600 replies to this topic

[Razorscarface]

The only reason I mentioned it was because of one of my first games I got for Xbox 360 was Chrome hounds and the biggest problem was that some of the people would host a game then when they died turn there Xbox off because one they were bored of waiting or because they were ticked off that someone killed them... I have loved all the Mech games I have played including Earth Siege and the Mechwarrior series! I know that this game is going to be awesome but I want it to be more then awesome with lots of enemy's to play against, and from my experience what makes and keep most games fun is the option of different options(lots of different guns for different playing styles), constant action with no wait time, and not to mention awards on steam or xbox live. This is just what I have seen. Just ideas!

[Ammo]

Now there are 20 pages, nobody would read this, but...

It seems to me that an actual planetary invasion would be more of a tournament play than normal skirmishes and raids

The everyday games could just be skirmish play and raids where you would be free to find matches that are whatever rules you want. The rewards would be small.

The big planetary conquest should just be a fee to play (like a normal tournament) where you are well aware of the rules and once you're out you're out until the next round. You get your swag bag for just showing up but the real prizes are awarded at the end, plus random drawings between round and a free lunch. I know when I used to play tabletop tournament there is almost always a free play area with boards and terrain so people who are killed can play pick-up games.

This game has a long history and I believe if the Dev's reach back to that history they may find some ideas that will help with this question.

- I forgot, the tournements were also good places to meet the makers of the games and to see the new stuff and buy it.

It would make sense to have a special guest chatroom or something for fill the gaps.

Use that Con experance!

Edited by Ammo, 15 January 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Gorith]

Ammo, on 15 January 2012 - 09:21 AM, said:

Now there are 20 pages, nobody would read this, but...

It seems to me that an actual planetary invasion would be more of a tournament play than normal skirmishes and raids

The everyday games could just be skirmish play and raids where you would be free to find matches that are whatever rules you want. The rewards would be small.

The big planetary conquest should just be a fee to play (like a normal tournament) where you are well aware of the rules and once you're out you're out until the next round. You get your swag bag for just showing up but the real prizes are awarded at the end, plus random drawings between round and a free lunch. I know when I used to play tabletop tournament there is almost always a free play area with boards and terrain so people who are killed can play pick-up games.

This game has a long history and I believe if the Dev's reach back to that history they may find some ideas that will help with this question.

- I forgot, the tournements were also good places to meet the makers of the games and to see the new stuff and buy it.

It would make sense to have a special guest chatroom or something for fill the gaps.

Use that Con experance!

I really think planetary and faction warfare will be the norm not some ladderlike play. I also do not think there will be the availability to change the game options it just doesn't make sense for this type of game.

[Zakski]

DV^McKenna, on 15 January 2012 - 05:06 AM, said:

--snip--

Look Im simply not being dragged into arguing about strawmen that you have constructed. I say Good day to you sir

[Ammo]

Gorith, on 15 January 2012 - 10:47 AM, said:

I really think planetary and faction warfare will be the norm not some ladderlike play. I also do not think there will be the availability to change the game options it just doesn't make sense for this type of game.

The thing is that from a Battletech Universe 3049 standpoint constant Planetary Invasions don't make sense. The Great Houses are just coming out of the Fourth Sucession War and are still weak. Sending a large number of mechs to take over a planet comes at a high cost. On the other hand they are still in constant border wars and raids (Water, food, equipment. intel, weapons or just blowing this stuff so the other guys don't have it) plus fending off pirates.

There is plenty of room for a constant free play game where a set of rules can be made based off preferance. Its been done in other games. Just click the box for respawns and max 4 players per side or whatever and you can bring in new players from other CTF type games. Some people might find that fun and could care less what impact they are having on the core, which should be very little.

For once you get into the game a little more make games that step you up to tourniment play but still free to play. Just a little taste to get people more interested in the core game.

It just seems that they can do this whatver way they want if they are smart with thier coding.

Edited by Ammo, 15 January 2012 - 02:14 PM.

[Omigir]

XSive Death, on 15 January 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

But even in that situation, it doesn't stop you from playing the game (regardless of how borked your character is).

With Respawn times you have to be -very- careful because removing them completely is in effect preventing a person from playing the game..and if they can't play, they get pissed, increasing the chances they will leave and are unlikely to come back (Case in point, recently got gifted "Bunch of heroes" on Steam. Standard run of the mill survive against endless waves of enemies game. Only each time you died your respawn time increased...infinitely. An extra 10s doesn't sound bad...until you end up waiting 20 minutes to respawn. The mechanic of the game was stopping me from playing it...and now i'll never touch the thing again even though they patched in a cap...i'm a lost customer for life).

