600 replies to this topic

[Dakkonn]

I still say it should depend on the mode your playing in.

I E if your fighting for territorial control I vote ZERO respawn. You should bring your A game to these matches.

"sim" - Unlimited respawn just a slug fest for testing and casual players to have their "I don't want to wait" fun

Wave - X spawns each side (number can be base on resources or location or if your defending/attacking) could be interesting if Team A has Y resources available more than the attackers meaning they get 5 respawns while the Team B are dirt poor and only get 2 but Team B is very skilled so they manage to hold them

Get what I mean tho? like This topic can be addressed in the game with different mode options and if you Q up for a no respawn campaign mode you know what your getting into so you shouldn't have any ground to complain.

I am firmly in the camp of if its for territory or resources (or a merc contract) there shouldn't be respawn. (or at least VERY limited) It just breaks the flow of realism this game seems to be trying for. I could be talked into a set up that if there is a respawn function for territory then its something like...

You have 3 mechs you build before hand (A, B, C) You die in mech A you can respawn in then next 5 mins in either mech B OR C. Die again in first 1 min well you can respawn in the last mech if you die again your out of mechs and out of the match. Plus you now have 3 damaged mechs you have to pay to repair. I also don't think that people should be able to join/quit games just cause they are losing. Think WoW, they lock you into the game for first few mins after joining and if you drop early you have to wait. This encourages players to take matches a little more seriously. I know there are people that whine about "Waaaa I want to be able to drop this game with no consequences cause my random team I joined is losing and its their fault for being bad" While it does happen that you just get a bad team at the same time I DO NOT want people like you with no commitment on my team cause all they do is drag the team down by X slots of people jumping in and out are basically NOT helping and you essentially drag down those people committed to the match (I E 12 commented vs 8 commented and 4 jumpers that just "complain about everything")

Any of this unitedly long post making sense/sound viable?

[Nik Reaper]

Hi, I just have to say that the server/split game mode probly is the way to go, and would use the LoL as an example. For those who never played lol has 2 specific,3 if you count rated, game modes. (for unranked you get less ip (for buying stuff like runes and champions) for the game than rated and no genral server ranking).

It's a 5 man team game (forget 3 man mode X) ) where the first step is selecting champions and the modes are specific in that in the casual mode you chan chose and champion that is available to you and nether you nor the opponent team sees what the other is choosing ( this is what I play because I dont invest nearly enough time and practise in it to play it seriously ) , the other mode is a more serious mode that has a 3 step proces, first are the bans, ei. one team bans a champion from the pool of all champions available to the oposition and it becomes unavailable to all than the other and this continues till bouth sides baned 3 times, than comes the champion selects but now if one side selects a champion the other side can't select it as well.. the third step isn't important to make the point. This whole story is made to make the point that is: on the second mode if you don't have many champions unlocked and available to you and can't lay many of them well and it just so happens that the ones you do have and do play get banned or taken by the other team.. well too bad for you, you are at an disadvantage. This is obviously a rather more difficult and serious aproach to the game, but sence rated games can only be played this way after playing enough casual all free to pick, if you want more you have to train and put more effort to be effective in the serious game mode... called draft mode.

So all of this is to say that RIOT games sucessfully balanced (not perfect but good enough) and provided options to it's players that it has the casual one game per day mediocare skill players (ME) and the hardcore I want to be number one on the server rating list on there web site player, and we are neatly separated by a gamemode that I don't choose often but can if I want to at any time knowing that more serious players play there because the rewards are better. And in every game the matchup is made by using an system that compares the ranking or the number of wins and ratio of a players win/losses to create a somewhat balanced teams (again not perfect but they try). LoL evan has a castum game mode that anyone can create, the creator can choose the game type, and it becomes an name on a list of available such games so anyone can try and join or he can invite teammates and the opponent team (all planed high level matchups are done this way).
So as I'm not adequately informed how this sistem taxes the game server I can't say that this really is the way to go, but if it's technically doable and economicly sound than option 4 with proper balancing seems to make the most sence.

