600 replies to this topic

[Xavier Truscott]

Speculation or not? I would imagine when they stated that there were already 3 different match types and described that you would look for matches by toggling boxes for choice before they put you in a queue that you would end up in a match type you are looking for. I don't recall the thread, but i believe it was stated that there was deathmatch, team deathmatch and campaign. If you follow any sort of logical conclusions, deathmatch games would be respawns, as that is the typical scenario for that game type. Campaign games would be no respawn, as it's the only logical, and "true to BT" type of game that most would find acceptable in a battle with consequences.

Campaign battles won't be about kill counts, they will be about strategy, information warfare, role warfare, and objective based tactics. I guess you would have to actually read a bit between the lines on this, but it's been clued to many times over.

My only hope is that mech and player experience isn't skewed so much to be based on kill counts or that it is at least mitigated in deathmatch type games. Otherwise, there would be no reason to play campaign games until you've already maxed out your level so as to give the biggest advantage before starting. Most recently played game for comparison for me would be Gears of War 3 multiplayer, my favorite game types happen to be warzone and execution, but they are lightly populated compared to king of the hill and deathmatch as xp is based on kills and no respawn games like warzone and execution don't pay out in the same fashion as the respawn games, therefore no reason to play if you aren't already level 100 other than to get certain unlockables.

Edited by Xavier Truscott, 18 January 2012 - 09:17 PM.

[Maximilian Thorn]

Gorith, on 10 January 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

I am absolutely against any kind of respawn mechanic as I feel it degrades the meaning of survival and kills (I also believe I am not alone in this view). Something for them to do while dead is fine as long as it doesn't directly influence the match. No allowing people to have death cams or anything. maybe something like a built-in TT version (similar to megamek or something) for people to play or some other little minigame.

I so agree with this (yes, Gorith, you are not alone). No respawns! In a match...dead is dead. Having respawns would misrepresent a pilot's track record of kills. If you already got killed yourself...you should not be allowed to re-enter the match and gain points toward your track record...technically, you shouldn't even be in this fight to continue attacking other Mechs. If you are the pilot killing Mechs...getting points for killing the exact same Mech two minutes later does not accurately reflect 'Kills-Per-Match' scoring.

This is MechWarrior Online...not 'My Little Pony Online'.

[Nick Makiaveli]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 January 2012 - 03:00 PM, said:

Yah, but no respawn tends to favor camping until you have an overwhelming advantage and then go for the objective. Realistic I suppose, but its not exactly fun. Even with respawn on people tend to ignore the objective most of the time it seems. Only a couple things force people into objective play imho

1) Its the only way to win by scenario rules
2) time is limited so you can only realistically win by capturing objective- really more an anti-camping thing.
3) Respawn- you know they're coming back so you better take down the objective while they're on spawn timer.

So no respawn and #1&2 and Done!

Seriously though, I think that would work better than respawns. As you said, most gamers only care about their K/D ratio (whether it's important in game or not). So adding things that reward playing by the rules so to speak is a good thing.

I don't like the idea of separate servers/accts etc as that just chops up the player base. Have arena style combat for people to play around in and just spaz with. Have some matches actually mean something and have those require more and more tactics and less laser spam to win. IE a training academy for the idjits.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Khushrenada, on 18 January 2012 - 11:14 AM, said:

hmm im not convinced
a house unit is a military unit, as such you get paid for beeing a soldier, you are not beeing paid on a success base like in a company. you get the order to take planet A, but fail and return home alive, you still get your payment (maybe your commander is fired, but not the common soldier).
if you succeed in taking planet A, you come home and get your payment as well (maybe your commander gets a promotion or a medal, again the common soldier MAYBE gets a medale and a "thank you", but no extra payment).

as such i think your concept just won`t work on house units.

besides what are you going to do about those poor guys that just happen to lose a couple of matches without beeing able to fulfill their objective? let them bleed out by repair costs while getting no c-bill?

also WoT actually is giving out a bonus for those who win, they double (i think) your acumulated xp`s and credits of the match. still it happens, that people just camp it out. so even with some sort of bonus for winning/achieving your objectives people sometimes just camp it out...