Obviously I don't have the details of how it works, simply being able to quit out of the match at hand and do something else is perfectly fine in that regard (getting some sort of reward just for trying) but if they are forced into sitting around looking at a "lulz, you died" screen for X minutes...they won't be players for long. That's my only concern.

Quick solve to your problem: Figure out what you were doing wrong, and stop.

And if some one dies, there is no prevention to keep them from playing. NONE. They can leave, pick up another mech from their stables or just take a noob mech and go back at it. (per WoT stand point) Once that match is over, and they do minimum repairs, the mech becomes available again.

No respone does not equate to no game play. Not under any of the formulas or any of the other games that it already exists in.

And to solve all your woes, I played Battlefeild 3 today. It has respawn with no penalties. I never have been so frustrated in my life. I came out of games 3 and 15 on a regular bases (and this is in a good match where I *COULD* find people to shoot at. Think if i had to pay a penalty for each of those deaths? A repair cost? I would not be able to afford a new mech to pilot ever. I would be stuck in a starter mech until I finally went positive in kills.

Like it or not, there will be repair costs to mechs and required maintenance. Especially if they are trying to stay close to TT rules.

RESPAWN WILL NOT WORK UNLESS YOU MOVE AWAY FROM TABLE TOP AND SIMULATOR MECHANICS.


fined me a game that supports your ideas, there respawn pro people. Please, a simulator game. WoT is thriving and very popular, EvE.. people pay an arm and a leg to play eve. $14/mo.. yeah. they pay that for a game that has no respawn. Once your ship is gone, its gone. and you cant just get back to the battle unless its at your front door.

So dont give me that nonsense that new players wont play this game when there are new people in eve on a daily biases.

Omigir, on 14 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

^This! this is the Mechwarrior Battletech standard I thin. This is a Simulator standard. This is good.

As a side bar note, THE GAME SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER SACRIFICE ITS GAME PLAY TO MAKE ITSELF 'MORE PLAYABLE'
<Microsoft did this and that is how we got Mechassault. >

People that suggest a 'respawn' because they think people wont come play should probably just leave... really. If this were at all true, no one would play WoT or EVE or any other simulator game. And all of these games are thriving and are actually expanding.

So take a step back, take a look at what 'Mechwarrior: Online' is. Take note, it is not CoD, Battlefeild, Socom or any other FPS. It is a mech piloting simulator game.

It is not going to be a game, from the get go, that all people can just jump into be automatically good and have everything. There will be a learning curve. That does not mean a new player is going to die the first time, and they will quit.

If that were the case, the first lost match because they sucked and rushed over and over in a respawn game, they would still quit. After a score of like 2 and 30 they definitely would have as much chance of sticking around if they had 0/1. Particularly when they get out of that 2/30 game and had to pay to have their mech repaired 30 times.

And lastly, 'new players' will have a disadvantage compared to vets no mater what the game style, vets will always know what is going on before a new player. They will also have XP vetted mechs and pilots. So are you going to ask that they take away XP from Mechs and Pilots too so New players wont quit?

Edit: checked my subscription, its come down since i first started playing.. 14 vice 18

Edited by Omigir, 16 January 2012 - 02:54 AM.

[Steel Talon]

Quote

It has respawn with no penalties.

In BF conquest, your team loses 1 ticket if u die so it got penalties
If u played BF2 project reality, u also lost tickets for vehicles

[Ulric Kell]

I think your best bet is that it should depend on the map. A king of the hill map would go great with mechs constantly spawning, kind of like a mechs are constantly being fed into battle. A map with stategic points to take would go better with a once you're dead you're dead. I realize having to wait 20 minutes sucks but that's the nature of the beast on those maps.

[Wulfbane]

Ok they can be no spawn but you can take control of a tank or aerospace. that way your still in the fight but you cant do as much. i mean none want it like world of tanks.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Everyone seems to be assuming that we are going to appear on a map more or less within firing range of the enemy and can die in the first few minutes. What happens if they are large maps with LOS limiting terrain? You have objectives, go to point B via A, destroy C within 20 min.
It is quite possible that there will be no contact for 10 min with fighting increasing from that point. Don't forget this is 3049 - it is highly unlikely there are going to be max range one shot kills. If you are unlucky and die at 11 min (turn a corner into an Atlas while in a Jenner), is a 9 min wait that bad? Thats barely time to take a comfort break and get another drink - and nowhere near long enough to finish cursing about an AC20 round to the cockpit. This is not going to be COD etc, those who want a 10 min run & gun won't stay for long anyway. Others may find it's fun to think about what your doing and playing as a team.

