600 replies to this topic

[Omigir]

CloudCobra, on 12 January 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Wow i really love how people think saying "no offence" makes it ok to say whatever you want to some one. The therm "pathetic'" is insulting. Also i never said that people would stay at the spawn point and not move. What im worried about is an overly defencive play style becoming the norm.

What basis do you have for your concern? Where are you coming from that you have seen a 'no respawn' enviorment make game where people play over defensive?

<Abrasive statment retracted> Look, im sorry if you were insulted, that was not my intent. The thing im trying to portray, is I do not see what your seeing and as I just said, a better explination so I can understand where you are coming from.


Hell, i dont even see this in paintball, where really: you get hit, you sit out the rest of the match. I have sat out for a good 30 mins between matches becuase i was the frist one out, and still in paintball you have people constnatly 'doing' something. Im not buying what your trying to sell.

Edited by Omigir, 12 January 2012 - 07:21 PM.

[Ravn]

CloudCobra, on 12 January 2012 - 06:04 PM, said:

Wow i really love how people think saying "no offence" makes it ok to say whatever you want to some one. The therm "pathetic'" is insulting. Also i never said that people would stay at the spawn point and not move. What im worried about is an overly defencive play style becoming the norm.

I love sarcasm and lack of comma use; bless your heart I don't think respawn has much to do with play style. I think that would happen if you also included long range one hit kills.

Omigir, on 12 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

Hell, i dont even see this in paintball, where really: you get hit, you sit out the rest of the match. I have sat out for a good 30 mins between matches becuase i was the frist one out, and still in paintball you have people constnatly 'doing' something. Im not buying what your trying to sell.

This is very true. Even in one hit kill games, the team that doesn't push is the team that loses. It's all about gaining positional and fire superiority.

Edited by Ravn, 12 January 2012 - 07:15 PM.

[WMC Gomez]

This topic is easy, no respawn. Since i have not read the entire 16 pages of posts here I don't know how people have reacted, but for the couple i have read, it seems most of the people who support respawns are not die hard battletech fans but ones that are fly by night. I believe this game will have a lot of strategy involved when the match launches and anyone who just runs at the enemy deserves to die and get to sit out. Also I have never seen a mechwarrior game that has no respawns have people sit around at their base waiting for for the other team and not doing anything. Once the shooting starts the matches are usually over pretty fast, unless of course you are the moron who runs head long into 12 enemy mechs and expects to die and just come back.

[Nick Makiaveli]

I've read roughly half this thread and I just want to add one bit to my No respawn vote.

Most of the debate is about the person who died. Sure it will suck to die from a lucky (or well-played) shot, but that's the life of a Mechwarrior. If on the other hand you ran forward like an *****, well here's hoping you learn. I am aware that some of these people will not learn, and will /ragequit and that means less money for the devs. I just hope they strike a good balance. If you can quit to play another match, and forfeit any gains from this match, then that seems fair and balanced. Neither team gets and unfair advantage or penalty, and the choice is up to the player.

I like the idea of no respawns since I believe it will encourage more realistic tactics. Rush to die is a viable tactic only in a few rare situations.

[Nik Reaper]

I would at his point like to again make all the no-respown fans aware of 2 point, WoT is an somewhat accepable playmodel for this isue, WoT has about 3-4 mil players with 2 mil being russian players to who tenks are a national car , not a bad number of players.... LoL has about 30 mil. players, having more than one account an so on makes that number unreliable but 1 person still doesn't make 10 of them. As hungry as all of those who know what this game is, the whole ~200 that voted here + say another 800 who know but just come here to read the updates, want another cult classic?
You might be giving the final sentance to making this a mediocary popular game at best ( up to 4~5 mil after a year, I hope at least ), one could say that this is good... perhaps better then what most Mech games do but this is the reboot, do you want to keep Mechwarrior a cult classic (so that some of you feel special), one that has an new game every 4-5+ years or is it finally time to have this line of games become something of a new standard. I also want a non respown mode, but this discusion is not only you'r personal opinion but an business model, what you think will help the game be popular but still be a good quality game that doesn't promote run, die, respown, do again. So the question is how can you with a sound mind go for option 1 rather than option 4, that seems to cater to both sides, while claming that you care for the well being of the game? (or do you not care as long as you get the cult classic?)

