600 replies to this topic

[LordKnightFandragon]

Ok, so my question is how is salvage going to work? This will be a PVP game, so if you kill a players mech are you somehow going to get a chance to salvage his/her mech and then they are without it? Obviously, I think that would be a no, but otherwise, how is 'salvage' going to work? Are there going to be like bays and mission objectives to complete and the rewards are Cbills and weapon salvage and stuff? They going to do something like Shogun 2 where you begin with your set stash of default gear and have to win certain battles and obtain the rest? I am all for salvage but if there isnt any PVE, I dont see how it would work....

[Refizul]

Basically my idea was that you can drive out to your mech and if you manage to bring it back the repair cost are lower. You could even do that for your teammates and every enemy mech brings a C-Bill bonus. But as I said above the people that want to just shoot stuff would probably not enjoy something like that.

Anyway, I highly doubt that at release anything like that will be in the game.

[Omigir]

LordKnightFandragon, on 17 January 2012 - 07:05 AM, said:

Ok, so my question is how is salvage going to work? This will be a PVP game, so if you kill a players mech are you somehow going to get a chance to salvage his/her mech and then they are without it? Obviously, I think that would be a no, but otherwise, how is 'salvage' going to work? Are there going to be like bays and mission objectives to complete and the rewards are Cbills and weapon salvage and stuff? They going to do something like Shogun 2 where you begin with your set stash of default gear and have to win certain battles and obtain the rest? I am all for salvage but if there isnt any PVE, I dont see how it would work....

Wrong topic my freind, there are lots of other topics that go down the rabbit whole on PVE and Slavage. Right now, this topic, is all about respawn my friend.

[MaddMaxx]

A question that comes to mind when folks speak about Leaving a Match and joining another, under even the Campaign mode is?

If you joined as a member of a Team but then leave after getting knocked out, despite the fact we know the Dev will pay out to only those left (unless that changes) doesn't that next game place you in the Lone Wolf category?

So can a player be a House member or a Merc Corp member and a Lone Wolf?

The only way that Leaving one game and Joining another (unless your House/Merc Corp is involved) is going to happen, is if your affiliation can somehow change on the fly and I can't see how it would even be possible.

And if the next game is a House/Merc that you are a member of, juming from game to game never seeing the end of one will earn your House or Corp no XP/C-Bill resources for your participation, until the last game you play in that session. ????? not seeing the Logic in that at all.

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 January 2012 - 08:24 AM.

[zorak ramone]

Omigir, on 17 January 2012 - 04:22 AM, said:

I am still waiting on a pro 'Free Spawn' person to come up with a system that supports Mech Maintenance/after match repairs as well as does not degrade Amo limitation and Information Warfare.

Legitimately

I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind, I only played NR in MW4 and absolutely believe that it must exist in MWO. I also think that it is possible to have a respawn mode that is good/not the idiotic mode we had in MW4.

====

First of all it is necessary for there to be control points (i.e. bases or locations that can be captured) that move the spawn positions up or backward (depending on who captures), or end the game. This means that there is a tactical objective to the game, not just mechs lining up and shooting each otehr. It also means that there is a reward for advancing on, flanking and overrunning dug in defenders. In MW4 it just meant that it would be easier to kill you when they respawned.

How to design maps with points to keep the flow of the game interesting and balanced for lights vs heavies is another discussion, but to address your points its sufficient to assume that there are locations to defend and capture with rewards for doing so.

====

MECH MAINTAINANCE/AFTER BATTLE REPAIRS

Dealing with mech maintainance/repairs after battle is obvious for no-respawn, but it can be done for respawn as well.

Imagine a system wehre you earn the cBill value of mechs destroyed and build up debt based on the value of your mech. You might also award cBills for capturing points, spotting enemies as a scout, assisting kills, etc. If repair stations are included on control points, then repairing should add to debt, but not as much as dying and respawning. At the end of the match, you recieve, in cBills, the balance of cBills earned vs cBills lost. These cBills are used to buy new mechs, upgrade mechs, etc.

For example, take a Banshee BNC-5S (95 ton beast with XL engine) costing ~26m cBills and a 3025 era Locust costing ~2m cBills. In a one on one situation, the Banshee has to kill the locust 13 times without dying just to break even. Conversly, the locust can die 13 times before killing the Banshee and still break even.

Now, lets imagine a team setting. If someone blindly charges a control point over and over after respawning, they will build up a huge debt. To take the Banshee example again, every time I die, I add 26m to my debt. I need to do 26m worth of damage in each life to break even. It is unlikely that blind charges into entrenched positions will earn that money back. On the other hand, if the team coordinates itself, uses scouts to spot the enemy, flanks and routes the denders and captures the point, then chances are I'll either live, repair at the base, and make a hefty profit, or die but make a profit/break even due to assisting my team with the capture. If I'm in the locust, or even a medium, chances are even better that I'll come out on tip.

So in short, you can abstract maintainance and repair by tracking cBill values of destroyed components/mechs over a match vs the amount of cBills earned by destroying enemy mechs and by mission bonuses.

========

AMMUNITION LIMITATION

I don't see how this is a problem with respawn. In my experience from MW4 no respawn, NR matches were usually short and brutal. Sure, in some situations (seige warfare, skirmishing with extreme range mechs, etc) you could burn through alot of ammo, but usually, an extra ton of ammo was enough to last the match.

