600 replies to this topic

[Omigir]

Sturmbb, on 11 January 2012 - 10:07 PM, said:

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.

WoT is no respawn... or atleast so I would think as you dont respawn in WoT. Whether you can leave and join another game or not is a secondary discussion I would assume if no respawn was implimented...

Ravn, on 11 January 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

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.

Camping only works if you can kill your target quickly too. I see it all the time in CoD, people dont camp becuase they are afraid of dying, they do it becuase you can lay out your target before they can see you. Rins repeat, that is why in 'Core' you never or hardly see camping because you will probably die before you can kill your target, and in 'hard core' every one camps due to one/two shots will put down a target. <This is in my experince and I am confident in its acuricy. Just think of every time you have seen a camper and do it succesfully, 9/10 times he is packing a 1 hit wonder weapon.

There is no 1 hit wonder weapon for battlemechs.

CloudCobra, on 11 January 2012 - 09:38 PM, said:

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

Devs already stated they are looking at maches only lasting so long, other wise, if one team wants to wait out a timer, respawn or not, they are going to do that anyway. If a player is timid, they are going to be taht way anyway. No resawn means people will be less in clined to Leroy it. .. not that they wont do anything at all. CoD example above reinforces this idea.

Not to mention if you are hiding, nad light mechs are out scouting, like they are supposed to, and you get spotted, how long before LRMs come to rape your face off?

Or if you just sit there, and you are to affraid to move forward to take the objective your going to loose. Flat out that simple. If there is an objective, and its not taken, its not a draw, you lose. House will not pay a contract if you fail to compleat the requirments, I.E. take objective C.

Not all of the games are TDM, which is the only place I can see what your sugesting happening, but even then, I doubt anybody with a brain cell is going to just sit in the spawn and pray the enemy does not find them. Players will move to vantage points, put out scouts to locate where the enemy is and do *something*. To sugest people will be scared into paralization in a game is rather.. pathetic.. no offence. If you had only one life in a game, would you really sit in a corner and not do anything? Or would you try and find a place wher eyou can get an advantage from?

Edited by Omigir, 11 January 2012 - 11:38 PM.

[Gorith]

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.

at the same time respawn devalues the meaning of survival and some tactics also notably information gets devalued. If we pull a proper strike out on you and we win an initial fight. 20 seconds later you respawn you now know roughly where our assault lance is because their mechs move slowly.

Also your example would only happen if BOTH teams were timid. A good team will quickly pick up your being timid and use your fear to pull off gambits that against any team who isn't afraid just wouldn't work.

[ELH Rembo]

No spawn - so are you waiting for, or you go to another server.but you do not train your skill
Spawn over time - do you continue to play and train your skill.
it does not lead to unbalance skills?
means that all servers must have the same rules spawn
obtained between the conventional battles and fights for the planet do not care?
Or am I confused

[Tibster]

You get ejected when destroyed and have to "run" back to the drop pod and jump into a new mech and run back to the action...Could work?

[Omigir]

Tibster, on 12 January 2012 - 12:47 AM, said:

You get ejected when destroyed and have to "run" back to the drop pod and jump into a new mech and run back to the action...Could work?

Uhm, define "run"

if you mean get out of the mech and run around on foot, no, Devs and most of the comunity are against this.. i mean realy realy against it.

that and you would not make it back to the dropship before the match was over due to distance.

so if by run, you mean fade to black and and fade in at the drop ship.. maybe be.. otherwise.. no..

Particularly geting back to the dropship is not really the problem, the problem most people are debating is to have it be respawns or not, if so, how many? is there a timmer between 'waves' what kind of xp/cbill hit and or carrot/stick incentives involved in not loosing a mech in a match and reprocusions of certian game types. (IE Camping or zerg rushing.)

[Dlardrageth]

Omigir, on 11 January 2012 - 08:54 PM, said:

Well.. Ravn, considering the comunity, I have a feeling that this time tommarow there will be hundreds who throw in.. but I would go ahead and offer up that there is a good 80% of the forum that lurk. and really there is like 16 of us who chew each other's heads off in every forum topic because we really all secretly love each other but cant bring ourself to say it.

... in a totally politically correct manly way, of course. (The love part, not the chewing, heh.) And yeah, poll is going interesting ways...

Deamented, on 11 January 2012 - 09:10 PM, said:

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,[...]

