600 replies to this topic

[Nik Reaper]

Ok, so basicly lets talk how the timeline for this game could be.

1.It comes out with only 4v4, 8v8 and 12v12 deathmatches (as having objectives is more complicated)
As such all the old fans will play and have some problems wich will be adressed weekly , so the first period would be more of an open beta than the real thing, some new players will try and this is a important period for them because they have no loyalty and even if they are told the game will evolve they will judge it as is. I'm basing that they might not like it enough on previous experiance of the mechwarrior success, hardly the success of some more famous AAA+ titles with the commercial coverage. On wich I base that most of the starting players are old fans.

2. After the starting adjustements and biweekly new mechs one would expect a new game mode capture/objective centered.
At this point I feel a wave respown system should be introduced with onmap repair facilities and objectives. This could happen as soon as 2-3 months after launch, and I would hope it would appeal to DotA style players.

3. ?

4. Profit

5. After 2 years of successful dealing the clans invade and the game has about or ove 10 mil players and the next mechwarrior solo game is in the works in full 3d (cuz by than we'll all have 3d monitors).

Here's hoping .

[DaBlackhawk]

Caballo, on 10 January 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

As always, there are two ways of being a gamer: respawners and no respawners. I'm a no respawner.

That said, i never saw a game in which you have to wait 20 minutes to get spawned again, because that time limit for a no respawn match is bit large. Anyway, i've played a few MW4 Mission play no respawn (Heat on, limited ammo, etc... always liked realism) and i died soon the first time, the rest I went smoother.

There's always the "Grunt-guy-coming-from-counterstrike", who goes plain right onto the enemy LOS and gets fried in the 1st minute of the match, and then starts bugging around "That wasn't fair, my team sucks, this game's boring" and then leave... tons of them... even in 5 minutes matches. Well, maybe you should learn to lay low when you are in a no respawn game, mate... and sure you will

EDIT: RUSTIC DUDE, ¡yo también vivo en pucela!

I tottly agree with hits person in mw4 did the same thing ecept in traing with my unit i was with wee did respond but with rules behind it so would be faster to do the next training run and master sargent then lectrued on what happend and how to improve then run more drills

[Gozrok]

I too like the World of Tanks set up. You only get one life and when it's gone you can either hang out to watch the match by switching amongst your active teammates or exit out of the battle and move on to a different vehicle until the one you were in is available again once the match is over.

[Ravn]

I still think that even one respawn in different vehicle lowers the value of scout mechs.

Edit - Also I think its pretty cool to see this thread climb to #10 in just over 3 days.

Edited by Ravn, 13 January 2012 - 10:54 AM.

[Garuss Acine]

Dlardrageth, on 10 January 2012 - 05:40 PM, said:

Oh snap, I died only 5 minutes into the match, what to do, what to do?

• Get another (cold) beer from the fridge.
  
• Write down an actual note on a post-it and stick it to the screen's edge: "Leeroy Jenkins didn't get publicity for his awesome scouting skills..."
  
• Start to write an AAR for the unit... because whoever dies first gets that ****** job.
  
• Check the MWO forums for the newest troll outbreak.
  
• Go to my Mech hangar and fetch another ride to go into the next match.
  
• Make fun of the nOOb who died even before me because he thinks "tactics" is some sort of iPod applet.

And ultimately - make more fun of the nOOb who starts whining he died so fast and now has to totally waste 10 minutes of his real life doing something else.






Then both teams utterly failed at understanding game mechanics and scouting and deservedly lost 20 minutes for nothing. What do you expect? Some PGI representative dropping in and handing out cookies because both teams were so incompetent that they couldn't even get the enemy spotted during 20 minutes? This is one of the occasions where the "Learn2Play" meme hits the point spot on.

2 teams of 12 Mechs each and noone managed to spot an enemy during 20 minutes? Sounds rather pathetic... and like completely the player's very own fault.