In respawn I imagine the situation would be the same except that if you survive an initial engagement, you have to be ready for the next wave. Therefore, low ammo models (especially heavy AC infighters) would need to carry more ammo even more than in no-respawn. If repair bays are provided on capture points, ammo dumps could also be included, and the cost of re-arming could be subtracted from your mission total cBills, just as it could be in NR.

==========

INFORMATION WARFARE

For this, I would refer back to my first example with the Banshee and the Locust. The main thing is that if you make sure that death actually costs something in terms of the cBills (stand-in for XP) at the end of the match, then information warfare becomes important not just for winning the match, but for doing it efficiently.

For example say I'm on base defense in some kind of infighter (lets say a modified Orion, or a Hunchback), and I have a scout mech teammate (say a Raven or a Locust). The enemy team is attacking with a pair of heavy/assault mechs.

Given the radar model described by the devs so far, I can hide in ambush in the base, while the scout goes out and spots them for me. If the enemies are doing the stupid blind charge with no electronics, then I will be able to see them and they won't be able to see me. This could potentially allow me to sneak into their rear arc, with harassing support/distraction from the scout and kill or cripple both of them once they enter the base. After destroying them, assuming the bases aren't too close, the scount and I could go and repair/reload before the two heavys attack again after respawning. If they keep this up, we are going to rack up a huge cBill profit while the respawn and charge guys will be massivly in debt.

Therefore, this is an example of how information warfare could still be a factor in respawn play, assuming capturable bases, and sufficient distance between said bases. I could think of more examples, but I think one is enough to show the principle.

=======

In summary, the respawn gameplay of past MW games was idiotic and without tactics. However the inclusion of an XP/cBill system for making deaths cost something, and objective based gameplay would allow for strategy and tactics, including economy of repair/maintainance/ammunition, and information warfare.

[Omigir]

I think that there will be multiple missions going on that are house driven. Meaning, your team is only doing 1 off multiple house davion missions, and if you die, and you exit out there are still other house davion missions going on. So.. kinda sorta?

as far as XP/C-bill rewards, I think you should be entittled to what you got during the match, nothing more. If you mannage to stick it out through the whole match I would like to see 'end of match' bonuses. nothing super big, but enough that might make you feel a little better about watching for 15 mins.

[Khushrenada]

MaddMaxx, on 17 January 2012 - 08:20 AM, said:

A question that comes to mind when folks speak about Leaving a Match and joining another, under even the Campaign mode is?

If you joined as a member of a Team but then leave after getting knocked out, despite the fact we know the Dev will pay out to only those left (unless that changes) doesn't that next game place you in the Lone Wolf category?

So can a player be a House member or a Merc Corp member and a Lone Wolf?

The only way that Leaving one game and Joining another (unless your House/Merc Corp is involved) is going to happen, is if your affiliation can somehow change on the fly and I can't see how it would even be possible.

And if the next game is a House/Merc that you are a member of, juming from game to game never seeing the end of one will earn your House or Corp no XP/C-Bill resources for your participation, until the last game you play in that session. ????? not seeing the Logic in that at all.

i am not sure why some people think that those who leave a game after beeing shot down will get no xp`s or c-bills?
as long as you are in a game you can by what ever means get xp`s and cash, when you are down and leave a match those stats of you will simply be calculated in the match result and you get your rewards. just cause you leave doesnt mean you never were in that match and didnt contribute to your teams win/loss.

also why do i have to become a lone wolf for joining another fight? i am still a house member and even if i leave that one fight, there will be plenty fights from that house for other planets i can join/will be joined by the system.

forcing payers to stay in that match and watch it until it is over really might become an issue to drive people away, not the respawn/no respawn question. as long as people can jump right into the next fight after they died (how ever they realize that), this whole discussion is probably absolutely overrated.

Edited by Khushrenada, 17 January 2012 - 09:01 AM.

[MaddMaxx]

Omigir, on 17 January 2012 - 08:43 AM, said:

I think that there will be multiple missions going on that are house driven. Meaning, your team is only doing 1 off multiple house davion missions, and if you die, and you exit out there are still other house davion missions going on. So.. kinda sorta?

as far as XP/C-bill rewards, I think you should be entittled to what you got during the match, nothing more. If you mannage to stick it out through the whole match I would like to see 'end of match' bonuses. nothing super big, but enough that might make you feel a little better about watching for 15 mins.

That is not what is currently be proposed by the Dev and is why I even brought it up. The Leaving and taking with you what you earned in that Match though, is doable but again helps defeat the Carrot vs Stick thought process the Dev hope to employ.

Another draw back, and totally unavoidable by the Dev of course, is if a Lance went in and one of the 4 is a LW and he/she moves on to another fight, it would in all intense and purpose break that team up until the end of the Match the solo fellow found and is now in, assuming he/she does better in that one than the last, we now have 3 players waiting instead of the one had they all stuck together. Only LW's can solo into any Match right?

That is what I see as a good thing to give out rewards after the Match to those who hung tough as a Team no matter the composition.

I would note that I will not face that issue myself. I just forsee it as an in game issue overall...