OMFG, that myth again? The devs stated already that each match will spawn its own "dedicated server". Or in their own words: "lots and lots of servers". So you got the same old server bank hosting every match, no matter the settings. You do not need one friggin' extra server if you have different modes that way. Period.

You don't need extra hardware, extra expenditure or whatever boogeyman you try to paint on the wall because the "servers" are emulated, aka software entities. Thus the extra upkeep cost you are referring to is pure bull****. You either don't read what the devs released about the game at all or you make things up as you go to serve your line of argumentation, do you? Read up, and get a clue before making **** up, sheesh...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 January 2012 - 02:41 AM.

[Kagekun]

It might be interesting if you have no respawn and you lock the player in the match until the match ends. That would force players to not Leroy the game up.

[alVolVloLy]

dh crow, on 11 January 2012 - 10:52 PM, said:

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

It's really a 40/60 split though, since everything except the no-respawn option is basically a division how respawn would be handled.

I voted for a hybrid system of some sort for the simple fact that I'd hope to see something that didn't split the community. Costs are fine, time should be instantaneous. Maybe reinforcements with another mech you own either from the dropship or maybe and orbital drop (which would be really, really cool). The sliding scale depending upon the number of deaths posted earlier seems ok too, people that don't die reap better rewards, people that do get a deduction of rewards.

My second choice would be separate servers according to preference, but having everyone be able to interact would be better.

[Dlardrageth]

alVolVloLy, on 12 January 2012 - 04:41 AM, said:

It's really a 40/60 split though, since everything except the no-respawn option is basically a division how respawn would be handled.
[...]

Kinda doubtful. You interprete the motivation of those who voted for option 4 (Seperate servers) rather one-sided. Might not be justified.

Talking of my choice, I voted option 4. For one reason only - realistic expectations. Otherwise my vote would have gone to option 1. I don't have much/any personal interest in respawn mechanics and the issues they bring along, but I am level-headed enough to acknowledge the potential that comes with them. And thus the somewhat legitimate claim to have respawning as one optional choice. And an opportunity for PGI to reach another part of the potential customer base (aka an opportunity to make a buck or five). Mind me, that acknowledgement does not have to mean I personally (would) like that game mode.

Thus my vote is based on an "external" reasoning, that has nothing to do at all of how I view the merits of respawning mechanics for the game. And that sort of puts me into the "pro-respawn" camp? I don't think so...

TL;DR: Voting option 4 is more of "Give others their piece of the cake, fine, just don't take it off my dish!" It doesn't necessarily mean you endorse/support one of the other options.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 12 January 2012 - 05:24 AM.

[alVolVloLy]

Dlardrageth, on 12 January 2012 - 04:54 AM, said:

Kinda doubtful. You interprete the motivation of those who voted for option 4 (Seperate servers) rather one-sided. Might not be justified.

OK, fair point, but at the same time the results aren't actually 60% vs 10% or 60% vs 20% either. But yes, the separate server option doesn't necessarily points to respawn or no respawn in particular.

[Gunmage]

I don't understand, why no one considers the scheme employed by World of Tanks. If your machine is destroyed, you can return to hangar, you can drop again, but the mech you just wasted is unavailable until the match it participates in ends. Alternatively, you spectate on your team until the end of the match. I think it really is the best solution to the "I got myself killed, but i still want to fight" problem.

[Odin]

Greetings gentlemen!
Voted for option 2 the hybrid thing; as I said elsewhere, I can't imagine in a broad way, no respawn would do this game any good. Having no problem with taking Mechwarrior serious - and I even would enjoy it - I think the 20 min game you seem to focus here, cos PGI seems to shoot for this time scale or mentioned it anyway, would ruin everything. We need more time. We need more time for the sophisticated team oriented approach MWO should employ.

Wait 20 minutes if you like - the FNGs coming to MW0 to check it out will laugh or better moan and quit playing. Starting or joining a completely new game on a different server with different players is the end of any immersion. Bad idea. Only way to go IMO is, to encourage players to stay alive and to punish death and respawn. Benefit of it, we can have longer lasting engagements, its less frustrating for noobs and its more fun.




S!

