing the rewards of participating in a battle versus the possible negative impact - repair bills, new mech and so on. 100k to take on Wolf's Dragoons? No thanks - it'll cost that much to repair my armour. That element is lost if it's just a game of attrition. There'll also be no sense of scale - two companies could fight it out, with 12 mechs each, and each destroy 60 mechs - that makes no sense to me.

[Dlardrageth]

Ravn, on 11 January 2012 - 01:06 PM, said:

LOL. Just because you warn us of a text wall doesn't make it right. Next time, consider an abstract at the beginning to summarize.

Not so much bothered about the wall, just wished he had used a few more paragraphs instead of the compact "wall". He does make some valid points therein, even though I have to disagree about the prioritization. And his read on what a "gamestudio" might do or not. Usually they do have a decent idea on customer potentials initially.

Also cannot really agree with:

Quote

[...]At this point I feel like kicking the hell out all of you here who dare say that almost all of the game should be nonrespown[...]

Might actually be in violation of Forum Etiquette here, but well, don't feel like reporting it in.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 11 January 2012 - 01:19 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

FireForEffect, on 11 January 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Damn those pesky, dedicated, long-term battletech players and their disposable incomes - let's focus on the people who aren't here yet but who might come over from WoW or WoT if we make it familiar enough for them. Mechs are like tanks and some of them even have axes. Yay!

You either go mainstream or niche - either appeal to the masses or the dedicated few. PGI aren't going to make a mainstream game better than the mainstream companies as they just don't have the resources. Better to make a damn good niche game and grow from there than try to play in the big mass-market space and get owned.

I see this as na incredibly immature viewpoint , so let me put it to you this way.. how many years has it been sence the last mechwarrior game? non of this ,in my oppinion , halfbaked community projects, is it because they lazy to make new ones.. or is it not profitable? You know it's because it's not profitable and now they go for a special form of distribution wich can yeald profit with the condition that it MUST BE POPULAR!!!! and you say meh let it fail as an franchise (as it perty much has till now) as long as I get about 2 years with it , and I can stand another 10 years with no new mech inbetween as long as I can remember thatI played a great game me and my friends know about and can tell my mainstream playing friends how much the stuff thay play is crapy in compareson to the thing I played long ago that few remember.. Good job it this is the case.
: BTW if they can create option 1 thorough 3 or any combination that seams to make sence to olderplayers and still is fun and doesn't put players off... go for it gods of mech creation.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 11 January 2012 - 01:17 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

@Dlardrageth

I could have but that might influence ones willingness to read or even consider my view with out the intro , and I only fealt like kicking because till that point nobody looked at this as a comercial product + few considered the habits and the disposition of averige casual players who still know nothing about the playstile and have no reason to stay whan frustrated by the inevetalbe faliure ( yes inevetable if untrained ) at the start with long restart times.

[FlakAttack]

FireForEffect, on 11 January 2012 - 01:02 PM, said:

Damn those pesky, dedicated, long-term battletech players and their disposable incomes - let's focus on the people who aren't here yet but who might come over from WoW or WoT if we make it familiar enough for them. Mechs are like tanks and some of them even have axes. Yay!

You either go mainstream or niche - either appeal to the masses or the dedicated few. PGI aren't going to make a mainstream game better than the mainstream companies as they just don't have the resources. Better to make a damn good niche game and grow from there than try to play in the big mass-market space and get owned.

WoT is mainstream to you? lol wow... just because the game is accessible doesn't mean it's easy or casual by any means. I imagine you haven't done any CW battles. What next, you going to tell us Arma is mainstream?

What Bernardo said is the most important aspect of whether or not respawns or some similar mechanic should be allowed: is there going to be a metagame component involved? If a commander must manage money, manpower, resources... then respawning probably isn't going to fit the game. But if there is no real metagame management, just land holding, respawning isn't an unreasonable mechanic, it just needs to be managed well.

[FireForEffect]

Nik Reaper, on 11 January 2012 - 01:12 PM, said:

I see this as na incredibly immature viewpoint , so let me put it to you this way.. how many years has it been sence the last mechwarrior game? non of this ,in my oppinion , halfbaked community projects, is it because they lazy to make new ones.. or is it not profitable? You know it's because it's not profitable and now they go for a special form of distribution wich can yeald profit with the condition that it MUST BE POPULAR!!!! and you say meh let it fail as an franchise (as it perty much has till now) as long as I get about 2 years with it , and I can stand another 10 years with no new mech inbetween as long as I can remember thatI played a great game me and my friends know about and can tell my mainstream playing friends how much the stuff thay play is crapy in compareson to the thing I played long ago that few remember.. Good job it this is the case.
: BTW if they can create option 1 thorough 3 or any combination that seams to make sence to olderplayers and still is fun and doesn't put players off... go for it gods of mech creation.