[dh crow]

Zakski, on 15 January 2012 - 01:23 PM, said:

Look Im simply not being dragged into arguing about strawmen that you have constructed. I say Good day to you sir

You're confusing strawmen with refutations.

Here's a strawman. No-respawn is pretty much the same as real life. Dying permanently in combat in real life isn't much fun, so why would it be in a game?

Edited by dh crow, 16 January 2012 - 02:35 AM.

[Omigir]

dh crow, on 16 January 2012 - 02:33 AM, said:

You're confusing strawmen with refutations.

Here's a strawman. No-respawn is pretty much the same as real life. Dying permanently in combat in real life isn't much fun, so why would it be in a game?

Dying does not equate to no fun. That is a misconseption. If that were true people would not play any number of games and game types that have this feature and EVE online would not make any money, as it stands, people pay a hefty amount to play that game.

[Steel Talon]

With strictly limited no reapwn politics, we will see only assaults & LRM catapults on the field
What about limiting reapawn by tonage, u can deploy 1 assault or 4 lights (or heavy+med,.....) untill u got tonage remaing for it u can respwn
The point is that battles are easy modifiable, u can give every player 400 tons for mayhem or 50 tons for medium/light skirmish
Alternative to tonage are deployment points cause they can take equipment into accont, not only chassis

It opens way to some fun gamemodes aswell!

[Omigir]

steel talon, on 16 January 2012 - 05:03 AM, said:

With strictly limited no reapwn politics, we will see only assaults & LRM catapults on the field What about limiting reapawn by tonage, u can deploy 1 assault or 4 lights (or heavy+med,.....) untill u got tonage remaing for it u can respwn The point is that battles are easy modifiable, u can give every player 400 tons for mayhem or 50 tons for medium/light skirmish Alternative to tonage are deployment points cause they can take equipment into accont, not only chassis It opens way to some fun gamemodes aswell!

The problem is, players are not controlling the missions or game creation.

Also, I have heard this used for every debate on the forum 'will only see assaults' is not true. Roll warfare supports this. An all assault team would get ripped to shreds by a moble team with semi compitent scouts.

Ontop of that, how will you deal with mech repairs at the end of the match? How many mechs do you think a player will go through before its over and how many c-bill in repairs do you think that will be?

Edited by Omigir, 16 January 2012 - 05:27 AM.

[aDuck]

I voted for "let the server choose" due to increasing the target market for this game. It will make it more accessible to the twitch fingered COD players to keep respawning and killing, but will also allow others to fight it out until their final breath and wait till the end of the game.

However, I would like to see it not ending up to be wait the whole 20 minutes doing nothing, so maybe a command position? The first person who dies could spawn in a command center and watch and command the battlefield from there. You see where 'Mechs are from their line of sight, and can help the 'Mechs on the ground to predict where they'll move to. It gives them something to do, but isn't a game changing problem.

[Virgil Caine]

Every single person who is a "No Respawner" is saying essentially this:

"People who are 'good' get to play, people who aren't don't"

You can talk around it with fancy 'learn to get better' phrases. Or the ubiquitous 'watch your allies and learn' but what it boils down to is.

"Good" players are allowed to play; "Bad" players have to look at their smoldering wrecks.

Let's define then what 'good' becomes in this paradigm = "They who take the least risks."

The 'get better' response is almost impossible, because a requirment for improvement is play-time, which you aren't getting while watching your smoking chassis. It is also actually counter-productive. It does not behoove you to be agressive in any way, because if you are, and you 'do' get a kill, then the other team who is waiting for the mistake, is going to POUNCE on you. Because they watch where their allies die, and go get the counter-kills. I get huge killstreaks in many, many games doing this exact thing.

Remember, this is a Mech game, not Call of Duty. We're not gonna spawn 10 feet away, sprint back into battle with a SMG and bunny hop around a corner to kill the guy who just got us. We're gonna have to wait on an atmospheric drop, and then have to maneuver across the field at slower speeds until we find the opponent again.

The "best" players in this no respawn system then will be the ones who make as little impact on the field of battle as possible, because they spend their whole time avoiding fights in order to stay alive, so they can show up at the end and finish off the already battered opponents.