Edited by MaddMaxx, 17 January 2012 - 09:18 AM.

[Omigir]

Wow! way to step up to the plate! A good read but some issues I see, over all a good read and pretty well thought out!

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

I'll give it a shot. Keep in mind, I only played NR in MW4 and absolutely believe that it must exist in MWO. I also think that it is possible to have a respawn mode that is good/not the idiotic mode we had in MW4.

====

First of all it is necessary for there to be control points (i.e. bases or locations that can be captured) that move the spawn positions up or backward (depending on who captures), or end the game. This means that there is a tactical objective to the game, not just mechs lining up and shooting each otehr. It also means that there is a reward for advancing on, flanking and overrunning dug in defenders. In MW4 it just meant that it would be easier to kill you when they respawned.

How to design maps with points to keep the flow of the game interesting and balanced for lights vs heavies is another discussion, but to address your points its sufficient to assume that there are locations to defend and capture with rewards for doing so.

Ok cool, I think the map flow is pretty standard from what most of us are thinking we will get. Objective based missions so its what most are planning around. Though I do not think we are going to get a BF3 Rush like game mode as Devs have stated in that we will not see a mutiple mission set, though as usual Devs have a vegue fortune teller way of things. Not that it wouldnt be fun. After all these are 15-20 minute matches per the Dev Blogs.

There are also other ways to protect a drop zone, I think the most cannon way, is put a Drop Ship dead center of it. Just a side thought.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

====

MECH MAINTAINANCE/AFTER BATTLE REPAIRS

Dealing with mech maintainance/repairs after battle is obvious for no-respawn, but it can be done for respawn as well.

Imagine a system wehre you earn the cBill value of mechs destroyed and build up debt based on the value of your mech. You might also award cBills for capturing points, spotting enemies as a scout, assisting kills, etc. If repair stations are included on control points, then repairing should add to debt, but not as much as dying and respawning. At the end of the match, you recieve, in cBills, the balance of cBills earned vs cBills lost. These cBills are used to buy new mechs, upgrade mechs, etc.

For example, take a Banshee BNC-5S (95 ton beast with XL engine) costing ~26m cBills and a 3025 era Locust costing ~2m cBills. In a one on one situation, the Banshee has to kill the locust 13 times without dying just to break even. Conversly, the locust can die 13 times before killing the Banshee and still break even.

Now, lets imagine a team setting. If someone blindly charges a control point over and over after respawning, they will build up a huge debt. To take the Banshee example again, every time I die, I add 26m to my debt. I need to do 26m worth of damage in each life to break even. It is unlikely that blind charges into entrenched positions will earn that money back. On the other hand, if the team coordinates itself, uses scouts to spot the enemy, flanks and routes the denders and captures the point, then chances are I'll either live, repair at the base, and make a hefty profit, or die but make a profit/break even due to assisting my team with the capture. If I'm in the locust, or even a medium, chances are even better that I'll come out on tip.

So in short, you can abstract maintainance and repair by tracking cBill values of destroyed components/mechs over a match vs the amount of cBills earned by destroying enemy mechs and by mission bonuses.

The first thing I have to say, is every time some one says anything for 'Yes Respawn' The first thing they say is that a 'noob' or new player would be frustrated at having to wait so long for his first death and not having a respawn is a harsh punishment. On the other side of that coin, a new player who continualy spawns, and dies, is not going to be the same guy who is racking up enough C-bills to pay for his losses. He is going to come out of a match, no mater what mech he is in, with little to no kills, and hte kills he does have, are not going to cover his losses. It is unlikely he will have enough time on objectives or any other rolls to aid his wallet. True, a training room where he can learn the game/missions/objective types before he starts puting his wallet at risk, but at that same time, he can do the same thing for a no respawn match where he can with out penalty learn that a death ends a match for you, no mater how soon or late it comes.

Still, Players who are 'not skilled' are going to constantly be coming up short and the players who are skilled are going to always have more C-bill then they know what to do with. The game will unbalance quickly and expensive mechs will become a dime a dozen. Fast way to de-value your market.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

========

AMMUNITION LIMITATION

I don't see how this is a problem with respawn. In my experience from MW4 no respawn, NR matches were usually short and brutal. Sure, in some situations (seige warfare, skirmishing with extreme range mechs, etc) you could burn through alot of ammo, but usually, an extra ton of ammo was enough to last the match.

In respawn I imagine the situation would be the same except that if you survive an initial engagement, you have to be ready for the next wave. Therefore, low ammo models (especially heavy AC infighters) would need to carry more ammo even more than in no-respawn. If repair bays are provided on capture points, ammo dumps could also be included, and the cost of re-arming could be subtracted from your mission total cBills, just as it could be in NR.

The most underused perk/skill in CoD MW3 is probably 'extended mag' and then further more only players who constantly go 20/2 use scavanger. Other wise these perks/abuilities are never used becuase you dont use them. Also amunition costs, due to them always having ammo in thier guns will just set those players back further as they will run dry/dye, rins repeat. They would be better off with loosing out the first time they day, licking their wounds and moving on to the next mission or just waiting for their team. Or 3 mech's and your out, that way your repairs and costs are limited to just three chassies.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

==========

INFORMATION WARFARE

For this, I would refer back to my first example with the Banshee and the Locust. The main thing is that if you make sure that death actually costs something in terms of the cBills (stand-in for XP) at the end of the match, then information warfare becomes important not just for winning the match, but for doing it efficiently.