SRSLY? I couldn't even follow that stream of consciousness but I imagine you took umbrage at my first para. I apologise.

My point was that a well done niche product would trump a poorly done mainstream one. Appealing to the masses might not be the right idea.

[Bernardo Sinibaldi]

FlakAttack, on 11 January 2012 - 01:24 PM, said:

What Bernardo said is the most important aspect of whether or not respawns or some similar mechanic should be allowed: is there going to be a metagame component involved? If a commander must manage money, manpower, resources... then respawning probably isn't going to fit the game. But if there is no real metagame management, just land holding, respawning isn't an unreasonable mechanic, it just needs to be managed well.

Liked - but I'm biased

When you put it like that it does seem to be a clear divide. If resource management is in then respawn would be difficult (I'm not saying impossible but I'm sure it'd be hard to pull it off). If resource management is out then there's less harm intrinsic to respawning.

Again, let's see what the future brings. This is a fundamental question and I imagine the devs have got it well covered one way or another so all we're doing here is venting at one another and I think some of us are taking it better than others.

I'm all in favour of letting this one lie for now, backing off of the battlefield to patch up my proverbial mech and seeing what the dancing girls are like in the local mercs bar. Who's with me? First round is on me but you have to pay for your own dances...

Edited by Bernardo Sinibaldi, 11 January 2012 - 01:52 PM.

[Ravn]

I say let them eat respawn cake... as long as that cake is served exclusively on Solaris VII.

[Nik Reaper]

@FireForEffect

I would so like to believe this, I really would. But you know what that niche that is? It's called a groundbreaking MASTERPIECE, now many niche products byfar surpase the quality of mainstream products, but they just don't seem to create more revenue, and if we want a mech franchise wich can afford to, at some point, create a hardcore mech singleplayer game ( wich is my deepest wish ) they will need profit, and I would like this game to be a groundbreaking MASTERPIECE but we already know it will be a minimum game at the launch date and grow from there, thus probly not a G.M. , at least not immediately , but it will need profit immediately if it wants to grow... so appeal to the masses get there fat ***** of the wow train, take there money how ever you can and when you have enough go wild and make the masterpiece we all are waiting for.... amen .

[Dlardrageth]

No worries, just a matter of personal convenience, Nik Reaper, as far as reading it is concerned for me.

The point about the kicking is not actually me being concerned about you speaking your mind. It's more about the whole forum etiquette thing. I'd be careful using it, even if intended metaphorically, as in some games you'll get account-banned for typing anything resembling a physical threat this closely in a forum.

And yes, back on topic, I totally acknowledge the issue with "long" restart times. Whereas I do have somewhat of a different take on what "long" is personally, it is an issue worth discussing for sure. Like I wrote before, I have no problem with people clamouring for insta-respawns. As long as you give me and others the chance to opt out.

As much as according to your post (if I got it right) the mass appeal might depend on availability of respawn modes, the long-term hardcore player base might depend on having something else/more. Comes down to the preferred business model at the end of the day probably. You can either prioritize wide mass appeal for short-term gains or long-term commitment and a smaller, but tied-to-the game community.

If I had to name examples, I'd personally quote EVE-Online and WoT. WoT is almost completely about the short-term gains, we have a hell of a turnover rate in my clan and not surprisingly, the strategic-/meta-level gameplay is still deeply in beta... In EVE-O in contrast I was in a corporation/alliance with players having multiple accounts which had been run for years. And yes, some of them being fully-paid for. As someone who has left a tidy sum each year on CCP's doormat for EVE-O I can assure you that they weren't exactly starving out. And if you look at the very steep learning curve, and the sometimes terrible waitstates you are subjected to in that game...