I think it would be very realistic for a House unit that failed in a mission to coincidentally find themselves on the receiving end of a supply chain snafu while a different unit which successfully routed a enemy force has some surplus supplies delivered to them.

[Unclecid]

Nick Makiaveli, on 19 January 2012 - 06:44 AM, said:

I think it would be very realistic for a House unit that failed in a mission to coincidentally find themselves on the receiving end of a supply chain snafu while a different unit which successfully routed a enemy force has some surplus supplies delivered to them.

or better yet a failing unit gets "redeployed" to the far end of no where.
while the successful unit gets extended weekend passes and complimentary dinners at Mama-san's Geisha House

[AlanEsh]

Xavier Truscott, on 18 January 2012 - 09:15 PM, said:

Speculation or not? I would imagine when they stated that there were already 3 different match types and described that you would look for matches by toggling boxes for choice before they put you in a queue that you would end up in a match type you are looking for. I don't recall the thread, but i believe it was stated that there was deathmatch, team deathmatch and campaign. If you follow any sort of logical conclusions, deathmatch games would be respawns, as that is the typical scenario for that game type. Campaign games would be no respawn, as it's the only logical, and "true to BT" type of game that most would find acceptable in a battle with consequences.

Yours is not a "logical conclusion" unless you've never played or read up on World of Tanks. Deathmatch is simply Random Team vs Random Team and when your tank is destroyed you go into spectator mode with the option to exit battle and field a different tank in a new match.

The term "deathmatch" doesn't imply respawning in any way.

[Xavier Truscott]

Angelicon, on 19 January 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

Yours is not a "logical conclusion" unless you've never played or read up on World of Tanks. Deathmatch is simply Random Team vs Random Team and when your tank is destroyed you go into spectator mode with the option to exit battle and field a different tank in a new match.

The term "deathmatch" doesn't imply respawning in any way.

If that's the case for WoT, which i will admit to never having even heard of until coming here, then it is the exception, not the rule. Any game that i've experienced up to this point classified deathmatch as a timed respawn match.

[Chuckie]

How about this.. it takes "X" minutes to repair your mech. So when you go down for the count, you spawn back at the Drop Ship / Base in your damaged condition and it takes "X" C-bills to repair your mech.

If someone gets a lucky head shot, or takes a leg, the repair can be fairly fast (Say under 2-5 min)

If you die in a hard fought battle, where your torso was torn up and they got a ammo crit on you.. well that's going to take longer and cost more (5-10 min)

Also light mechs = less repair time , assault mechs = more repair time.

This balances the spawning, allows players to stay in the game.

I also like the fact that If your running around in a Raven you may due to no fault of your own meet a quick death due to the fact you are a scout, and you are also a lighter mech. But because you are, the bonus is it doesn't take as long to get back to battle if your mech is fried.

If your an Atlas, you may only have one shot at resurrection/respawn in a given game due to the amount of damage that has to be inflicted on you to go down and the time it will take to repair.

Add to that the Drop ship/Base is far enough away from the goals it takes your a few minutes to catch back up with the group. Especially if in a slower Atlas.

I think this would help in balancing the mech classes as well..

As for respawning not giving meaning to your deaths.. If whole group dies by attacking without proper guidance, then the other Team has a chance to have a power play and move on to capture targets while everyone is waiting to repair. Given that it could take your assaults, 10 or more mins to repair, and then they have to slug their way back to the front (IF the front hasn't become their bases front door). Dying would be very inconvenient.. also think if the commander goes down, same problem.. he wont be able to provide commands and battlefield support while he is down repairing.

This would also keep the entire team in the gamesince there is still hope for reinforcements, instead of simply giving up because they are now down to a 4 v 8 or something like that..

Also I think loyalty points should be given for making it to the end of the game instead of dropping out when your Mech gets toasted. Also if the level of damage to your mech is a constant (say from drop to drop), you get enough C-bills at the end of the game to at least repair your mech while waiting to jump into the next game. But if you leave.. no C-Bills and you have to pay for repairs yourself.