For example say I'm on base defense in some kind of infighter (lets say a modified Orion, or a Hunchback), and I have a scout mech teammate (say a Raven or a Locust). The enemy team is attacking with a pair of heavy/assault mechs.

Given the radar model described by the devs so far, I can hide in ambush in the base, while the scout goes out and spots them for me. If the enemies are doing the stupid blind charge with no electronics, then I will be able to see them and they won't be able to see me. This could potentially allow me to sneak into their rear arc, with harassing support/distraction from the scout and kill or cripple both of them once they enter the base. After destroying them, assuming the bases aren't too close, the scount and I could go and repair/reload before the two heavys attack again after respawning. If they keep this up, we are going to rack up a huge cBill profit while the respawn and charge guys will be massivly in debt.

Therefore, this is an example of how information warfare could still be a factor in respawn play, assuming capturable bases, and sufficient distance between said bases. I could think of more examples, but I think one is enough to show the principle.

I think your a little confused on Information warfare or how it would be affected. Lets say you got a lone Med out there, he gets blind sidded and really does not have the best idea of wher it came from, he can spawn and head back over there and with his first hand knowledge, have a far better idea of what he is looking for, finding that 'hidden thret' then if he was just done and out and trying to verbaly explain what happend.

also, the strategy of hunting down an aponent's lights to remove them from play for an upper hand would be less effective and removes part of the strategy from matches. Lights come back a few seconds latter and next thing you know your advantage is gone before you can effectivly use it. Also, players that are using a 'rush' tactic wont need lights to scout, they will die, spawn and then know where the enemy is and use their weight advantage (because they are all in 'attack' mechs and press. Over all at that point they would win due to the fact that they didnt need a light becuase they relied on a fluff machanic to find out where the enemy was. At that point, just givet hem back their MW4 raidar, its esentialy the same thing and information warfare really wont have a purpose any more when people can just throw more tonnage at the problem.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 08:41 AM, said:

=======

In summary, the respawn gameplay of past MW games was idiotic and without tactics. However the inclusion of an XP/cBill system for making deaths cost something, and objective based gameplay would allow for strategy and tactics, including economy of repair/maintainance/ammunition, and information warfare.

I say to you, in ernist, it is not enough. Respawn is just the first step in the path that lead us to MechAssault. It still, even with your machanics, will by its very nature reduce the effectiveness of all the points given. Your ideas, while they help midigate this 'fluffy' factor, do not prevent it. That is like putting bubble gum in the leaks of a dam. Good ideas though, and thank you for having enough balls and brains to step up and put something down, more than anybody else has done.

[Khushrenada]

MaddMaxx, on 17 January 2012 - 09:11 AM, said:

Another draw back, and totally unavoidable by the Dev of course, is if a Lance went in and one of the 4 is a LW and he/she moves on to another fight, it would in all intense and purpose break that team up until the end of the Match the solo fellow found and is now in, assuming he/she does better in that one than the last, we now have 3 players waiting instead of the one had they all stuck together. Only LW's can solo into any Match right?

hmm i am not sure if i got you right there...

as i read some time ago, lone wolfes will be used to fill up house teams. so that team of yours were 3 people to begin with when they started into that match. they got the LW to be a full lance. so if the LW leaves the fight, they are only back to the state where they started.
in the next match they will get another LW by the matchmaking system of some sort.

also i dont think house players and LWs can form teams to begin with, if they could, they wouldnt be LWs, they were technically mercs.

but it is hard to say with this little infos we have atm. in the end most of it are assumptions...

[TheRulesLawyer]

For me its pretty simple. No respawn limits your audience. Waiting around to play again isn't *fun* to the majority of people. It also makes playing together with friends difficult as people finish matches at different times.

I know, I know death has to mean something. Given the choice between fun and death meaning something I know which one I'll choose.

[MaddMaxx]

Khushrenada, on 17 January 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

hmm i am not sure if i got you right there...

as i read some time ago, lone wolfes will be used to fill up house teams. so that team of yours were 3 people to begin with when they started into that match. they got the LW to be a full lance. so if the LW leaves the fight, they are only back to the state where they started.
in the next match they will get another LW by the matchmaking system of some sort.

also i dont think house players and LWs can form teams to begin with, if they could, they wouldnt be LWs, they were technically mercs.

but it is hard to say with this little infos we have atm. in the end most of it are assumptions...

I was assuming a campaign drop where 4 Mechs are required and have to be pre-arranged and you can't find another LW filler. That is worse case though...

[Kodiak Jorgensson]

Omigir, on 16 January 2012 - 10:16 AM, said:

Ok, for those filters to do you any good, you have to have something to filter first. I dont think, unless they make difrent 'levels' of missions, that faction warfare will provide a large veriety in reguards to spawns/nospawns. At that ping they may as well provide missions that have unlimited amo and no heat too.

Now.. In solaris, if it happens like we all want then yes, you are absolutly right.

we know theres a contract system which could provide diffrent mission propteries which could be filtered. why? just becasue theres re-spawn? dont see any games that have respawn system in place to allow thoes kind of options.

