600 replies to this topic

[Sug]

What if the matches that affect borders were the slower paced, no respawns, team oriented fights but players have the option to use "simulator pods" that will offer a faster paced style of pvp that doesn't effect the main story-line?

Almost like the random battlegrounds/rated battlegrounds in Wow?

I think there definitively needs to be some sort of practice mode for new players.

[Elizander]

Sug, on 11 January 2012 - 09:09 AM, said:

What if the matches that affect borders were the slower paced, no respawns, team oriented fights but players have the option to use "simulator pods" that will offer a faster paced style of pvp that doesn't effect the main story-line?

Almost like the random battlegrounds/rated battlegrounds in Wow?

I think there definitively needs to be some sort of practice mode for new players.

They can easily do match types like this with a respawn timer for 'reinforcements' for the pub games. They can add the usual objectives (hold control point, grab flag/data/etc). I do not think this will work well for escort type missions unless the respawns are done in specific areas of the map as the escort progresses.

[80sGlamRockSensation David Bowie]

I'm a big fan of "you can come back as an infantry with a Jeep and a gameboy" idea. You can still contribute to your team by scouting around armed only with a radio and a pair of binoculars. Gives great sense of scale and immersion (I'm talking Force First Person, ONLY!). If you die, then thats the end of the round for you. This still allows you to help coordinate attacks and relay basic scout info, but keeps you form directly participating in the conflict.

And for those who lack any notion of teamwork or tactics, you can pull out a "gameboy" and play pong or lunar lander for the remaining 19 minutes.

[Leonardo Monteiro]

Hello!

my 2 cents:

Pardon if i am presumptuous, but i feel most of us will not like the "rush/die/rush" in MWO, it just doesn't feel right in a game that will be a sort of tactical simulator.

However, i also do not think that we should rely, or abuse of the patience of the gamers - this is a mech game, not a waiting game.


I've played America's Army, this would happen: A 10 minute game started, you'd get killed in the beggining, and you'd have to wait 9 minutes, before the game would end.
Now, personally, I wouldn't wait, it would be just faster to log out, and relog in another server (would be different if i died 9.59 minutes). Its not that i didn't like the game, but hell, if you die fast twice in a game, that's 20 minutes.. its a lot, especially if you play 1/2 hours a day.

Now, someone has written here, that there should be an option for you either to wait, or join another match, with penalties for the impatient - For me, this seems as a reasonable idea (as long as the penalties aren't insane).

This way, you can keep both "sides" happy: There won't be an incentive to "rush 'n die", but you won't doom players to play MWO - the waiting game.

Again, just my 2 cents

[Red Beard]

Which player can you have more respect for...

The player that has learned to play as a team because the developers have "boxed" you into a very specific play style of not getting to respawn, or..

The player that plays as a team even while knowing that they have the cushion of unlimited respawns.

I personally know that I prefer team work and I will work to learn every aspect that I can, from every angle there is. Not getting to respawn only serves to slow the game down in terms of spreading to more and more gamers. If a player is not playing, then they are likely to go elsewhere, and take their money with them.

Too many fellas in this thread have decided that wanting respawns is akin to being a run'n'gun player. That is rubbish. A good player is a good player, regardless of the video game's parameters. I prefer ALL options to be available, and to let ME make up my mind what I want to do.

Going from one match to another, in between deaths will only serve to destroy team work and will assist players in simply dumping games early when it isn't looking good. I am not in favor of this. The devs should make it as attractive as possible for a player to stick with the team they have. If you enter a pub match, you should be able to keep rolling with that team as much as possible, with as few penalties as possible. More carrots, less stick.

[EDMW CSN]

A reinforcement system will work and teams will only benefits from a reinforcement drop if they attain some sort of objective so as to reduce camping and their ilk.

But every time you reinforce, you will have to eat into your OWN mechbay inventory.

If all 7 mechs in your mech bay have being used for reinforcement and you wasted them all, you will have 7 really banged up machines waiting for repairs when you are done and a HUGE c-bill problem to take care off.

There fine.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 11 January 2012 - 10:10 AM.

[Red Beard]

pharaoh, on 11 January 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

it's almost inconceivable the way the game has been described so far that a particular match will see a pilot reappearing after any period of time if his mech has been destroyed/knocked out.

The only conceivable way for respawning to work is if this is a video game. In real life, no way.