Thus I acknowledge your arguments, I'm just not fully buying into them. As none of us has likely any deeper insight into PGI's business plan, any recommendations/prognostications have only so much value. We can voice our personal likes/dislikes, try to find common ground when possible,but that's about it. If PGI makes the call to have no respawns whatsoever in the game, that will happen. Same if they decide to have perma-respawn everywhere. All we can do is suggest models and after the decision has been made... well... vote with our wallets or our feet.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 11 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Nik Reaper]

@Dlardrageth

Indeed, even I don't like the idea of rapid LoL like respown in a Mech game but through some gameplaning magic it might make sence and I might like it, but I can't stand the thought of the fan community being too hard set on what this game must be to be acceped by them and burdening (if they are buredened) the creators with this inflexibility especialy if it will reflect it's success, and I say this with 100% personal conviction (as if that matters much....), the game will not be overall popular and have the several milion players if the standard is 1 death per 20 min game with no further involvement from the dead player.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

It comes down to that there are two types of players and the need for two types of gameplay. Quick, pick up, reapawn "fun" kill everything matches. Planetary conquest for teams with preferably no or limited respawns. One thing that none of the respawn advocates have explained to me is this. If you are in a merc corp. You have a contract for X c-bills. You have a mech destroyed 10 times, running up a total cosy of 5X while failing to fulfil the contract.
How do you pay tthe repair bills. Or are you saying that there should be no repair cost?

[pcunite]

I prefer no-respawns ... death must have meaning ... all the information warfare and scouting to have what ... people coming back again?

[Alicia Melchiott]

First off I'd like to describe the difference between various types of respawn gameplay.

In Heroes of Newearth, respawn was near instant and death had severe penalties on your character. You lose experience points every time you die. This breeded better teamwork skills because working together as a team meant better survival. It's also a game that the casuals prefer not to play because...

In League of Legends, there is no repercussions for dying in game (other than giving your opponent experience points). You don't lose any experience points or anything... all that happens is you have to wait about 30 or so seconds to respawn. This breeded a type of gamer people in the community call "feeders". This basically means you have one guy effectively feeding your opponent experience points. Since he doesn't really feel the repercussions on himself, he probably doesn't care. Thus, feeders became quite common in League of Legends games.

I think in a game that includes planetary conquest, death or destruction should have some sort of repercussion, and I don't mean a simple slap in the hand that doesn't really hurt. For example, an old game known as Shatered Galaxy tried to implement planetary conquest. In this game, you commanded a small group of mechanized units that traveled to various planets to fight (basically) planetary wars. Traveling to a planet took a while and once you were in, if you lost all your units, there was a respawn timer where you can effectively send in more units you have in reserve. Of course, you had to repair said units after a successful or unsuccessful battle.

Death should mean something, whether it comes in the form of repair bills or long respawn times. But if MWO uses long respawn times, what's to stop a player from simply logging out into another match? Some MMO's utilize such mechanics as penalties for logging out during battle... like loss of money or experience.

So what about no respawn? This type of gameplay is ideal, in my opinion, but unrealistic in a developer's standpoint. In the American market, most players have such short attention spans, it's not even funny. If they can't play their fix of games NOW NOW NOW, they'll get bored and quit immediately. We are America, king of instant gratification. To not have some kind of instant gratification is just a recipe for disaster. I could be wrong, but I would like to see a game where no respawn had a high player base. I know that in CoD, people rarely ever played the no respawn type matches. Counterstrike was very popular during it's time, but that was in the 1990's when gaming was reserved for gamers and excluded casuals. I think, unless MWO wants to only appeal to gamers and not casuals, a no respawn mechanic should not be implemented.

So back to repercussions, I want to bring up a game that was extraordinarily successful in the states, Demon's Souls. This game was brutal but fair. It never kept you away from the action... it's just... if you died, you went into a soul form where you're basically half a person (your maximum health was cut in half). This game was profoundly successful and never kept you away from the action.

So what I propose, is a marriage between the two where repercussions can happen. A player can have reserve mechs that they can deploy back into the battlefield through a dropship if they happen to die. This respawn can occur based on whether objectives are met (whatever they are) or on a predetermined respawn time... I say... if it's a 20 minute game, maybe a respawn every 5-8 minutes? This respawn may or may not include actual reinforcements in the form of other players joining the match.

As for spawn campers, this can easily be fixed by players choosing where to drop their mechs... I mean common, they're called DROPSHIPS, for a reason. Though people can argue that this might not be great because you can effectively drop your mechs into or near an objective (whatever it is). Though... it would be kind of funny if you can shoot down a dropship before it can actually drop reinforcements. Maybe that's a way to limit respawns, dropships, or some kind of objective, that is destructible that can interrupt reinforcements. It sounds iffy, though.

My case and point, if there are respawns (and there should on a marketing standpoint), there should be some lasting repercussion that affects the player enough to actually care about how good they are at working together as a team.