ASSUMEING they implement a re-spawn system theres nothing stoping you from playing no-respawn games. anyway im just throwing arround some thaughts i like to have some options when playing a game.

[Omigir]

Kodiak Jorgensson, on 17 January 2012 - 10:41 AM, said:

we know theres a contract system which could provide diffrent mission propteries which could be filtered. why? just becasue theres re-spawn? dont see any games that have respawn system in place to allow thoes kind of options.

ASSUMEING they implement a re-spawn system theres nothing stoping you from playing no-respawn games. anyway im just throwing arround some thaughts i like to have some options when playing a game.

I got a feeling you wont have very much controll on what kind of mission you get when you sign up for one. Perhaps if you are looking for a party to jump in with, then you can start filtering. Other than that, I dont see it being you pick and choose contracts. That is just me though.

I also think 'respawn' and 'no respawn' have a place mixing players. A pilot in 'respawn' will have allot more of an advantage then a 'no respawn' player who has been playing for just as long. That would cause an unbalance in xp/c-bills bills over time and would likely start giving way to a grinding mentality just to try and compete in a PVP orented enviorment.

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 January 2012 - 09:52 AM, said:

For me its pretty simple. No respawn limits your audience. Waiting around to play again isn't *fun* to the majority of people. It also makes playing together with friends difficult as people finish matches at different times.

I know, I know death has to mean something. Given the choice between fun and death meaning something I know which one I'll choose.

Looking at the pole, 'respawn' as 'fun' is a minority. Most people express that they will enjoy themselves more if its 'no respawn.' Also, people that enjoy CoD, do not enjoy it for the same reason they would enjoy Mechwarrior. So to bring up any FPS is folly. WoT and EvE are much closer examples to a Sim game and what it means to play a sim let alone what players who play sims enjoy about them, vice a FPS.

and when I say sims, i do not refer to 'the sim' but simulation games.

[TheRulesLawyer]

Omigir, on 17 January 2012 - 11:13 AM, said:

Looking at the pole, 'respawn' as 'fun' is a minority. Most people express that they will enjoy themselves more if its 'no respawn.' Also, people that enjoy CoD, do not enjoy it for the same reason they would enjoy Mechwarrior. So to bring up any FPS is folly. WoT and EvE are much closer examples to a Sim game and what it means to play a sim let alone what players who play sims enjoy about them, vice a FPS.

and when I say sims, i do not refer to 'the sim' but simulation games.

Well, if you add up the categories that allow some form of respawn its really pretty even. You have to remember that people here on the forums now are a very hardcore crowd and not indicative of the overall audience. In released games respawn type games tend to be more popular.

I'm not sure why you brought FPS in this, but MMO is going to much closer to the FPS end of the spectrum than the wow or eve end. A heavy persistent world doesn't look like its in the cards. We're looking at a match lobby FPS with some persistent fluff tacked on. I know some people are still holding onto the hope that MWO is going to be a full on MMORPG or something. Its not realistic in the time frame they have and all the dev comments I've seen point to something about WOT with clan wars in complexity (plus or minus a bit of course)

[zorak ramone]

Omigir, on 17 January 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

Wow! way to step up to the plate! A good read but some issues I see, over all a good read and pretty well thought out!

And I appreciate your well thought out response.

Quote

Ok cool, I think the map flow is pretty standard from what most of us are thinking we will get. Objective based missions so its what most are planning around. Though I do not think we are going to get a BF3 Rush like game mode as Devs have stated in that we will not see a mutiple mission set, though as usual Devs have a vegue fortune teller way of things. Not that it wouldnt be fun. After all these are 15-20 minute matches per the Dev Blogs.

There are also other ways to protect a drop zone, I think the most cannon way, is put a Drop Ship dead center of it. Just a side thought.

I didn't play BF3, but I did play BF2142 quite a bit. I'm not sure what BF3 Rush is like, but is it anything like the control point mode of BF2142? My one big criticism of BF2142's control point game was the fact that you could capture any point at any time. To me, this kind of degraded teamwork (at least in pick up games) as it scattered the battle all over the map. I'd much prefer a system that was a hybrid of BF2142 and of TF2: basically, that in order to capture a certain point, you have to capture one or another points before it. This would create battle fronts and concentrate people ... even in pick up games. You could even go with multiple paths instead of the straight linear model in TF2.

As for dropships, completely agree. I was actually thinking the same thing. One of the problems with BF2142 (and MWLL, so I've read, but not played) is that when one team gets pushed back into their spawn, it becomes a camp fest to run out the clock. A dropship would solve this problem in two ways: 1) An overlord packs a ridiculous amount of firepower, even in 3025 and would make spawn camping dangerous, 2) the attacking team could destroy the dropship to end the match quickly.

Quote

The first thing I have to say, is every time some one says anything for 'Yes Respawn' The first thing they say is that a 'noob' or new player would be frustrated at having to wait so long for his first death and not having a respawn is a harsh punishment. On the other side of that coin, a new player who continually spawns, and dies, is not going to be the same guy who is racking up enough C-bills to pay for his losses. He is going to come out of a match, no mater what mech he is in, with little to no kills, and the kills he does have, are not going to cover his losses. It is unlikely he will have enough time on objectives or any other rolls to aid his wallet. True, a training room where he can learn the game/missions/objective types before he starts puting his wallet at risk, but at that same time, he can do the same thing for a no respawn match where he can with out penalty learn that a death ends a match for you, no mater how soon or late it comes.