[Khushrenada]

Omigir, on 12 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

What basis do you have for your concern? Where are you coming from that you have seen a 'no respawn' enviorment make game where people play over defensive?

that one is easy: World of Tanks

if you ever played that game you know, that there can be matches that end in a draw, cause none of the still living players try to capture the enemy base, since they know the enemy lies in ambush and awaits them, so they both sit it out untill the time runs out.
actually that happens a lot in that game, so yes, most people DO play more defensive at no-respawn games, especially when they know their tank/mech/whatever will be locked out from other matches untill that last match is over.

on the other hand people rush more and think less on respawn games.

in the end it is all just a question of what gameplay you prefer, both possibilities have their ups and downs and i hope they will implement not just one game mode, but a few and i am pretty sure that both, respawn and no-respawn games will be supported when that happens.

also im pretty sure, that if people will walk away from this game, it wont be because of a respawn or no-respawn game-mode, but due to various other reasons that might or might not occure when this game is released

[Nick Makiaveli]

Khushrenada, on 13 January 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

also im pretty sure, that if people will walk away from this game, it wont be because of a respawn or no-respawn game-mode, but due to various other reasons that might or might not occure when this game is released

Pff we don't need that kind of logical thinking here, what do you think this is?!? A rational forum for people with intelligence!?!?

[Nik Reaper]

Nick Makiaveli, on 13 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Pff we don't need that kind of logical thinking here, what do you think this is?!? A rational forum for people with intelligence!?!?

This guy gets it .

[Khushrenada]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

So the question is how can you with a sound mind go for option 1 rather than option 4, that seems to cater to both sides, while claming that you care for the well being of the game? (or do you not care as long as you get the cult classic?)

easy one:
first, cause we state our own opinion here, and dont want to lay out a business model for this game. everyone wants this game to become in a way that it is enjoyable for HIMSELF. why would i want to play a game that i think is no fun?
some people think of this question here as their key element that decides if they are going to like the game or not, others will find another key element for themselfes... you simply can`t make a game that does everything right for everyone!
just because this thread is so popular atm doesnt mean the question here is going to ruin the game or make it the best of all times

second, im pretty sure the devs already have a business model thought out and this thread might influence them or might not. maybe they already have this whole "issue" covered.

[Khushrenada]

Nick Makiaveli, on 13 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

Pff we don't need that kind of logical thinking here, what do you think this is?!? A rational forum for people with intelligence!?!?

sorry, my mistake

[Nik Reaper]

It is why I sead might (in bold) , and the question is if the cult classic status is not the problem why exactly are you for option 1 and not 4 if they seperate the groups?
I mostly aware that this discution probly makes no difference to the choices the devs make, what I don't understand is the mind of the option 1 voters , in the sence that they would rather bury this to the opscuraty that is had, rather to see it turn in to what it might need to turn to in order to become popular, even though they would still get a mode that gives them what they need...

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

I would at his point like to again make all the no-respown fans aware of 2 point, WoT is an somewhat accepable playmodel for this isue, WoT has about 3-4 mil players with 2 mil being russian players to who tenks are a national car , not a bad number of players.... LoL has about 30 mil. players, having more than one account an so on makes that number unreliable but 1 person still doesn't make 10 of them. As hungry as all of those who know what this game is, the whole ~200 that voted here + say another 800 who know but just come here to read the updates, want another cult classic?
You might be giving the final sentance to making this a mediocary popular game at best ( up to 4~5 mil after a year, I hope at least ), one could say that this is good... perhaps better then what most Mech games do but this is the reboot, do you want to keep Mechwarrior a cult classic (so that some of you feel special), one that has an new game every 4-5+ years or is it finally time to have this line of games become something of a new standard. I also want a non respown mode, but this discusion is not only you'r personal opinion but an business model, what you think will help the game be popular but still be a good quality game that doesn't promote run, die, respown, do again. So the question is how can you with a sound mind go for option 1 rather than option 4, that seems to cater to both sides, while claming that you care for the well being of the game? (or do you not care as long as you get the cult classic?)

Yes we want a success. And again yes, #4 is a reasonable choice. Problem is we are expecting a "minimal viable product" which in of itself is not bad but does seem to indicate that the Dev are focusing ALL resources into a SINGLE ruleset for Launch. The whole Respawn/NH/UA gameplay type has to be balanced as a seperate entity otherwise players will complain (as they always do) that switching between modes it doesn't play the same.

As such ti seems reasonable that the Dev should carry on, gives us Mechs and battlefields and cities in which to fight Lance vs Lance (X3) for Planets with a "Practice Server" that allows for Build Tests or getting ones rust off after a long hietous from driving a BattleMech and focus on the "other" stuff after.