"Watch your allies and learn" basically turns into, watch this guy sit at this one point and wait for the other guy to make the mistake of actually trying to play the game. Ahem, I mean advance and capture the objective.

Being destroyed 'is' a consequence. It can carry the added consequence of lengthy spawn timers up to 30-45 seconds. Or no spawn until one of many objectives are captured. Or having some team-based tonnage pool, like 'tickets' from the battlefield franchise, be the cost of respawns.

The reason i say all of this is because I have played games that had 'no respawns' and this is exactly what it turns out to be. I could stomach it, because I had the luxury of being able to learn the game in modes that allowed respawns, but having no respawns across the board is going to severely hamper the number of players who will stay with the game, no matter how enthusiastic they are about the IP.

[aDuck]

Virgil Caine, on 16 January 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Every single person who is a "No Respawner" is saying essentially this:

"People who are 'good' get to play, people who aren't don't"

You can talk around it with fancy 'learn to get better' phrases. Or the ubiquitous 'watch your allies and learn' but what it boils down to is.

"Good" players are allowed to play; "Bad" players have to look at their smoldering wrecks.

Let's define then what 'good' becomes in this paradigm = "They who take the least risks."

The 'get better' response is almost impossible, because a requirment for improvement is play-time, which you aren't getting while watching your smoking chassis. It is also actually counter-productive. It does not behoove you to be agressive in any way, because if you are, and you 'do' get a kill, then the other team who is waiting for the mistake, is going to POUNCE on you. Because they watch where their allies die, and go get the counter-kills. I get huge killstreaks in many, many games doing this exact thing.

Remember, this is a Mech game, not Call of Duty. We're not gonna spawn 10 feet away, sprint back into battle with a SMG and bunny hop around a corner to kill the guy who just got us. We're gonna have to wait on an atmospheric drop, and then have to maneuver across the field at slower speeds until we find the opponent again.

The "best" players in this no respawn system then will be the ones who make as little impact on the field of battle as possible, because they spend their whole time avoiding fights in order to stay alive, so they can show up at the end and finish off the already battered opponents.

"Watch your allies and learn" basically turns into, watch this guy sit at this one point and wait for the other guy to make the mistake of actually trying to play the game. Ahem, I mean advance and capture the objective.

Being destroyed 'is' a consequence. It can carry the added consequence of lengthy spawn timers up to 30-45 seconds. Or no spawn until one of many objectives are captured. Or having some team-based tonnage pool, like 'tickets' from the battlefield franchise, be the cost of respawns.

The reason i say all of this is because I have played games that had 'no respawns' and this is exactly what it turns out to be. I could stomach it, because I had the luxury of being able to learn the game in modes that allowed respawns, but having no respawns across the board is going to severely hamper the number of players who will stay with the game, no matter how enthusiastic they are about the IP.

Well, that's because you're definition of "good" means acting hero. This fails in real life. Try and act Call of Duty in real life, and come back and tell me how you helped your unit.

The people who take the least risks, or only take "calculated" risks, are the ones that will overcome the enemy.

This will be a game about teamwork, where you have to co-ordinate between your team-mates to attack as a team. It is not about dying, waiting for a while, then coming back to the game, because it just wont be a 'Mech game. Reinforcing might be an option, but should not be done any more than once in a game.

That said, I do believe there should still be servers that allow respawning, just to have the ability to go in and endlessly kill, but I hope that it doesn't become the main part of the game. It allows people to polish their skills, and will allow for people to sake their thirst for endless, constant 'Mech battles.

By the way, you must hate paintball then, because your argument reeks of hate towards tactics.

[Omigir]

Virgil Caine, on 16 January 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Every single person who is a "No Respawner" is saying essentially this: "People who are 'good' get to play, people who aren't don't" [...]

First off, if a player goes out and get his face smashed in, there is nothing stopping him from leaving that mach and going to play another. WoT does it and every one that plays WoT does not beleive 'elite' get to play and 'non elite' dont. Clearly sinc eit already works in another simulator game, it will work in this one.

Second, your right, this is not CoD, this is a simulator game. CoD has a huge camper problem, it has respawn in most all its mode. Infact the 'hardcore' game type which has the longest wait between deaths, has THE MOST camping.

So how does having a respawn stop camping? It dosent. How do you camp in a mech? You cant. All it takes is that one little scout mech to get a peek at you, your marked on a map, and if you dont start moving, you will be done.

And to quell your worries, I am sure that the training mode that Devs have stated that they will include, probably will have all the respawn you can want to, you know, train and learn and stuff. Hence training mode.