Still, Players who are 'not skilled' are going to constantly be coming up short and the players who are skilled are going to always have more C-bill then they know what to do with. The game will unbalance quickly and expensive mechs will become a dime a dozen. Fast way to de-value your market.

I've seen the "noobs will be discouraged" argument, and that is actually not an argument I would make (I outline my reasons for wanting a respawn mode at the end).

Still to make things easier on the "noobs" you could make it so that a negative balance at the end shifts to a zero balance so that progress from prior games doesn't get erased. Another possibility is to make STOCK mechs available to everyone (which stock mechs depends on the house), but if you want a custom mech, you have to save up money to buy it. E.g. if you are in/fighting for Marik you can pick either a stock Hermes, Hunchback, Orion or Awesome (all bread and butter Marik mechs), but if you want to customize it, you have to earn cBills, buy it, and then earn cBills to maintain and customize it.

This would allow noobs to play with everyone, but allow skilled players to earn something unique. Anyway, just an idea.

Quote

The most underused perk/skill in CoD MW3 is probably 'extended mag' and then further more only players who constantly go 20/2 use scavanger. Other wise these perks/abuilities are never used becuase you dont use them. Also amunition costs, due to them always having ammo in thier guns will just set those players back further as they will run dry/dye, rins repeat. They would be better off with loosing out the first time they day, licking their wounds and moving on to the next mission or just waiting for their team. Or 3 mech's and your out, that way your repairs and costs are limited to just three chassies.

Everything depends on the amount of ammunition you give per ton, the cost of ammunition, and the cost of respawning. If respawning costs you nothing (and if it takes no time to get back into the battle after respawning), then of course you'll choose to reload (and repair) by dying and respawning.

However, if respawning costs you something more than reloading (like say, the cost of the mech vs the cost of the ammunition, which should be millions vs tes of thousands of cBills), then you will choose to reload. Furthermore, if reloading is difficult either because it takes time (e.g. go to reloading bay/repair bay, shut down for 10 seconds) or because the reloading points are scattered, and if you don't get a huge amount of ammo per ton, then people will choose to take more tons of ammo.

I see your point RE: CoD and the extended mag perk, but I think that these things can be fixed all by shifting parameters to make it more cost effective to bring more tons of ammunition.

Quote

I think your a little confused on Information warfare or how it would be affected. Lets say you got a lone Med out there, he gets blind sidded and really does not have the best idea of wher it came from, he can spawn and head back over there and with his first hand knowledge, have a far better idea of what he is looking for, finding that 'hidden thret' then if he was just done and out and trying to verbaly explain what happend.

Sure, but if the battle is fluid (control points, not MW4's firing lines) and it takes time to get back into the fight after you respawn, then chances are that this Med won't be able to use the information that he got by dying.

For example, lets say the med can run at 80kph (thats trebuchet/wolverine/griffin speed), and the spawn point is ~1km from the battle front (may be a bit farther to the control point ... probably 1km + LRM/PPC range). Lets also assume that respawn time can be affect by mech cost ... so for a 5m cBill mech, make it 5x2 seconds. Thats 55 seconds to get back into battle (10 seconds + 45 seconds for a 80kph mech to go 1km). The mech(s) that killed you are probably not going to be in the same place.

Of course, the time it takes to get back into battle can be modulated by changing spawn point distances and respawn time penalties by tonnage/cost/etc.

Quote

also, the strategy of hunting down an aponent's lights to remove them from play for an upper hand would be less effective and removes part of the strategy from matches. Lights come back a few seconds latter and next thing you know your advantage is gone before you can effectivly use it. Also, players that are using a 'rush' tactic wont need lights to scout, they will die, spawn and then know where the enemy is and use their weight advantage (because they are all in 'attack' mechs and press. Over all at that point they would win due to the fact that they didnt need a light becuase they relied on a fluff machanic to find out where the enemy was. At that point, just givet hem back their MW4 raidar, its esentialy the same thing and information warfare really wont have a purpose any more when people can just throw more tonnage at the problem.

Again, most of these problems can be fixed as I described above: modulate respawn times and distances between points to affect how long it takes a respawned mech to get back into the fight. The key question is how long is long enough so that the information you got by dying is useless, more or less, when you get back to the battle? I don't know the answer, but it can be solved by play testing, and things like respawn times are easy to change after release.

I do agree that the whole "hunting down the lights" thing won't be the same as NR. A NR game will by its nature have no defined fronts while a respawn game will. Incidentally, thats one of the reasons why it might be good to have both game styles: NR simulates a single engagement between two units, with freedom of movement. Respawn (with control points) simulates massive battles between companies of mechs. Different strategies and tactics exist for both game types.

Quote

I say to you, in ernist, it is not enough. Respawn is just the first step in the path that lead us to MechAssault. It still, even with your machanics, will by its very nature reduce the effectiveness of all the points given. Your ideas, while they help midigate this 'fluffy' factor, do not prevent it. That is like putting bubble gum in the leaks of a dam. Good ideas though, and thank you for having enough balls and brains to step up and put something down, more than anybody else has done.