:
Is this game going to have lots of servers like a WoW or are you hoping for a single persistent server world like EVE Online?


[MATT C] Each game spawns its own dedicated server, these are not persistent like WoW, as mentioned that would take us into MMO territory. There is persistent game world information, i.e. match results are communicated to affect the balance of power in the Inner Sphere, who owns what planet etc. but there is no true persistent world, more of a persistent meta-game.

[MATT N] Lots of Servers Lots and Lots of servers

With this sead I really don't see a down side to having some kind of a respown mode for the ones that want it.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 12 January 2012 - 09:44 AM.

[Kdogg788]

If some players insist on having respawn then there should be either

A. One game universe with no respawns

or

B. Two distinct and seperate universes with no interaction between them whatsover. If I am playing no respawn and paying for mechs, repairs, etc, and I'm not sure how they will implement that without people being overly frustrated, I don't want to play against players who've gained 10 times the kills and c bills as me because they could play respawn games and get all the upgrades and perks. Due to the absolute complexity of the Battletech universe I really doubt they will go for two universes.

-k

[LordKnightFandragon]

I vote for no spawns.....Make you think and actually play the game and not be like...oh well, ill just die and get a fresh mech. Not to mention I always hated in MW how when you respawn in a fresh mech while your opponent is half dead, you just sit there and play the you die, I die, you die, I die due to one guy taking dmg and killing then repsawn then get dmged and kill..yeah, BORING. Besides, I like games to have as much realism in them as possible and you get 1 life in RL, should really be no different in this game. It will raise the teamwork bar a few notches, will push away the CoD players as they prolly cant handle the no respawning. Yeh, no respawn, you die, you die....sucks to be you or me, or whoever died...

[Red Beard]

I think that if they limit respawns, or have no respawns, then they will most likely have some sort of way to have in-battle repairs. Maybe using salvage, or using some kind of specialty attachment. The pilot has to have as many means to value his mech as possible. If a scout mech can retreat and take 30 seconds to regain 15 percent of the damage that he took, that would give balance to not respawning. I would not be surprised to see some kind of this element to MWO.

[Dogmeat Pryde]

No to respawns! I'd be in favor of different game types where it encouraged faster game play and rounds like a compact solaris match or something. But on the battlefield no to respawns. I want people to be encouraged to work with their star er lance and meet their objectives.

[Elizander]

Kdogg788, on 12 January 2012 - 09:40 AM, said:

If some players insist on having respawn then there should be either

A. One game universe with no respawns

or

B. Two distinct and seperate universes with no interaction between them whatsover. If I am playing no respawn and paying for mechs, repairs, etc, and I'm not sure how they will implement that without people being overly frustrated, I don't want to play against players who've gained 10 times the kills and c bills as me because they could play respawn games and get all the upgrades and perks. Due to the absolute complexity of the Battletech universe I really doubt they will go for two universes.

-k

If a player goes for respawn games, they could probably divide his total damage and contributions over the number of deaths he acquired and it would even out with players who prefer no-respawn games. Experience and such gained would be based off this average.

Player A does 100 damage in a no-respawn match and is awarded for dealing 100 damage.

Player B does 150 damage in a respawn match but he died 3 times. He will be awarded as if he dealt 50 damage.

That might be too simplistic but the math exists to even out the odds. In addition, the game can also track records for respawn and no-respawn games separately. They could simply make no-respawn matches give more EXP than respawn matches as well.

Edited by Elizander, 12 January 2012 - 09:57 AM.

[Tilley]

Probably been stated already but we should be able to goto our mechbay and work on other mechs while in the death screen. That way you can work on loadouts etc while waiting.

[Odin]

Sug, on 12 January 2012 - 07:22 AM, said:

Why are we assuming the pacing of the matches will be such that someone will die 1 min into the match? I'm really not getting that feeling from reading the blogs or the interviews yet a couple people have based their posts on a 15-20min wait after you lose your mech.