I really see this is the best way to balance spawn vs no-spawn, keeping cohesive teams/lances together longer, and making teamwork / dying mean more.

Nothing sucks more than losing a good player or two and then you have to create a new lance/team for the next drop.

Edited by Chuckie, 19 January 2012 - 08:49 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Omigir, on 18 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

Well Zorak, the only thing really left to do is figure out a way to ballance XP/C-bill pay out.

Two things comes to my mind:
1. Have higher end mission bonuses for no respawn that would help equate to how much you would gain over the process of respawn match (Averaged out)

2. Both game times have the same kinds of xp/c-bill pay out and mech kills do not pay out, but rather objectives or commander objectives are where you get your points from.

Agree on 1. With NR, you're going to be spending less time active, either because the match will be restarting, or you'll be waiting after being shot down.

Partially agree on 2. I think that commander/mission objectives should get XP bonuses, but I also think that performance bonuses are a good idea. It would make more skilled players level up faster. However, it should be just for mech kills. Examples of what I think should get performance bonuses:
-Raw damage (total overall damage * some cBill multiplier)
-Critical damage (breaching armor, allowing critical hits)
-Critical hits (taking out weapons/electronics)
-Mech kill (some base value + value of remaining equipment)
-Kill assist (contributed alot of damage, but didn't land killing blow)
-Sensor assist (detected mech for ally that kills the mech)

Performance bonuses should be balanced by peformance penalties
-Mech destruction (scales with cost of your mech)
-Mech repair (scales with cost of repairs ... but less severe than destruction)
-Mech reload (scales with cost of ammo)

=========

As for the exact values, I don't know. It all depends on play testing and how fast you want people to gain cBills. Overall, I'd suggest the following:

-Base cBills: Small amount garunteed for finishing the match, even if you loose. This is just so newer players don't feel like they aren't progressing.

-Victory cBills: Additionall amount for winning the match. This should be more for NR games than for respawn to offset mission/performance bonuses being more pentiful in respawn.

-Mission Bonuses: Bonus cBills granted for mission objective completion (e.g. capturing a point), minus penalties (e.g. loosing a point). If it goes negetive, then it is set to zero. Given the nature of the game, you will probably get more of these from respawn.

-Performance Bonuses: Bonus cBills granted for individual performance, minus penalties (as above). If it goes negetive, it is set to zero. Again, you should get a lot more of this from respawn games.

[Alaric Wolf Kerensky]

I have no choice but to stress that no-respawn is the best choice to go with. If the battle is between two Stars, then let us see who are truly the greater warriors! If you mess up and get yourself killed, too bad. Why should you be brought back if you were rightly bested? You had your chance, and you missed it. Deal with that and accept it. Learn from your mistakes and become a better pilot for it. Think of it like Hardcore more in COD, where every kill is oh so sweet because you know the enemy you just killed isn't going to magically resurrect and attack you with the fore-knowledge of your positioning, load-out, and current damage levels.

Edit: In addition, in the BattleTech universe, the loss of a 'Mech is costly. So it is only right if the loss of your 'Mech puts your team at a severe disadvantage.

Edited by Alaric Wolf Kerensky, 21 January 2012 - 05:30 PM.

[CobraFive]

While personally I was hoping for a limited respawn system of some type (I think that it gives a greater focus to objectives, whereas no-respawn games pretty much boil down to team deathmatch) I think the latest Q&A basically confirms no-respawn.

I don't think its a bad system of course, automatically, so I wouldn't say I'm disappointed.

Quote

What will happen to a pilot when their mech is destroyed, from the angle of information warfare? Will the pilot be booted from the match, allowed to observe as a "spectator" or locked to their destroyed mech (with a voluntary or involuntary ability to exit the match)? –Mezzanine

[PAUL] If it were up to me we’d format your C:\ drive but Bryan has suggested that we auto eject the pilot into a first person spectator view.
[DAVID] There will be no free roaming spectator mode. Dead players will likely see their destroyed ’Mech for a few seconds and then be able to cycle through the viewpoints of their living allies.
[BRYAN] We’re very aware and concerned about spectator mode giving teams using Teamspeak like communications and advantage. More than likely we only allow spectators to view what the current target view (pilot) can see

Its not an outright "No respawns" but I think its pretty close.