Edited by Odin, 12 January 2012 - 06:22 AM.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

The other matter that doesn't seem to being considered is repair. It has already been stated by many that repair has to be "instant" or people won't play. What people don't seem to be considering is that respawn means multiple damaged mechs. This effectively means that there can't be any great repair costs, or you get "free" mechs in which to respawn. Otherwise after one or two matches in which you lose badly you are left with a load of damaged mnechs you can't afford to repair. This totally throws any attempts at an economy, in particular with regard to merc's - we're their to make a "profit". Could anyone who understands these things better explain to me how these matters can be reconciled?
I voted option 4 simply because to me it has always seemed to me that we have the campaign game and "other".

With regard to" timidity", camping etc, it seems to me that it can be simply solved by setting objectives that mean your teams have to move to certain points/achieve certain conditions otherwise the game becomes a loss for one side without a shot being fired. This is with regard to the "campaign" game.
I'm sure that there can be many different "flavours" for matches outside this.

[Woodstock]

The WoT system works well.

You die ... you exit the match or you watch the match from the view point of your team. If you exit the match your tank (Mech) is locked in the battle until it ends.

There is nothing stopping you taking another Tank (mech) from your garage and joining a different battle.

Yes I know WoT has many many many problems but this system is not one of them.

[Kdogg788]

Not sure why seperate servers was ever an option. This would completely throw off the game balance from those who choose no respawn mainly due to the economy of the game. Would be nice to grab a fresh mech of your choosing whenever, but to be tied to a certain machine for better or worse and to try to protect it was one of the key aspects of the Battletech universe. Pilots were bonded to their mech no matter what that particular machine's strengths and weaknesses were. Heavy and assault mechs should be as hard to come by as in the old game, and their loss would mean you're out of a seat in one for a while. To have a free respawn in a fresh Atlas hands a team an unfair advantage. That said, a team should be given a tactical retreat option where they would lose the match and the chance at monetary gain, but retain their equipment to fight another day.

-k

[RedMax]

How about you shoot at the hoola girl on your control panel and watch her shimmy.
That is while you wait for the next game to start.

Edited by RedMax, 12 January 2012 - 07:07 AM.

[Sug]

Odin, on 12 January 2012 - 06:18 AM, said:

Wait 20 minutes if you like -

Why are we assuming the pacing of the matches will be such that someone will die 1 min into the match? I'm really not getting that feeling from reading the blogs or the interviews yet a couple people have based their posts on a 15-20min wait after you lose your mech.

Omigir, on 11 January 2012 - 11:35 PM, said:

There is no 1 hit wonder weapon for battlemechs.

True there's no one single weapon, maybe a Heavy Gauss hitting a Locust? I really hope they don't include the mechanic that prevents 1-shoting that was in MW4. It was necessary in MW4 because, well that game was awful, but I wouldn't mind if MWO was a little more "true to life".

Large weapons should be devastating on light mechs but most of them are short range so balance/give light mechs the tools to avoid being hit or staying out of range of bigger mechs. I'm hoping combat in this game will take place at something other than 200m.

Edited by Sug, 12 January 2012 - 07:32 AM.

[Breakout]

I've never played World of Tanks, but their method for handling this that others have mentioned seems to be good for me.

[KingCobra]

How about this ok its on waves nomatter the battletype you get holed by a Mech in battle and you die a nifty little animation comes on with you ejecting back towards the dropship then hiting the ground in smaller capsule with rocket boosters then a Swiftwind picks you up takes you back to your dropship for the final scene.All the time the clock is ticking in the main battle this all takes like 2-3 min then you come to a screen to pick up a repalacement Mech like the one you just had.In a 20-30 min battle you get a total of 3-5 mechs if you blow it hey go get a Coke and watch the battle becouse you have a time lock so the remander or the battle time must be met whatever is left of the 20-30 min battle you where in before you can rejoin another battle with that character or acount or if its a team mission the objectives are met.

Edited by KingCobra, 12 January 2012 - 08:37 AM.

[Deamented]

Dlardrageth, on 12 January 2012 - 02:29 AM, said:

You don't need extra hardware, extra expenditure or whatever boogeyman you try to paint on the wall because the "servers" are emulated, aka software entities. Thus the extra upkeep cost you are referring to is pure bull****. You either don't read what the devs released about the game at all or you make things up as you go to serve your line of argumentation, do you? Read up, and get a clue before making **** up, sheesh...

You still need extra time and money to balance the game with more than 1 mode. Yeah, I might of missed the bit about the server because I am human and make mistakes. Oh no. It doesn't change the fact that more servers cost more money because it is harder to balance around more than 1 game mode. So if we have 3 game modes, it is harder to balance the game because every change effect 3 different sets of rules.