True there's no one single weapon, maybe a Heavy Gauss hitting a Locust? I really hope they don't include the mechanic that prevents 1-shoting that was in MW4. It was necessary in MW4 because, well that game was awful, but I wouldn't mind if MWO was a little more "true to life".

Large weapons should be devastating on light mechs but most of them are short range so balance/give light mechs the tools to avoid being hit or staying out of range of bigger mechs. I'm hoping combat in this game will take place at something other than 200m.

Greetings!

I'm not sure how PGI will handle this. Chances are high, that there are no Rheinmetall 120-mm-Glattrohrkanonen. So no one dies right away, ...but even 5 minutes of boredom are the death of M-W-O.

I'm not advocating games featuring a spawn-run-kill-die-spawn approach here like in Lemmings of Stalingrad.
But what folks like to have,....ignoring the need of respawns, ....in general, is of no value for the average gamer. People in general don't play competitive combat games, like real soldiers live and die. Its no fun, belief me. We need respawns. There won't be any realism options, not if David Bradley made his home work. No softening for new guys, no tinkering with "realism option". What we want to be up against online are real human counterparts....and friends tied together in one world without brakes or "cheats". So It better be approachable right away - and just like real life, same sh°t for everyone. No brakes in gameplay no splitting of the community. So what do we really need?

If you ask me, I say, we need respawns and a penalty using it.




S!

[MaddMaxx]

As for the getting killed in 1 minute and moving on to another of some # of spare Mechs? The Dev have spoken to that, and a resolution for the possiblilty of droppers, ragequitters and the ***** in general issue.

Quote

"All players in a match when it ends will get the match rewards, disconnected players will not gain any progression as rewards are handed out at the end of a match."

So be there at the end (stronlgy assumes an option to be allowed to watch from another Mech until the Match ends) or lose out an any rewards. So no spare Mechs to use unless you wish to forfiet what might be a great payday despite the lose of your Mech in any given Match. (Carrot vs Stick)

I am a no-repawn vote but hope they do have a Practice area that will allow some folks to go crazy.

What I don't see is how respawn solves the "have to wait issue" if the # of spwans is limited?

Match Minute 1 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech1. (doesn't yet know the Team deal)

Match Minute 3 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech2. (OK, he didnt' learn the Team deal that time either)

Match Minute 5 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech3. (Sheesh, OK he obviously is totally oblivious to the Team deal)

Match Minute 7 - Little Johnny is out Mechs and the game still runs another 13-20 minutes. ( The Team is better off now anyways... )

How is that not fustrating for the Team, and if it doesn't frustrate the player themselves, something is fundemantally wrong with their understanding of the gameplay type involved. Does now adding more Spawns allowed solve the issue? Not likely as it isn't how many Mechs the player get but how they put them to use.

What facts we do have point to a cuople of conclusion (all have to pass Beta muster of course)

Everyone will be fighting in Lance based groups (up to a max. of 3) for control of Planets come Launch day.
There has been "mention" of a Practise area.
It is highly unlikey that the Planetary Matches will have "spawning" Mechs. More like Objective and or attrition (either will cause a Victory) with some sub set of conditions that may allow for a partial payout of funds and XP/LP despite a Lose (or withdrawal)

I would propse that instead of taking a side, we all make a "formal" proposal to the Dev Team to include some form of Match play that allows for Re-Spawn/AU/NH areas and see if we can get some feed back (not likely at his early date but...) on their thoughts.

And Yes this thread sort of does that but it includes a lot of love (apparently) and passion and it igets mirky at times as to what is really needed vs wanted just because.

Good thread though. A tad repetitive (me too) but good.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 12 January 2012 - 10:35 AM.

