600 replies to this topic

[Nik Van Rhijn]

MaddMaxx, on 20 January 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

As to #1

Assuming the Repair costs will be Universal across any and all game modes, how many people will be able to lose more than one Mech per outting, or why would anyone play a mode, in this case, Limited Respawn if they cannot generate enough c-bills to cover the losses incurred? We are talking millions of C-Bills per unit lost to replace or repair back to Battle ready status.

As to #2

Perfect.

As to #1 - I just summarised what people had said - Without comment on it's feasiblity
Personally I agree with you. The assumption seemed to be that all these respawns would for some reason be "free" to "improve gameplay". Shrug.

[MaddMaxx]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 January 2012 - 07:31 AM, said:

As to #1 - I just summarised what people had said - Without comment on it's feasiblity
Personally I agree with you. The assumption seemed to be that all these respawns would for some reason be "free" to "improve gameplay". Shrug.

And if did not affect the Campaign "area" then even that would be acceptable. I know you know we are getting a thin product to start. Almost anything will be game after that I would assume, Dev's purogitaive of course.

[Dihm]

FYI, according to the playtest after-action report that was given to NGNG to talk about on their latest podcast, respawn is in.

At least for the current testing mode.

[Nik Van Rhijn]

Like everyone else - I just want a playable game ASAP - don't mind if it's a buggy open Beta. I enjoy hunting/documenting bugs. Used to do it on a big data base - I was usually the first to "break it" with an unexpected "feature"
Edit;Thanks Dihm - at least thats settled for the moment

Edited by Nik Van Rhijn, 20 January 2012 - 07:47 AM.

[Dihm]

What isn't settled is what mode they were playing. I'm guessing Team Deathmatch.

No Respawn for Conquest? One can hope.

[MaddMaxx]

Dihm, on 20 January 2012 - 07:45 AM, said:

FYI, according to the playtest after-action report that was given to NGNG to talk about on their latest podcast, respawn is in.

At least for the current testing mode.

I would not read to much into that. When the Dev's play they play their way. Why would they not just want to keep fighting to see how things are going on in game. Simple code switches that can be set from ON to OFF...

P.S. I don't care either way, but fighting for territory on Planets, with Respawn, will be the death knell for me though. Any other mode, go nuts. :|

[Khushrenada]

Nik Van Rhijn, on 20 January 2012 - 05:17 AM, said:

I think it is going to depend in part on how many "game modes" we are going to have available. I think a majority want no respawn in the "campaign game". I think the majority would accept some kind of respawn in any other mode. The other thing that will affect matters heavily is the cost of repairs. If you have just started playing and you get wiped out 5 times with heavy damage - how are the repair costs allocated.
I think that at the least there should be another two modes. 1) Limited respawn with repair costs, XP and LP. 2)Practice or training mode with multiple respawns, no costs, no XP/LP.
Is this a reasonable summary of the last 29 pages (leaving out all detail)?

its actually exactly what i would prefer to how the game handles things.
but i guess we have to wait on more dev input on that matter.

MaddMaxx, on 20 January 2012 - 07:02 AM, said:

As to #1

Assuming the Repair costs will be Universal across any and all game modes, how many people will be able to lose more than one Mech per outting, or why would anyone play a mode, in this case, Limited Respawn if they cannot generate enough c-bills to cover the losses incurred? We are talking millions of C-Bills per unit lost to replace or repair back to Battle ready status.

hmm assuming a mech would cost 9mio c-bills, i guess no one actually is planning to make the repair costs as high as several mio c-bills...
which would be realistic, but not a good way to handle it ingame. you would have to give people way too much c-bills for their matches to keep the mechs running. way too much currency would be in the game.
assume one player is able to make 2 matches without dying. he would have like 10 mio income just by 2 matches and can buy another mech. not a good idea.
if you are going to buy a new mech, it should take you some time to get the money together, without going bankrupt cause of 2 bad matches.

so the only way to handle this in a reasonable manner would be to make the repair costs like 30k and give out like 60k for a won match (depending on what the player achieved the earnings would vary of course). for a lost match the earnings should at least cover your repairs.
anything else is going to drive people away really fast, since its just too frustrating.
i know it is by no means realistic, but as i said actually the only way.

[Dihm]

That's exactly why I put the caveat in there about "at least in the current testing mode".

It does SEEM to imply that one of the modes has respawn.

[MaddMaxx]

Dihm, on 20 January 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

That's exactly why I put the caveat in there about "at least in the current testing mode".

It does SEEM to imply that one of the modes has respawn.

You were stirring the Pot and you know it.

[LordKnightFandragon]

ilontor, on 10 January 2012 - 10:25 AM, said:

How i would fix that problem:
'Mechs only seem to be finished.

A massive blow and a lack of armor send your Scout'mech to the ground, the pilot has a 'black out' for 5 minutes or so.
After that time he can still fight with his 'Mech, although it is heavily damaged. Perhabs even without ammunition, because of intern explosions, whatsoever.

As a part of information warfare, 'Mechs need better equipment / a high pilot skill to tell a seemingly dead 'Mech from a real dead.

What? Like last stand in CoD? Oh god no...once your *** is down for the count your down, none of this back from the grave BS....

I vote for no Respawning period....you die, oh well, you screwed up, you got bested...you lose, your dead. If waiting till the match is over is the penalty then I guess you will try harder next time eh? I also vote for the spectator mode, but no talking, viewing only and then only friendlies....Ofc, its been said that will be circumvented by Vent and other stuff but that I guess is just an unavoidable flaw in that plan and thats why id vote for friendly viewing only...