When this "after" is? Whenever it is feasible and perhaps, even profitable.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 January 2012 - 09:03 AM.

[Nik Reaper]

MaddMaxx, on 13 January 2012 - 09:01 AM, said:

Yes we want a success. And again yes, #4 is a reasonable choice. Problem is we are expecting a "minimal viable product" which in of itself is not bad but does seem to indicate that the Dev are focusing ALL resources into a SINGLE ruleset for Launch. The whole Respawn/NH/UA gameplay type has to be balanced as a seperate entity otherwise players will complain (as they always do) that switching between modes it doesn't play the same.

As such I fell the Dev should carry on, gives us Mechs and feils and cities in which to fight Lance vs Lance (X3) for Planets with a "Practice Server" that alloows for Build Tests or getting ones rust off after a long hietous from driving a BattleMech and focus on the "other" stuff after.

When this "after" is? Whenever it is feasible and perhaps, even profitable.

While that does make sence and is politicly correct, the "after" comes after about 1/2 year of relative success, in wich I hope there will be others than the several thousend of pure BT fans that will money fuel the game... just from the perspective that respown games seems to attract more players, quality aside + the 4 option might need some more balancing that a pure option but delay the launch a month rather than create a less than desirable first impression on the new and fastpaced players.

Edit spellcheck.

Edited by Nik Reaper, 13 January 2012 - 09:08 AM.

[Khushrenada]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

but delay the launch a month rather than create a less than desirable first impression on the new and fastpaced players.

wont happen. thats just not how business is done nowadays. products are rather released incomplete than delaying its release to fix stuff.
how many games are released nowadays, that are sometimes hardly playable at all and get patches of several 100MB one or two weeks after?
thats because there are people in the background of large projects, that support the devs with money and they want that product out at the promissed date, to start the cash flowing back in. even if that means releasing an unfinished product.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 09:08 AM, said:

While that does make sence and is politicly correct, the "after" comes after about 1/2 year of relative success, in wich I hope there will be others than the several thousend of pure BT fans that will money fuel the game... just from the perspective that respown games seems to attract more players, quality aside + the 4 option might need some more balancing that a pure option but delay the launch a month rather than create a less than desirable first impression on the new and fastpaced players.

Edit spellcheck.

All we can do is enjoy the Launch and Lobby for what isn't in that we would like to see and hope it gets high up on the new priority list at that time. Stomping of feet and knashing of teeth about stuff that didn't get in on Launch day should be tempered and may even be detremental to that cause though. Some folks do love their stompin' and knashin' though don't they.

One can still hope, just not on the Weeb though. LOL

Edited by MaddMaxx, 13 January 2012 - 09:31 AM.

[Fatty Limes]

Omigir, on 12 January 2012 - 06:58 PM, said:

What basis do you have for your concern? Where are you coming from that you have seen a 'no respawn' enviorment make game where people play over defensive?

Khushrenada, on 13 January 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

that one is easy: World of Tanks

if you ever played that game you know, that there can be matches that end in a draw, cause none of the still living players try to capture the enemy base, since they know the enemy lies in ambush and awaits them, so they both sit it out untill the time runs out.
actually that happens a lot in that game, so yes, most people DO play more defensive at no-respawn games, especially when they know their tank/mech/whatever will be locked out from other matches untill that last match is over.

on the other hand people rush more and think less on respawn games.

in the end it is all just a question of what gameplay you prefer, both possibilities have their ups and downs and i hope they will implement not just one game mode, but a few and i am pretty sure that both, respawn and no-respawn games will be supported when that happens.

also im pretty sure, that if people will walk away from this game, it wont be because of a respawn or no-respawn game-mode, but due to various other reasons that might or might not occure when this game is released

Possible solution to having a draw because the outclassed, don't-stand-a-chance force doesn't want to lose their mechs? Option to retreat. Perhaps for a cost, but a lower one than hiding for ten minutes/giving your enemies experience/paying repair costs.

Edited by Fatty Limes, 13 January 2012 - 09:43 AM.

[Nik Reaper]

There is trouth in that, so to try to surmise, I and I guess most of the option 4 and respown groupe belives that even if most of them would like and prefear the no respown mode (me included) are willing to put up with the respown mode till the first good update, that gives the more classic gaeplay we are used to, so that this game might live a long and glorious life while the rest of you prefear it to remain a small community?
This conclusion comes from the fact that even if there are a bunch of things wrong with the game at it's start all starved fans are willing to stick to it if there is an indication of the problem being fixed eventualy while new players will make the desigion based on the first impresion and if negative, maybe later after it gains a good reputation. So in trouth you could take the respown mode be the first to come out, hopeing to get the classic mode later, as up to this point we know that even option 4 is realy a groupt that compromises for the good of the game likeing norespown, or is it that all option 1 will boycott the game till it gets a option 1 game mode, because if option 1 could take it *****ing and moaning till the point it gets the norespown mode, I would think that the game would do well.