^this,

I like a few others here have played World of Tank, and I find while the whole "I am out of the drop" fustrating, I find I learn things from it and come back better for it. after my first game of WOT, I learned that my light tank, with thin armor, slow top speed and a lousy weapon was not best used rushing head long into the enemy. I found dipping into trees, or behind buildings/ruins and staying out of the open was far better to my survival. that and it played to the decent sight range i had, which helped the big guns in the back see were the choice targets were.

when I finally got a fast tank, I used that, and zipped ahead of my team, lighting up targets,while thos brought Art. down on them, I was able to mix it up for a while(fast German Medium tanks are fun like that) with the enemy tanks. that was till crits got me bogged down and tagged into oblivion. from that I learn to flank off to the sides of the enemy push and tangle there, while still giving LOS to the larger guns waiting for targets.

each tank inthe game can serve a purpose,no matter how light, lacking in armor or the like, any of the players can make difference to the grand scheme of the game. this is what I hope they bring into this game as well, it will force Companies to be well balanced, and in truth I think players that take a Company with 3 Lights, 3 Mediums, 3 Heavies, 3 Assaults with spreading of proper weapons to support each lance, they will be able to find their enemy, drag them into a push with the mediums, and hold them in place with the Heavies for the Assaults to shatter them. if they come up against a solid assault comapny(12 Assault Mechs) they can do the reverse, play keep away with their own assaults, while the others nip at them. the scouts will be perfect for flanking, and tearing that rear armor, while mediums and heavies hit and run. once the Assault Company hits the point of Combat Loss Grouping, send in the assaults with the support of the rest of the battle able mechs in the friendly company to finish them off.

truth be told I hope there is a longer time limit than 20mins, or no time limit at all, just have the two companies duke it out till an objective is met, or the enemy has been destroyed or forced to flee/retreat.

Now I haven't seen anything said about that, but would be nice to include I think, having a Company rush in, hit hard, then leave. it would but a massive drain on the other team, as they wouldn't be able to regain any losses through field salvage. while it would be cruel, its what would happen, to help soften up a target for a real push. though in game it would have to be done more than once, of course the plan could completely back fire as well depending on the skills of the players involved.

This would give mismatched companies a reason to still duke it out. Even if they have no way to win out right, they can win a different way, by forcing the enemy to use more of their ammo, eating up armor, and other wise forcing the enemy to spend resources to fix their machines. Over a string of fights this will start to show when players are unable to fix their mechs full for combat, showing up with mechs that are lacking ammo, armor or in extreme cases suffering internal damage.

Of course the problem with a group that does this too long is they don’t get any real ground taken, or supplies won either (if anything, losing). Though, of course to use this tactic, faster mechs will be needed, and with that you are either trading up weapons or armor, for these kind of operations weapons are needed, so thin armor will be the obvious weak point. So if they ever get caught by a well balanced army, they could be cut to pieces.

Wow, now that turned into something I didn’t expect, sorry for the read guys. To be honest how they handle this will be a telling factor in if I get this game or not. If they have unlimited respawns then I will stick to playing other MW Games that I have already, I don’t need a reskined MW4/MA1&2. Hell I may even stick with WOT, though however have a game mode that allows players to practice with unlimited lives, but has no effect other than making the players good is a nice idea. Like the simulators in the background, have lanes/clans face off against each other for no loss and no gain(other than bragging rights and lessons leared). This would reinforce team work before even getting to the field and would allow people to warm up. This could be further expanded to give players a free survivor mode, or just a slug fest where everyone runs in to get their fix of destruction.

[Sug]

Omigir, on 12 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Hell, i dont even see this in paintball, where really: you get hit, you sit out the rest of the match. I have sat out for a good 30 mins between matches becuase i was the frist one out, and still in paintball you have people constnatly 'doing' something. Im not buying what your trying to sell.

For me this was one of the best points brought up for no respawn.

I've never played a paintball match where if you got hit you run back to the starting area, wipe yourself off, then get to go back out on the field.

If your attention span is so short that the prospect of waiting more than 30 seconds is too much for you than this is not the game for you.

[Mordhar]

There is always people who have “short attention spans” and those who can actually enjoy game even if it not always “bang-bang-bang”.

And when someone instantly get bored if there is no instant action, then he won’t be playing this game for long anyway. In F2P MMOs many players come in, play a couple of days/weeks, might even pay 2-3$. Finally they move to other game. You can try to entertain them. Give presents to make them return. Dance on dining table to get their attention if you want, it doesn’t matter. They quit playing anyway and move into other game. They have “short attention span”, and found new game for another couple of weeks.

In long run, you need a dependable community of players, who will play a game for some time (and bring some money). OR depend on quick income and make new games every 1-1,5 years. All we can do is wait and see what choice the devs will make.



Sorry for my poor English, hope you can understand what I mean.

[Ravn]

Yes, very good english. I was thinking the same thing. Are we making a mech warrior game or are we pandering to the masses?