[Dihm]

Red Beard, on 11 January 2012 - 10:03 AM, said:

Too many fellas in this thread have decided that wanting respawns is akin to being a run'n'gun player. That is rubbish. A good player is a good player, regardless of the video game's parameters. I prefer ALL options to be available, and to let ME make up my mind what I want to do.

Eh, I don't like it because it is a total break from immersion. Granted not everything will be "realistic" in the game, and heck, it can't be by the very nature of the source material, but this just pulls me out of it and makes it feel more like, "just another game", if that makes any sense. Probably similar to how you feel about the thought of an arbitrary 11 hit-box only armor model.

[alVolVloLy]

SquareSphere, on 11 January 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Just my two cents. For pub matches expect respawn, but they could be based on a timer or resources gained from completing objectives (ie reenforcment "carrot" for completing objectives instead of camping/jump sniping/staying in passive the whole game etc.)

Org matches make respawn an option but it affects win conditions, IE if you play no respawn you can gain more "stuff" (like exp, cbills etc) if you win/lose.

Ulitmately, the VAST majority of people do not want to majorly punished if they lose.

Just like the devs said, have to think about implementing these things from a carrot instead of a stick approach.

Exactly.

I'm really not understanding the mindset of some of the people posting here. Obviously, when someone's mech get destroyed, it means something. Depending upon the game type, it's +1 kill for the other team (in a respawn game) or playing the rest of the drop with one less teammate (no-respawn) or maybe some other consequence depending upon what the goal/objective is.

The game is going to be competitive, people are going to win and lose. What I really am having a hard time with is why some posters seem to think that that someone who has already "lost" in the game needs to be further punished.

By all means guys, if you feel the need to cool your heels after getting your mech destroyed, feel free, turn off your computer for 15 minutes in the name of "realism" or flog yourself until you feel you have "learned your lesson". Punishment as a game mechanic is a seriously bad idea.

Provide incentives and rewards for winning, losing sucks enough in and of itself.

[Bernardo Sinibaldi]

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

I'm really not understanding the mindset of some of the people posting here.

And those whose mindset you don't understand probably won't understand yours....

I can't see a neat compromise here - any middle ground runs a high risk of annoying both camps. I'd be happy if we had the option to participate in both manners as I'd hate to see the game lose a whole chunk of players just like that. However, if only one option is implemented I'd want it to be my favoured one!

[Red Beard]

SquareSphere, on 11 January 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

Org matches make respawn an option but it affects win conditions, IE if you play no respawn you can gain more "stuff" (like exp, cbills etc) if you win/lose.

I like this idea. To add to it, I would even like to see a system in place that puts the rewards for victory on a sliding scale. If you do NOT respawn at all, you get the full rewards. If you have one or two respawns, you take a small percentage deduction, maybe 10-15 percent. Likewise for even more respawns.

Quote

Ulitmately, the VAST majority of people do not want to majorly punished if they lose.

I agree. This is a basic concept, and one I see many fellas here are not tuning in to. Instead of penalizing "less than great" game play, they should reward really good teamwork. Too many penalties, or penalties that come off too harsh can drive lots of potential money out the door.

Quote

Just like the devs said, have to think about implementing these things from a carrot instead of a stick approach.

Exactly.

[Red Beard]

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

Exactly.

I'm really not understanding the mindset of some of the people posting here. Obviously, when someone's mech get destroyed, it means something. Depending upon the game type, it's +1 kill for the other team (in a respawn game) or playing the rest of the drop with one less teammate (no-respawn) or maybe some other consequence depending upon what the goal/objective is.

The game is going to be competitive, people are going to win and lose. What I really am having a hard time with is why some posters seem to think that that someone who has already "lost" in the game needs to be further punished.

By all means guys, if you feel the need to cool your heels after getting your mech destroyed, feel free, turn off your computer for 15 minutes in the name of "realism" or flog yourself until you feel you have "learned your lesson". Punishment as a game mechanic is a seriously bad idea.

Provide incentives and rewards for winning, losing sucks enough in and of itself.

I have not agreed with a post this much in a while. This dude "gets it".

A few of the posts I have read on this subject lead me to believe that some guys want the game to come with shock collars, for added "realism".

Anomoly is right on here. More rewards, less penalties. More rewards means more players and more cash. More penalties mean less players sticking around to add to the player base.

Allow respawns, but limit the rewards to those who use a huge amount of respawns.

[alVolVloLy]

Bernardo Sinibaldi, on 11 January 2012 - 10:17 AM, said:

And those whose mindset you don't understand probably won't understand yours....