So this thread seems to be going more form should there be 1, 4 or any other to wich one should be the first one to come out, as everything is posible at an later point.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 09:43 AM, said:

There is trouth in that, so to try to surmise, I and I guess most of the option 4 and respown groupe belives that even if most of them would like and prefear the no respown mode (me included) are willing to put up with the respown mode till the first good update, that gives the more classic gaeplay we are used to, so that this game might live a long and glorious life while the rest of you prefear it to remain a small community?
This conclusion comes from the fact that even if there are a bunch of things wrong with the game at it's start all starved fans are willing to stick to it if there is an indication of the problem being fixed eventualy while new players will make the desigion based on the first impresion and if negative, maybe later after it gains a good reputation. So in trouth you could take the respown mode be the first to come out, hopeing to get the classic mode later, as up to this point we know that even option 4 is realy a groupt that compromises for the good of the game likeing norespown, or is it that all option 1 will boycott the game till it gets a option 1 game mode, because if option 1 could take it *****ing and moaning till the point it gets the norespown mode, I would think that the game would do well.

So this thread seems to be going more form should there be 1, 4 or any other to wich one should be the first one to come out, as everything is posible at an later point.

And most are guessing No-Respawn gets the nod as first out. I among them based onm the info we have at this time. An indepth "Information Warfare" component being a very LARGE indicator of that.

[Gorith]

Nik Reaper, on 13 January 2012 - 08:34 AM, said:

I would at his point like to again make all the no-respown fans aware of 2 point, WoT is an somewhat accepable playmodel for this isue, WoT has about 3-4 mil players with 2 mil being russian players to who tenks are a national car , not a bad number of players.... LoL has about 30 mil. players, having more than one account an so on makes that number unreliable but 1 person still doesn't make 10 of them. As hungry as all of those who know what this game is, the whole ~200 that voted here + say another 800 who know but just come here to read the updates, want another cult classic?
You might be giving the final sentance to making this a mediocary popular game at best ( up to 4~5 mil after a year, I hope at least ), one could say that this is good... perhaps better then what most Mech games do but this is the reboot, do you want to keep Mechwarrior a cult classic (so that some of you feel special), one that has an new game every 4-5+ years or is it finally time to have this line of games become something of a new standard. I also want a non respown mode, but this discusion is not only you'r personal opinion but an business model, what you think will help the game be popular but still be a good quality game that doesn't promote run, die, respown, do again. So the question is how can you with a sound mind go for option 1 rather than option 4, that seems to cater to both sides, while claming that you care for the well being of the game? (or do you not care as long as you get the cult classic?)

.I would point that if the game sticks true to it's roots in that it will be more simulation than action you cannot hope to get nearly the numbers of LoL or TF2 even with insta-respawn. Simply put it's not going to be frenetic enough for the majority of the online gamer demographic to stick around. However there are enough tactical and simulation gamers and enough people who want something truly different to make it successful. The problem is if you make large concessions to attract massive ammounts of people alot of those people I mentioned will also not want to stick around. I have said it several times make a game that is quality and targets a certain niche audience they will come out of the woodwork and that trying to do something similar and compete with these well established games just simply will not work.

[BatWing]

My 2cs...

I played MW for years in the past, involved in Planetary attacks and just Unit skirmishes. I guess the unserw lies in the ROE settings.

Depending on the Drop. If you are dropping for a high-sim combat, planetary attack, where everything counts and will be reported to the Resources and what else involved in the MMO scenario, you better know what you do.

Besides the fact is difficult to say how long a well played match can last, each one has a vital role. Each team has a limited number of players dropping, in the past we played mostly 6 vs 6 or 8 vs 8 matches. There was a massive team cooperation and training before dropping. The "game" was serious stuff.

When you die, you die. you gotta get your responsability. It is fair, unfair.. whatever, you are down, your team is one less and stuff get rough.

This is to me the only way to play Mechwarrior when it comes to Planetary Assaults or recorded battles.

Then you have friendly skirmishes, training battles, other environments not counting toward the Universe War, there you set your rules and you play the way you like.