[Virgil Caine]

Deamented, on 11 January 2012 - 05:15 PM, said:

Something I'd like to add, If there is no respawn and death blows, new players will suffer the most.

Yes, and "New Players Suffer The Most" translates into "Old Players winning a lot" which is basically what they're going for.

Unfortunately "New Players Suffer The Most" also translates into "New players quitting"... and the end result is gaming mediocrity.

Remember this is the first real Mechwarrior game in a "LONG" time, which means it's going to have a large disparity between veterans and newbies. I'm all for complexity, as long as its functional, intuitive complexity...

Piloting the mech itself is going to be complicated for some. Let alone some of the other complexities of mech size, usage, and roles. MWO is probably going to have a very steep learning curve to begin with.

Add in the fact that you cannot respawn, makes the learning curve a learning WALL. People don't learn from dying once and sitting there for 15 minutes looking at their smoldering wrecks... People learn from getting up and trying again... The longer it takes for them to get up and try again, the more frustrated they become and the less likely they will.

I am all for respawns, but likewise i'm all for significant respawn times, and respawns that are earned by objective taking, etc. If the other team knows they will get reinforcements if they take this objective, then they are more likely to work together to get it. Especially knowing that their kills will be negated if they allow their opponent to take a similar objective.

However, if the team knows that there are going to be no respawns, it will turn into "Well, imma camp here and get my kills, let the idiots go after the objective... Then at the end when there's just two of us, i'll just camp the objective until the other guy tries to take it, and shoot him."

[Thorqemada]

Ravn, on 13 January 2012 - 01:22 PM, said:

Yes, very good english. I was thinking the same thing. Are we making a mech warrior game or are we pandering to the masses?

Well, i hope they get managed to make a true Mechwarrior Game that is indeed also gathering the Masses!
I realy, realy, realy dont want Mechwarrior Online end up as game like Mortal Online where only a few hundred people stay and the development merely halts.

Edited by Thorqemada, 13 January 2012 - 01:57 PM.

[Xavier Truscott]

Virgil Caine, on 13 January 2012 - 01:48 PM, said:

Yes, and "New Players Suffer The Most" translates into "Old Players winning a lot" which is basically what they're going for.

Unfortunately "New Players Suffer The Most" also translates into "New players quitting"... and the end result is gaming mediocrity.

Remember this is the first real Mechwarrior game in a "LONG" time, which means it's going to have a large disparity between veterans and newbies. I'm all for complexity, as long as its functional, intuitive complexity...

Piloting the mech itself is going to be complicated for some. Let alone some of the other complexities of mech size, usage, and roles. MWO is probably going to have a very steep learning curve to begin with.

Add in the fact that you cannot respawn, makes the learning curve a learning WALL. People don't learn from dying once and sitting there for 15 minutes looking at their smoldering wrecks... People learn from getting up and trying again... The longer it takes for them to get up and try again, the more frustrated they become and the less likely they will.

I am all for respawns, but likewise i'm all for significant respawn times, and respawns that are earned by objective taking, etc. If the other team knows they will get reinforcements if they take this objective, then they are more likely to work together to get it. Especially knowing that their kills will be negated if they allow their opponent to take a similar objective.

However, if the team knows that there are going to be no respawns, it will turn into "Well, imma camp here and get my kills, let the idiots go after the objective... Then at the end when there's just two of us, i'll just camp the objective until the other guy tries to take it, and shoot him."

I don't quite follow that logic, especially if there is an option when you die to view the rest of the contest through your teammates.

If you die and just drop out of the match because you died, then you wouldn't have the opportunity to learn. If you watch how people play after you die, you may just learn.

If you die and respawn and run in and die again, what have you learned? That death didn't matter, because i can keep on doing it.

Information warfare, battle tactics, strategy, these seem to be the things that the developers are promoting in this game, respawn games are 100% the opposite of that. Deathmatch style games always result in all combatants gathered in a small area dying and running back in with no real tactics more then shoot who you see first and hope you live long enough to kill them.

[Elizander]

Mordhar, on 13 January 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

There is always people who have “short attention spans” and those who can actually enjoy game even if it not always “bang-bang-bang”.

And when someone instantly get bored if there is no instant action, then he won’t be playing this game for long anyway. In F2P MMOs many players come in, play a couple of days/weeks, might even pay 2-3$. Finally they move to other game. You can try to entertain them. Give presents to make them return. Dance on dining table to get their attention if you want, it doesn’t matter. They quit playing anyway and move into other game. They have “short attention span”, and found new game for another couple of weeks.