[Listless Nomad]

I have to say that depending on the game mode - no respawn is the best. For example - in a simple TDM game between two sides - and say for whatever reason most of the mechs on both sides are lights and mediums. Except there is one atlas. With concentrated teamwork and luck Team A manages to bring down Team B's assault mech. How sad would it be to have that same assault mech show up 2 mins later in mint condition. Having no respawn allows you to really take satisfaction in bringing down an assault mech when undergunned.

No respawn would also force people to be careful and not go all rambo all the time - otherwise they have to wait 15 mins watching others have fun. It would also likely cut down on moronic console kiddies - which would be a good thing for all of our mental health - but perhaps could put the financial viability of the game at stake. Say what you want about console kiddies but they spend money like it's their parents'....oh wait.

Now, if the game mode is some sort of base assault or conquest mode- then I think a limited respawn should be made available - but until we get an idea of what other modes there could be - I'm going to base my opinion off of simple - "find mechs and kill 'em" mode.

Edited by Listless Nomad, 19 January 2012 - 09:46 AM.

[Omigir]

Ravn, on 18 January 2012 - 07:51 PM, said:

[PAUL]While “listening posts” are not part of our current game modes, it doesn’t mean that they can’t be added fairly quickly to new game modes released soon after launch. We do have hard location objectives that you will be targeting during matches.

heh, come on, that is so non-descriptive!

[MaddMaxx]

Omigir, on 19 January 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

heh, come on, that is so non-descriptive!

Pluralization requires but 2 items. Modes could mean Campaign and Practice. Now adding more modes quickly? That sounds quite promising.

[Chuckie]

I have to disagree.. as some have mentioned NO respawning at all makes the game too one sided. Everything becomes PvP death matches at that point. So new players would just come in get wasted 4-5 games in a row get tired of it and leave.

NO Respawns at all would simply be death to the F2P system.. no one would play long enough to give the game a real shot..

I think a balanced approach is better.. with some respawning but in a controlled environment so killing the others guys mech equates to them going to a penalty box and giving the team a leg up until they can return.

Remember the game won't be solely for MW nerds.. we will have to convert nOObs into players..

Edited by Chuckie, 19 January 2012 - 10:00 AM.

[Listless Nomad]

Why not just have (to borrow from CoD) "hardcore" matches - that way - people could choose how they wanted to play?

[Omigir]

zorak ramone I would recommend every one go back and read the conversation between me and Zorak, you will see that respawn does have a place and it is possible.

[Listless Nomad]

Omigir, on 19 January 2012 - 10:45 AM, said:

zorak ramone I would recommend every one go back and read the conversation between me and Zorak, you will see that respawn does have a place and it is possible.

There are 28 pages - got a general idea where that conversation happened? I'm interested in seeing what your thoughts were.

[Chuckie]

Listless Nomad, on 19 January 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Why not just have (to borrow from CoD) "hardcore" matches - that way - people could choose how they wanted to play?

Simply the MMO world will be active.. meaning that matches mean something to the "world".

Now if there is (and I am sure they will do this) an arena area, then it wouldn't matter.

Otherwise as far as the persistent world is concerned the rules would have to be universal, so no advanatage is given to any particular teams play style.

[Listless Nomad]

Chuckie, on 19 January 2012 - 11:12 AM, said:

Simply the MMO world will be active.. meaning that matches mean something to the "world".

Now if there is (and I am sure they will do this) an arena area, then it wouldn't matter.

Otherwise as far as the persistent world is concerned the rules would have to be universal, so no advanatage is given to any particular teams play style.

Ah - that makes sense. I'm completely new to MMOs so I'm used to the more individual servers of FPSs' etc. That makes things a bit more tricky...