600 replies to this topic

[Ravn]

You've been hanging out with the bronies haven't you.

[Omigir]

Yeah, over in new jursey.

[Deamented]

GaussDragon, on 11 January 2012 - 05:34 PM, said:

The argument that "if the devs aim to please everyone, they end up pleasing no one.":

This zero-sum view is so oft-repeated and retarded I don't know where to begin. If a compromise is such that each side loses maybe 5 percent of their enjoyment, so that both may enjoy the game, you still have 95% on either side with higher total/aggregate enjoyment overall. It's a given that this community is split, and we have to understand that neither side (and all the sub-divisions there-in) is going to get every single thing it hopes for. My camp is going to see a few things it would rather not see, your camp is going to see some things it'd rather not see. But, if you're the kind of player (regardless of which side you find yourself on) that won't play it unless you get every last little thing you want, you need to stop posting now and delete your account. We're all going to have to give and take a little bit in this one, and that's where innovative compromises come in.

This is the one thing I want to address in your over all great post. If they try to make everyone happy, (A server for No spawns, a Server for Waves, a Server for unlimited everything) No one wins. The cost becomes higher to keep up the servers, the programers need to work harder to balance the game for every mode, so on and so forth. It makes the game too expensive to run and it dies. Compromise isn't attempting to please everyone, it is about pleasing the most people while still sticking with your own thoughts. Suble but massive difference.

[Alaskan Viking]

Just throwing out an idea here, somebody may have made the same sugestion earlier, but what if there was a game mode where at certain points, a limited number of "dead" players could come back down in a drop ship? Maybe have some kind of control point in the center of the map that calls down a dropship one time? just throwing it out there.

[Kaemon]

Remember when the first one that died had to go buy more beer?

I voted emo, let's kick this pig and get it going already, we can sort this **** out in beta.

[Ravn]

Well the devs already have said that there will be a practice server... let that one have respawns.

[CloudCobra]

I have to say i dont like the idea of no respawn it think it will make people too timid in their play style i dont want to play a game with no action cuz no one wants to be the first kill who has to watch while their team and the enemy turtle for an hour. I might be cool if you could just reque but then it forces you to lonewolf it while your budies fight together. Realism is cool to a point but i would rather have fun. Also this game needs to apeal to more than just the faithful to last. Waiting sucks thats why no one likes the DMV.

[Alaskan Viking]

Ravn, on 11 January 2012 - 09:17 PM, said:

Well the devs already have said that there will be a practice server... let that one have respawns.

This, and maybe if they add a Solaris Arena battle type mode/special event.

[Omigir]

CloudCobra, on 11 January 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

I have to say i dont like the idea of no respawn it think it will make people too timid in their play style i dont want to play a game with no action cuz no one wants to be the first kill who has to watch while their team and the enemy turtle for an hour. I might be cool if you could just reque but then it forces you to lonewolf it while your budies fight together. Realism is cool to a point but i would rather have fun. Also this game needs to apeal to more than just the faithful to last. Waiting sucks thats why no one likes the DMV.

I guess that makes sens, but what are your 'too timid' players going to do when they have to make an objective? Capture compound C for victory.. they cant sit back and just wait then. You have to move, you have to get to C or you may as well not deploy at all.

[Ravn]

CloudCobra, on 11 January 2012 - 09:18 PM, said:

I have to say i dont like the idea of no respawn it think it will make people too timid in their play style i dont want to play a game with no action cuz no one wants to be the first kill who has to watch while their team and the enemy turtle for an hour. I might be cool if you could just reque but then it forces you to lonewolf it while your budies fight together. Realism is cool to a point but i would rather have fun. Also this game needs to apeal to more than just the faithful to last. Waiting sucks thats why no one likes the DMV.

People are only timid when they don't have a plan... or when it is the plan. Camping is only effective against other teams that aren't good. This also happens all the time in respawn matches when teams are overspecialized... eg. Team 1 - Long range hanging out in the open vs. Team 2 - mechs all packin AC20 and won't exit a city cluster.

[CloudCobra]

Omigir, on 11 January 2012 - 09:33 PM, said:

I guess that makes sens, but what are your 'too timid' players going to do when they have to make an objective? Capture compound C for victory.. they cant sit back and just wait then. You have to move, you have to get to C or you may as well not deploy at all.

Well i guess that depends on the the objective and the time you have to do it if they put a hard timmer on the match it might force action but if not i worry the win at no fun crowd will just wait till someone gets bored enough to die first

Edited by CloudCobra, 11 January 2012 - 09:39 PM.

[Fyrwulf]

Yeah, I'm thinking there won't be timed matches. It's 12 vs 12, the round continues until one side is dead.

[CloudCobra]

One other thing i wouldn't like all the waiting but I'm a fan so i would put up with it. As a f2p game that all you have invested as a new comer is the time to download it not so much.

[Ravn]

Fyrwulf, on 11 January 2012 - 09:46 PM, said:

Yeah, I'm thinking there won't be timed matches. It's 12 vs 12, the round continues until one side is dead.

I think for mercs, retreat should be a viable option. Why continue a fight you know you are going to lose and have to also pay for?

[Sturmbb]

still missing the WOT version in your poll. your mech is destroyed you get into another in another game.

then again i guess this could go under the no spawn vote.

Edited by Sturmbb, 11 January 2012 - 10:09 PM.

[Ravn]

I have no control of the poll since it was merged into this thread, otherwise I would oblige.

Edit: Maybe Deamented or one of the moderators can add it.

Edited by Ravn, 11 January 2012 - 10:32 PM.

[Elizander]

Ravn, on 11 January 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I think for mercs, retreat should be a viable option. Why continue a fight you know you are going to lose and have to also pay for?

That's actually fine I think. Run off to the extraction point if you think your team is losing and get out to save yourself the repair bill.

[dh crow]

I'm kind of surprised no respawn is polling 60%. I thought I was in the minority on that one.

My take: if you die early, find another battle. If you're running with a clan/unit the 20 minute wait isn't a problem and it usually isn't that long in a no-respawn battle anyway. Most of the time the fight is over before five minutes from first contact.

[Bernardo Sinibaldi]

Ravn, on 11 January 2012 - 09:53 PM, said:

I think for mercs, retreat should be a viable option. Why continue a fight you know you are going to lose and have to also pay for?

Agreed. It's surely a viable tactic for a Merc (indiviudal or unit) to pull back out of fear of damage repair costs. But that assumes we have an economy / resources metagame. If not, you might as well just keep getting stuck in.

[dh crow]

There's not much point in the online backbone if there is no such metagame. When you're playing in a persistent universe where your mech is actually worth something, the game becomes deeper and more satisfying.