In long run, you need a dependable community of players, who will play a game for some time (and bring some money). OR depend on quick income and make new games every 1-1,5 years. All we can do is wait and see what choice the devs will make.

Sorry for my poor English, hope you can understand what I mean.

There will always be players who will come, take a look, and go. There is no real formula for success other than to constantly try to get new players to try the game out. Some publishers get stuck in the "WE MUST RETAIN WHAT WE HAVE AT ALL COSTS" and forget the better option of drawing new players into their game.

There are a ton of factors around this simple concept though. Some games are just plain bad or run out of content. Some publishers get greedy and screw over their players, deriving them of fun with the new "Gimme your money or lose" patch/sale schemes, and some games just do not get enough patches/new things and get boring after awhile. There are also games that get patches but these patches are just rehashes of old content and recycled stuff and it gets old after awhile. These aren't all of it, there are a whole lot more things that factor in and trying to simplify the whole thing into having one fixed process or solution would be folly.

Retaining customers and getting new people to try the game is always dynamic. It can change from time to time and it depends on a lot of external factors. Publishers have to get ready with something to throw out if needed and react quickly if something they couldn't control (new game launch, 3rd party hack) suddenly assaults their game.

It is true that there are some devs/publishers nowadays who will grab a game, hype it up, milk it for as much as they can and hopefully get back their server/licensing/marketing/operations fees and some profit before dropping it in priority and making/buying another. They can probably get away with it for a little while before players wise up to their schemes.

I will agree with you that we will just have to wait and see, but discussing things now can't hurt. I've been working in online game publishing for over 7 years now and I've encountered a lot of what you mentioned. I've seen new games fall just months after launch and I've worked and helped to keep old games still going years after they first came out. My experience though is mostly with the local Asian market. I hope that MWO turns out great because the world definitely needs a fun giant robot game (respawns or otherwise).

[zorak ramone]

I played MW4 league style for about 5 years straight. All of the league games that I played in were no-respawn, and I'd never play MW4 any other way.

However, I think that the main reason why many people, especially people who played MW4, react so badly against respawn is because of the way MW4's respawn gameplay was implemented. In short: it sucked. There was nothing to do except spawn, advance toward the enemy, and then snipe it out. This lead to the formation essentially of firing lines dictated by advantagous terrain on the map. Because battle was static, smaller faster mechs had no place.

After playing games like TF2 and BF2142, I think that respawn in a mechwarrior can be done right (i.e. avoid the idiocy of MW4 respawn). The key is the use of capture points. Anyone who has played TF2 or BF2142 knows exactly what I'm talking about. The existence of a series of static objectives to capture keeps the battle fluid, and gives place to more mobile mechs. For example, lets go back to the MW4 respawn example. Take the same scenario, only now lets say the two groups are camping it out on two capture points. If a group of infighters flanks and pushes their enemy from their point, they capture it, and push the enemy's respawn point back and their spawn point forward. Also, there is now a final point to capture to end the game, not just an endless wave of enemies.

I would do it like this:
-There is a linear set of capture points accross the map (say, ~500m to 1km apart). If there are 5 capture points, then one team starts at 1, and the other starts at 5.
-If you own a point, you can only capture the next adjacent point. E.g. at game start team 1 can only capture point 1. They can't skip to the middle and take point three, or attempt to capture the enemy base at point 5.
-If you own four points (i.e. push the enemy back into its base), a timer starts. If the enemy can't capture a point back, then the game ends.
-You spawn one point back (i.e. if the furthest point owned is point 3, you spawn at point 2)
-Your respawn time depends on either the price or tonnage (I would go with price) of the mech you were in. E.g. if you die in a 100 ton mech with a 400 XL engine (aprox. 30m C-bills), you respawn in 30 seconds, but if you die in a 3025 era locust (aprox. 2m Cbills) you respawn in 2 seconds.

Capture points give a purpose for infighters and fast/flanker mechs. Also, it means that if you manage to overrun and take a position from defenders, and suffer alot of damage, you've actually accomplished something instead of making it easy for the next guy to kill you. Captured bases may have repair pads, which would allow victorious mechs to repair.

Distance between capture points, the size of the map (i.e. flanking area), and respawn times could be modulated to push things in the favor of lighter, faster mechs or in favor of larger, slower mechs. I think both kinds of maps should exist. Single maps might be able to incorporate both kinds of capture points.