[Dakkonn]

Problem with that kinda is then you will have people coming back with specialized load-outs to beat what they are facing. I wouldn't mind something to do during downtime but I would prefer you not be able to swap your over all mechs build between deaths. I am still in favor of a you have mech A, B, and C before the match that you have customized to you liking. When you get killed (IF there must be respawn but I still vote for none in campaign) you can respawn as one of the other 2 mechs you have set up before hand, but you can not swap their load-outs while in a match.

By that I mean lets say your a Assault Pilot and use mostly Assault mechs. You have built an Atlas (Mech A) a Zeus (Mech and a Hunchback (Mech C) You start off in your Zeus its your go to mech you do ok but get focused fired and die. Next wave respawn you pick you Atlas now your doing good but someone gets a lucky head shot (or 5) in and you finally die again now you ONLY have your Hunchback left to use in THIS match. You mop up and win. Now you have to repair both you Zeus and Atlas before the next game costing you X C-Bills. (so your going to want to try not to die to not lose as much money after each match)

This is just an example. You may have 10 mechs to rotate between so down time would never be a real issue. I would go so far as to say that if your Zeus was cored then you can't use it for ooo lets just say an hour while its being "fixed" (real time). If games are 20 mins then it would be out for 3 games meaning you have to use your back up mechs in the mean time if you want to keep going or your can take a break and mess around in the mech bay for a while (or even do "sim" runs to test). Your other mechs are just as good but not your favorite ride. Lets say it was only lightly damaged next time you did well and took almost no structural damage just light armor damage. 5 mins for repairs you could use it next game. Or you could use your second favorite mech as you first pick each match cause it costs less to do a full repair and you want to save your big guns for serious matches.

Again these are just random ideas I like off top of my head but I don't mind just chatting and kicking around ideas. Hopefully the Devs are taking notes and kicking around a few of these ideas also

[Fatty Limes]

Dlardrageth, on 12 January 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

You don't need extra hardware, extra expenditure or whatever boogeyman you try to paint on the wall because the "servers" are emulated, aka software entities. Thus the extra upkeep cost you are referring to is pure bull****. You either don't read what the devs released about the game at all or you make things up as you go to serve your line of argumentation, do you? Read up, and get a clue before making **** up, sheesh...

Deamented, on 12 January 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

You still need extra time and money to balance the game with more than 1 mode. Yeah, I might of missed the bit about the server because I am human and make mistakes. Oh no. It doesn't change the fact that more servers cost more money because it is harder to balance around more than 1 game mode. So if we have 3 game modes, it is harder to balance the game because every change effect 3 different sets of rules.

My biggest concern would actually be fragmenting the player-base. If --god forbid-- the play base winds up pretty small x unit of time down the line, won't it suck if it's 3x harder to find a game because everyone split between different respawn types?

[Sug]

MaddMaxx, on 12 January 2012 - 10:32 AM, said:

Match Minute 1 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech1. (doesn't yet know the Team deal)

Match Minute 3 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech2. (OK, he didnt' learn the Team deal that time either)

Match Minute 5 - Little Johnny runs in and dies in Mech3. (Sheesh, OK he obviously is totally oblivious to the Team deal)

This is probably the only thing about MWO that will be a deal breaker for me. Mechwarrior 4 Online, spawning a kilometer away from the other team, rushing headlong into the opposition with no plan over and over again. But we'll have factions, merc groups, and a forum.


Seriously. Respawns or not? Whatever. Mechlab or Custom mechs? Meh.. Great graphics? I don't care, MPBT Solaris was some of the most fun i've had playing with humans. Clan Invasion/Clan recruitment. Whatever. Big deal.

I've read/participated in many of the discussions on the forums but I keep coming to the same conclusion that I will be super easy to please. I just want a new mechwarrior game that is not MW4 and I want it now.