Believe me, I hate the idea of mechassault as much as you do. However, I do think that there are reasons why a respawn game type should exist.

First of all, as I described earlier, it simulates a different kind of battle with different kinds of tactics. There are definitely some strategies for NR that simply can't exist in a respawn environment. However, there may be strategies that can exist in respawn environment that don't (or usually won't) exist in a NR environment: specifically, I'm thinking seige, fixed point defense and attack (NR games, in my experience are fluid), geurrilla warfare (with respawn there are now "supply lines" of respawning mechs) ... thats just off the top of my head.

Secondly, I think its necessary for a broader audience. In MW4, I played in NR-only leagues with an organized team (if you know/care: in UTS, we were HRR, in NBT-Mercs we were Clan Burrock, and then GDL). I love NR, and wouldn't have played MW4 any other way. Its been 10 years. I've gotten older and now have a wife and baby, and my job has become more demanding (have some downtime to post today! yay!). For gaming, I like to be able to sit down for a hour, kick it around, and then quit. If I'm watching the baby while my wife is sleeping, I don't know how long I have till he wakes up. I'm sure I'm not the only mechwarrior in this situation.

Although I love NR, respawn is more condusive to pick up play. I think it would help everyone (Hardcore, league-oriented NR players, and casual pickup gamers alike) if there were more options.

[LtMom]

It would be nice if you could eject and then sabatoge/hijack the other teams/enemy mechs. I cant wait to play, regardless of how it is set up..

[Omigir]

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I didn't play BF3, but I did play BF2142 quite a bit. I'm not sure what BF3 Rush is like, but is it anything like the control point mode of BF2142? My one big criticism of BF2142's control point game was the fact that you could capture any point at any time. To me, this kind of degraded teamwork (at least in pick up games) as it scattered the battle all over the map. I'd much prefer a system that was a hybrid of BF2142 and of TF2: basically, that in order to capture a certain point, you have to capture one or another points before it. This would create battle fronts and concentrate people ... even in pick up games. You could even go with multiple paths instead of the straight linear model in TF2.

As for dropships, completely agree. I was actually thinking the same thing. One of the problems with BF2142 (and MWLL, so I've read, but not played) is that when one team gets pushed back into their spawn, it becomes a camp fest to run out the clock. A dropship would solve this problem in two ways: 1) An overlord packs a ridiculous amount of firepower, even in 3025 and would make spawn camping dangerous, 2) the attacking team could destroy the dropship to end the match quickly.

I never played 2142, and I regret BF3… I am slowly growing to dislike EA very much and very close to avoiding all their games. But that is neither here nor there.

That game type Would be a good mission. It would work in both No Respawn and Respawn very well and I can see that as a way of having a long but very fun game. In some ways, it might be better for Respawn game mechanics.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

I've seen the "noobs will be discouraged" argument, and that is actually not an argument I would make (I outline my reasons for wanting a respawn mode at the end).

Still to make things easier on the "noobs" you could make it so that a negative balance at the end shifts to a zero balance so that progress from prior games doesn't get erased. Another possibility is to make STOCK mechs available to everyone (which stock mechs depends on the house), but if you want a custom mech, you have to save up money to buy it. E.g. if you are in/fighting for Marik you can pick either a stock Hermes, Hunchback, Orion or Awesome (all bread and butter Marik mechs), but if you want to customize it, you have to earn cBills, buy it, and then earn cBills to maintain and customize it.

This would allow noobs to play with everyone, but allow skilled players to earn something unique. Anyway, just an idea.

I, from what the Devs have said in the blogs, that is pretty much what I figured, stock base mechs that are always available. (which ones, no one really knows) Dropping a player down to 0 would work but only in the absence of anything better for Respawn. Really, you would do more for that pilot to let him come away with just a beat up mech and a few less C-bill’s rather than having nothing, and unlikely to really pull himself out of a hole if he is constantly on the bottom.

As much as I feel dirty for saying this, but its almost helping him out more to cut him off before he drags himself under. This is all opinion I guess, but I just feel like if you let a player ‘rush’ over and over, they will keep doing it, and will settle for 0 every time. In essence you have what is called a feeder at that point who is assisting the other team who are going to just eat this kind of player alive.
I could be wrong, and I hope I am… unfortunately there are people this dumb and stubborn out there..

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Everything depends on the amount of ammunition you give per ton, the cost of ammunition, and the cost of respawning. If respawning costs you nothing (and if it takes no time to get back into the battle after respawning), then of course you'll choose to reload (and repair) by dying and respawning.

However, if respawning costs you something more than reloading (like say, the cost of the mech vs the cost of the ammunition, which should be millions vs tes of thousands of cBills), then you will choose to reload. Furthermore, if reloading is difficult either because it takes time (e.g. go to reloading bay/repair bay, shut down for 10 seconds) or because the reloading points are scattered, and if you don't get a huge amount of ammo per ton, then people will choose to take more tons of ammo.

I see your point RE: CoD and the extended mag perk, but I think that these things can be fixed all by shifting parameters to make it more cost effective to bring more tons of ammunition.