I can't see a neat compromise here - any middle ground runs a high risk of annoying both camps. I'd be happy if we had the option to participate in both manners as I'd hate to see the game lose a whole chunk of players just like that. However, if only one option is implemented I'd want it to be my favoured one!

Regarding mindset, not so much really. I don't expect to win in every match, but I also don't expect to lose every match. I don't want myself, nor anyone else, to loose out on their evening "game time" just to feel like the other guy "got what he deserved" for being x, y, or z. That's the punishment mindset I'm talking about.

I do agree with hoping that there is the ability for both camps to play in a way enjoyable to them and I agree that we need all the people that we can get.

[EDMW CSN]

As long there is a proper reinforcement system in place, the game will work for both camps.
But ultimately if you re-spawn, you have to pick another mech from your mech bay.

Lose them all in a single match (say 4 mechs) and you can look at that double digit million c-bill repair bill when you get back to your base and you might have to start getting a loaner from your NPC House vendors. This alone should make players think before reinforcing straight away or hang back first. Or otherwise re-consider their options.

A properly done reinforcement system will also allow new players to join an active battle in progress in a semi "realistic" fashion instead of just spawning on the battlefield. This will make both camps happy.

For the re-spawners can have their re-spawns. For the no-respawn / realism crowd this would be more immersive while at the same time know that the re-spawner is basically taking a gamble and a potential large loss if he is dropping in multiple mechs per game session.

Edited by [EDMW]CSN, 11 January 2012 - 10:36 AM.

[Red Beard]

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

Eh, I don't like it because it is a total break from immersion. Granted not everything will be "realistic" in the game, and heck, it can't be by the very nature of the source material, but this just pulls me out of it and makes it feel more like, "just another game", if that makes any sense. Probably similar to how you feel about the thought of an arbitrary 11 hit-box only armor model.

While I do not agree with your stance, I can, at least understand how having the looming threat of being "killed" and not being able to play in that particular match again adds tension, and therefore really forces you to "put yourself into the match". I can see that. It just doesn't hold the same value for me.

The value for me is to play and get better, not be constantly afraid that if I die, I have to move on, or worse, sit and not play for a while.

Edited by Red Beard, 11 January 2012 - 10:52 AM.

[Ghostrider45]

I got a good ? for you did you Eject are get blowen up with your mech If you blow up then your DEAD game over!! if you Ejected then if not your capured by the enime it could take hours for you to get to a feild base on foot that is you don't die trying to get there!

[Dihm]

Red Beard, on 11 January 2012 - 10:38 AM, said:

While I do not agree with your stance, I can, at least understand how having the looming threat of being "killed" and not being able to play in that particular match again adds tension, and therefore really forces you to "put yourself into the match". I can see that. It just doesn't hold the same value for me.

You said it better than I did, but it is also more than just a game mechanics thing. We're supposed to Mechwarriors fighting for our House/merc unit, striving to capture planets from our enemies/for money. There is a certain story logic that is established within the game design in addition to the nuts-and-bolts mechanics of it. I don't see how to reconcile the in-game "reality" with being able to respawn in an unlimited fashion. Mechs are rare and treasured things, I shouldn't be able to blow through 10 Atlases in a 20 minute match. I know you don't like the lore arguments, but that's a huge bone of contention for lots of people here.

[Glastyn]

as far as i remember most pilots eject before dying, so maybe there could be a 1-2 min delay and then you move to an operator-style observer-view where you have access to the visual and sensory data of all your teammates and can hint/order them around via a waypoint/action marker on the map or so.

gives some great tactical opportunites i think

[FireForEffect]

Red Beard, on 11 January 2012 - 10:29 AM, said:

I have not agreed with a post this much in a while. This dude "gets it".

Nah, he just agrees with you - that does not mean he gets it.

Say I spend18 minutes of my session fighting another mech and finally defeat it only for him to respawn, fling some LRMs my way and destroy my already damaged mech - what's fair about that? I've got what? 2 minutes to make this anything less than a draw. Aren't I being penalised here? That's just rubbish.

And constant respawns letting people build up experience and cash? That's just inflationary nonsense - lose and you still win? You can be the worst player in history but still sit on a big pile of cash just because you play a lot of games. Why reward losing at all? You lost - get better.

We have two types of players here so they should accomodate both but not in the same area.

[Red Beard]

[EDMW]CSN, on 11 January 2012 - 10:31 AM, said:

For the no-respawn / realism crowd

How are the "no respawn" guys also the realism crowd. Thats funny.