[LordRush]

As it has already been stated, we simply just dont have that information of how mechanics will work....yet.
So, assuming in this scenerio that you are sitting in your downed mech waiting. I HOPE that you will have some sort of "vision" outside of your mech. Possibly, the only third person perspective you would get in game [when your dead].
If this does happen, since you were the mech carrying Arrow IV or Bap or tag abilities, you have now given the other team an advantage since your lancemates will be unable to detect opposing mechs out of radar range.
Personally, just like mpbt : solaris, you were at least able to see your surroundings. In this scenerio, you SHOULD be trying to still help your lancemates out by giving them some sort of information whether it be the location of the enemy lance or tonnage reference.
Something....but just dont leave. If you made a foolish mistake, at least help your lancemates out.

What about XP....? If you were given a set amount of XP for winning a match then give the losing team a fraction of those points. If you die and bail out on your team then you wont receive any points at all and possibly a tag calling you a deserter penalizing you for a period of time.

[Dlardrageth]

Fatty Limes, on 12 January 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

My biggest concern would actually be fragmenting the player-base. If --god forbid-- the play base winds up pretty small x unit of time down the line, won't it suck if it's 3x harder to find a game because everyone split between different respawn types?

Wouldn't it even be worse if some people (let's call them... me...) won't queue up for a match at all unless they can be sure it is under likeable (for me) conditions and for planetary conquest (where respawning still doesn't make sense IMO)? Or drop out/remain dead after the first death because they refuse to do the respawning thing and effectively your team ends up one Mech short (or even more if more ppl opt to not respawn)? We can sure come up with a couple more scenarios, which are all hypothetical as of now, because there is no game yet. But I think you get my point, there are worse eventualities.

And like I stated in an earlier post, in my humble opinion the player base is split/fragmented ALREADY. We can face that reality and make suggestions to PGI how to cope with that and still get a common basis/platform. Or we can deny it and grasp for straws in the faint hope that miraculously somehow all will be well.

Different game modes/server options don't split the community. they actually expand the scope of what can find a place under its roof. Most people can live rather well with other people in their "community" playing "the game" slightly different. They can certainly live better with that than being forced to play "the game" in a mode (respawn/no respawn) they don't want, or not at all.

Now for the sideshow discussion... the perma-respawn mode would of course need the option for unlimited ammo, right? Unless you want to severly gimp any non-energy weapons, right? I mean, after all, with people respawning you potentially multiply the number of targets to shoot at and thus ammo consumption... Right...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 January 2012 - 11:33 AM.

[Khushrenada]

well... i actually hate it do do some kind of double posts, but some people still say:
"Why does no one mention the WoT system? It works so well!"
if you would have read my post way earlier in this thread, you would know that you cant compare the exp system from WoT and MWO.
in Wot you get your exps on a specific tank, you die go out and take the next tank, no problem.

in MWO you dont get exps on your mech, but on your PILOT. so when you get blown to pieces you cant just take another mech of your hanger, cause that single pilot (YOU!) that pilots it is lying uncountious on your last battlefield.

at least that is the system of the game as i understand it, you level your pilot and give him better/new abilities, that match the type of mech you select to play. not like in WoT where you need to level each tank seperately.

[Dihm]

Actually that is incorrect, you get experience for both pilot as well as mech.

[Damocles]

No respawn.
You died "early" in a 20min match? L2P. Or get ready to cheer on the remnant of your team as they fail or win without your worthlessness.

[Ravn]

"Like" Dlardrageth ( i ran out of likes apparently). I was totally going to bring up the UA thing in respawn. Anyway, respawners... you have yet to prove how information warfare is going to be effective if I have to deal with waves of you. Enlighten me.

[Khushrenada]

Dihm, on 12 January 2012 - 11:47 AM, said:

Actually that is incorrect, you get experience for both pilot as well as mech.

still you have one part that simply cant be put into another battle before the last one is over. even WoT wont allow you to use the same tank immediately again when your last battle isnt over yet.

and why stating that "you can reserve your unique pilot name by registering" when you can have more than one pilot at one account which you would need to re-deploy in another battle immediately again?

Edited by Khushrenada, 12 January 2012 - 12:40 PM.