MW4 did this, they gave you more amo per ton. MW4 is also acclaimed to be the most arcade like of all the MW series, and most don’t even bother to mention MA (which as we all know is not really a game… but a sick joke by bill gates)

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sure, but if the battle is fluid (control points, not MW4's firing lines) and it takes time to get back into the fight after you respawn, then chances are that this Med won't be able to use the information that he got by dying.

For example, lets say the med can run at 80kph (thats trebuchet/wolverine/griffin speed), and the spawn point is ~1km from the battle front (may be a bit farther to the control point ... probably 1km + LRM/PPC range). Lets also assume that respawn time can be affect by mech cost ... so for a 5m cBill mech, make it 5x2 seconds. Thats 55 seconds to get back into battle (10 seconds + 45 seconds for a 80kph mech to go 1km). The mech(s) that killed you are probably not going to be in the same place.

Of course, the time it takes to get back into battle can be modulated by changing spawn point distances and respawn time penalties by tonnage/cost/etc.


I do agree that the whole "hunting down the lights" thing won't be the same as NR. A NR game will by its nature have no defined fronts while a respawn game will. Incidentally, thats one of the reasons why it might be good to have both game styles: NR simulates a single engagement between two units, with freedom of movement. Respawn (with control points) simulates massive battles between companies of mechs. Different strategies and tactics exist for both game types.




Believe me, I hate the idea of mechassault as much as you do. However, I do think that there are reasons why a respawn game type should exist.

Yeah, I can see these above points. The only way to really protect these game dynamics is to separate No respawn and Respawn. But then you come into the problem of Respawn providing more XP per match due to the more frequent engagements… that is another matter all together though.

zorak ramone, on 17 January 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

First of all, as I described earlier, it simulates a different kind of battle with different kinds of tactics. There are definitely some strategies for NR that simply can't exist in a respawn environment. However, there may be strategies that can exist in respawn environment that don't (or usually won't) exist in a NR environment: specifically, I'm thinking seige, fixed point defense and attack (NR games, in my experience are fluid), geurrilla warfare (with respawn there are now "supply lines" of respawning mechs) ... thats just off the top of my head.

Secondly, I think its necessary for a broader audience. In MW4, I played in NR-only leagues with an organized team (if you know/care: in UTS, we were HRR, in NBT-Mercs we were Clan Burrock, and then GDL). I love NR, and wouldn't have played MW4 any other way. Its been 10 years. I've gotten older and now have a wife and baby, and my job has become more demanding (have some downtime to post today! yay!). For gaming, I like to be able to sit down for a hour, kick it around, and then quit. If I'm watching the baby while my wife is sleeping, I don't know how long I have till he wakes up. I'm sure I'm not the only mechwarrior in this situation.

Although I love NR, respawn is more condusive to pick up play. I think it would help everyone (Hardcore, league-oriented NR players, and casual pickup gamers alike) if there were more options.

I don’t always have the most time either; I do not have a family but I’m military with a wonky schedule that always seems to screw me out of ops and missions in Eve. So I won’t say I see completely eye to eye. I almost want to suggest ‘Solaris’ for casual play but at that same time, I think everyone that wants to should be able play in the faction warfare. On another thread they suggest a game mode that wold let you plan a planetary raid up to 3 – 6 days out with full logistic planning and such and you don’t get to drop unless you sign up on it.. I don’t have that kind of time. : \

So.. you sold me. But at that same point I would like to sell a hybrid. Start of match, you pick 1 – 4 (or another number) of mechs in your stable, or all noob mechs. If they all go down then you are sol… then again, you did spin a pretty good picture. You made something work that nobody else has been able to do.

[Elizander]

After you get blown up you can run around the map and break a few crates with a crowbar until you uncover another mech to use. I think that this will be the most ideal solution to this problem.

[Omigir]

TheRulesLawyer, on 17 January 2012 - 11:29 AM, said:

Well, if you add up the categories that allow some form of respawn its really pretty even. You have to remember that people here on the forums now are a very hardcore crowd and not indicative of the overall audience. In released games respawn type games tend to be more popular. I'm not sure why you brought FPS in this, but MMO is going to much closer to the FPS end of the spectrum than the wow or eve end. A heavy persistent world doesn't look like its in the cards. We're looking at a match lobby FPS with some persistent fluff tacked on. I know some people are still holding onto the hope that MWO is going to be a full on MMORPG or something. Its not realistic in the time frame they have and all the dev comments I've seen point to something about WOT with clan wars in complexity (plus or minus a bit of course)

No idea where you got 'WoW' from in any of this. No one here has ever staed 'we want wow'.. good way to get linched. Nor am I advocating a persistant world in this thred.

The reason I brought up FPS game type is those games tend to lean more towards no penalty free respawn, which is the game time I am most against. It does not work well in a simulator, especialy a BTU/MW simulator. Read back over the last few mega posts and you will see some good arguments for both sides.

As far as WoT is concenrned, it works, and it works very well as it is a popular game. It also is allot close to a mech game, then oh say.. BF3 or MW3 which ware the prime FPS games currently.

Mechwarrior is not, by its very nature, a FPS. Yes, it is First person, and you shoot, but its still classified as a simulation game.