=====

That said, I think that no-respawn should also exist. Capture points can make this game style better too. In TF2 Arena mode (essentially no-respawn) after the round has gone on for a while, a capture point opens up in the middle. You can capture this point to win at this point. This is to keep, say, a scout from trolling, say, a heavy by running away forever.

For mechwarrior, you could have a map, maybe 1-2km square with a base or something in the middle. Both teams start on opposite ends and attack. After a certain time (5 minutes? 2? This is something for testing), the center base becomes captureable. This would prevent both light mech trolling by running away forever, and would also prevent a team of assault mechs from camping out in a hole for the whole match.

======

Within the universe, respawn games could be seen as abstractions for major battles involving tens/hundreds of mechs, while respawn matches could be seen as individual engagements (raids, battles as part of a larger war, etc.). I think both game types have potential and should be included.

[TunaR]

Counter Strike player here, I can confirm that respawns would not do well in this kind of a game. However, It was suggested to allow for 2 mech selections, which would make for some interesting tactics. Heavy opener to long-range finisher? Early scout to get the drop on the emeny lance? Or MADCAT MADCAT PPCs and LRMs!!!

[Dragorath]

AGAINST respawn with the same Mech, if you have different Mechs and you are not "dead" you could respawn after some time depending how long it takes to reach your second Mech.
Or no respawn in this match. sounds best way, but come on for me is only important not to have a respawn like WoW. Every 60s or so, because everyone is acting like a complete fool and rushes with no brain (main amount of players) and this is killing all the fun of Mechwarrior.
hey shall join an OTHER match!!!!!

[Dlardrageth]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

I would at his point like to again make all the no-respown fans aware of 2 point, WoT is an somewhat accepable playmodel for this isue, WoT has about 3-4 mil players with 2 mil being russian players to who tenks are a national car , not a bad number of players...

Not quite right. WoT claims to have 3-4 million active accounts. Considering how many of the guys from closed beta I have seen leaving myself already, I'd take that claim with a big grain of salt. Especially the "active" part. I play perhaps a couple matches once or twice a week there these days, and that more in order to stay in touch with my clan. And that makes me one of the more active CBT players there. The turnover rate of players in WoT is so high (partly due to the parent company's business model), that the quoted number is pure theory IMNSHO.

Now, if I look at a game like EVE-Online, which requires you to pay a subscription fee and still holds (surprisingly for me) somewhat steady on the playerbase numbers for years... And there is no "insta respawn" in that game. You sort of "respawn" in a new clone... eventually half a galaxy away. With not necessarily any chance to get back into the battle. And with a hefty bill attached to having died usually. Still, never got the impression the parent company CCP was going broke...

Thus I don't buy the "respawn = game success, no respawn = game fail" theory. At all, sorry.

[Nik Reaper]

That's ok, I come to realise that all the old fans of mech are quite inflexable and that the core isue might be that simulators aren't as popular as they could be, but the thing that puts me most at ease is that as the devs sead, everything about the game is subject to change after release so what ever happens they get chances to improve and adapt , and if it seems that the game is failing and they decide that adding some kind of respown is needed I'm sure thay will do it regardles. .. It is a business after all .

[Dragon Lady]

If this whole faction warfare concept is going to work, then death cannot be cheap. It shouldn't be prohibitively expensive either, but it shouldn't be cheap. If during a battle, your 'Mech gets blown out from under you, then you should be out of the battle permanently. No respawning. Heavily damaged 'Mechs should be able to return to base for repairs or to rearm during the battle, but once you're all the way out, you should be out.

Once out of that battle, you should certainly have the option of a) waiting for your 'Mech to be repaired by your personal technician (this time can spent offline); paying a premium for a rush repair job and join another battle; c) get another 'Mech from your stable and join another battle. Which option you choose should be determined by your available playing time and your resources.

[Ravn]

You know a lot of the responsibility for keeping little billy from getting scrapped falls on his teammates. It's our job as a community to make it fun for the new guys. If someone is in my clan I am not going to throw him to the wolves and yell at him for sucking. "Billy, you really sucked last round, so this is what you should do next time... " That's one of the reasons Halo, COD, SOCOM all have respawn. There is no community. It's just a bunch of faceless gamers killing each other over and over unless you role with a team everyday.

[MaddMaxx]

Quote

"If you build it, they will come!"

Game on...