So here is the real question, how will repairs be delt with? What are you going to do when you get into that mach and you just cant pull anything off and you die a ungodly number of times because your 'not good'? How are you going to front the bill to pay for your mech repairs?

Edited by Omigir, 16 January 2012 - 06:01 AM.

[Dlardrageth]

Virgil Caine, on 16 January 2012 - 05:31 AM, said:

Every single person who is a "No Respawner" is saying essentially this:

"People who are 'good' get to play, people who aren't don't"

Strawman no.1. You totally omit e.g. the fact where respawning has nothing to do with the origins of BT/MW. And you also omit that those of us who opted for different modes/servers just don't want to play with respawn. Says nothing about what others can do or not do. Elsewhere. Has nothing at all to do with "being allowed to play". Gross exaggeration as well.

Quote

"Good" players are allowed to play; "Bad" players have to look at their smoldering wrecks.

Let's define then what 'good' becomes in this paradigm = "They who take the least risks."

Strawman no.2. Being risk-averse/a camper/whatever has nothing to do with respawn mechanics per say. Without respawn you can lemming into the enemy in a mad rush as well as with respawn. Check out a few WoT matches, there you'll see it. It has been uncontested though, that i.e. perma-respawn fosters a reckless playstyle which lacks in tactical depth. And BT/MW is traditionally not about FPS-like "mad rush" and "LOLcharging" or whatever.

Quote

The 'get better' response is almost impossible, because a requirment for improvement is play-time, which you aren't getting while watching your smoking chassis. It is also actually counter-productive.

You heard of "Training/practice mode"? Which to our knowledge would be under consideration by the devs at least?

Quote

The "best" players in this no respawn system then will be the ones who make as little impact on the field of battle as possible, because they spend their whole time avoiding fights in order to stay alive, so they can show up at the end and finish off the already battered opponents.

Pure assumption on your part. I'll counter that with "the best players will be those who can most efficiently work as a team". As long as we don't know how exactly the reward system in game will work, we don't even have a solid basis to argue how "best" will be determined. Thus pure speculation here.

Quote

Being destroyed 'is' a consequence. It can carry the added consequence of lengthy spawn timers up to 30-45 seconds. Or no spawn until one of many objectives are captured. Or having some team-based tonnage pool, like 'tickets' from the battlefield franchise, be the cost of respawns.

Hm, I think you pretty much made my point about biased argumentation there. Calling 30-45 seconds a "lenghty spawn timer" proves that you don't even consider tactical implications. And a lot of arguments brought up against respawning. Let's see, 30 second respawn timer means you could respawn close to 40 times in a 20-minute match? Yeah, why not perma-insta respawn right away. Not much of a difference IMHO...

Quote

The reason i say all of this is because I have played games that had 'no respawns' and this is exactly what it turns out to be. I could stomach it, because I had the luxury of being able to learn the game in modes that allowed respawns, but having no respawns across the board is going to severely hamper the number of players who will stay with the game, no matter how enthusiastic they are about the IP.

Stating again here I personally have no issues with PGI making an option to tick a box in order to get into "no respawn" or "perma respawn/UA/whatever" matches. As long as I myself needn't be bothered with these (IMNSHO) somewhat silly respawn matches.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 16 January 2012 - 06:02 AM.

[Mason Grimm]

Mark this day down cause I agree with Dlardrageth whole heartedly.

Quote

Every single person who is a "No Respawner" is saying essentially this:

"People who are 'good' get to play, people who aren't don't"

You can talk around it with fancy 'learn to get better' phrases. Or the ubiquitous 'watch your allies and learn' but what it boils down to is.

There isn't enough time in the day for me to rip this rather narrow viewpoint to pieces not to mention it's level of inaccuracy.

I also agree with aDuck's theory of "acting like a hero".

PGI are attempting to make MWO as close to "real life" as possible (the whole immersion factor) and most people are digging that big-time.

I can tell you for a fact I don't run up the front steps with a charged line and kick in the front door without a little strategy and thought cause guess what? Slim chance of walking away from a backdraft without injury or death. I also don't stick around in an extremely hazardous situation like a room that is super heating cause again, guess what? There ain't no coming back from a flashover. I want MWO to be the same way; I don't charge in with my Locust hoping to get a few shots on the Atlas cause I know I'm gonna be coming back once I die. If I die (switches to Bill Paxton voice from the movie Aliens); Game's over man, game's (expletive) over!

Or better yet.....