[Dihm]

MaddMaxx, on 20 January 2012 - 07:55 AM, said:

You were stirring the Pot and you know it.

Just sharing new info and promoting the NGNG podcast actually.

[Chuckie]

MaddMaxx, on 20 January 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

P.S. I don't care either way, but fighting for territory on Planets, with Respawn, will be the death knell for me though. Any other mode, go nuts. :|

Again this is where I think the time loss/repair/cost factor comes in for a respawn. That keeps the game proper for fighting for a planet.

Why a death knell..? MOST MW games have had respawn anyway..

Simply I think your mechs take damage from day one, that you live with or pay to get fixed from drop to drop.

That said, stay in an instance to the end and you get enough C-bills to repair for the next drop.

I think the make F2P not be P2W, and NOT be a grind, having to pay for repairs, upgrades, ammo, etc.. makes sense. Those without money grind, those that want to support pay to keep thier mech fixed and maintained.

It doesn't even make it about the person with the most money wins.. because if your good you don't get hurt and dont have to spend money to repair. Or if you have loyalty point those go towards upgrades, etc.. because unlike a Merc you have Mechanics and Mech Bays supported by and paid by the house or faction your a member of.

As for "losing" your mech.. I think that could happen too.. if you die and leave an instance your team loses. Your mech is thier scrap, and vice versa. This encourages teams to trade mechs, and parts, etc.. and work together and stay together as teams. That said this probably wouldn't get into the game as new players wouldn't get it and just be pissed they lost their mech. Unless there was a minimum amount of C-bills or you could only come back so often to get a new mech without paying $$. Kind of like the social games where you can only work so much on your "farm/City/Little Pony" for a day without paying up in some way with a microtransaction.

[Chuckie]

LordKnightFandragon, on 20 January 2012 - 08:04 AM, said:

I vote for no Respawning period....you die, oh well, you screwed up, you got bested...you lose, your dead. If waiting till the match is over is the penalty then I guess you will try harder next time eh?

Then nOOb gets fed up with this holier than though approach, because he isn't very good. Leaves and talks bad about the game.

You guys HAVE to realize this is a F2P... it should be fun to keep people engaged. People are NOT engaged when they have to leave a team they took 15 min to find, in 5 min and do it again.

Thats a recipe for the game to be only enjoyable by the core fans.. a F2P can't win with just core fans, especially if its not a Fantasy MOORPG. It has to be enjoyable to the casual gamer and the hard core MW/BT Fan.. and sorry that will include respawn of some sort.

[Gorith]

Chuckie, on 20 January 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Then nOOb gets fed up with this holier than though approach, because he isn't very good. Leaves and talks bad about the game.

You guys HAVE to realize this is a F2P... it should be fun to keep people engaged. People are NOT engaged when they have to leave a team they took 15 min to find, in 5 min and do it again.

Thats a recipe for the game to be only enjoyable by the core fans.. a F2P can't win with just core fans, especially if its not a Fantasy MOORPG. It has to be enjoyable to the casual gamer and the hard core MW/BT Fan.. and sorry that will include respawn of some sort.

I think you are wrong. You can enjoy a no respawn as a casual... I think your refering to the people who if they are not engaged at all times will be bored.... Since this is going to be a slower game with more tactical and simulation elements than a run'n'gun I think those people will leave anyway so why put in less simulation oriented mechanics for a group that wont stay in the first place.

Again This game cannot try to be a FPS like TF2 or BF if they try that the game will die.... Simply if they are to much like an established game people wont play because the established ones in F2P already have the playerbase and are more attractive to the casual person because of that fact.

[Khushrenada]

Chuckie, on 20 January 2012 - 09:50 AM, said:

Again this is where I think the time loss/repair/cost factor comes in for a respawn. That keeps the game proper for fighting for a planet.

Why a death knell..? MOST MW games have had respawn anyway..

Simply I think your mechs take damage from day one, that you live with or pay to get fixed from drop to drop.

That said, stay in an instance to the end and you get enough C-bills to repair for the next drop.

I think the make F2P not be P2W, and NOT be a grind, having to pay for repairs, upgrades, ammo, etc.. makes sense. Those without money grind, those that want to support pay to keep thier mech fixed and maintained.

It doesn't even make it about the person with the most money wins.. because if your good you don't get hurt and dont have to spend money to repair. Or if you have loyalty point those go towards upgrades, etc.. because unlike a Merc you have Mechanics and Mech Bays supported by and paid by the house or faction your a member of.

As for "losing" your mech.. I think that could happen too.. if you die and leave an instance your team loses. Your mech is thier scrap, and vice versa. This encourages teams to trade mechs, and parts, etc.. and work together and stay together as teams. That said this probably wouldn't get into the game as new players wouldn't get it and just be pissed they lost their mech. Unless there was a minimum amount of C-bills or you could only come back so often to get a new mech without paying $$. Kind of like the social games where you can only work so much on your "farm/City/Little Pony" for a day without paying up in some way with a microtransaction.

well... you always talk like "people will leave this game when they don`t get respawn", but what you suggested there is almost a guarantee to drive people away, most of all the new ones.

they get into a game, get killed cause they are new to game and don`t know how things work. now their mech is scrap or that much damaged, that they need to pay real money to get it fixed again... that won`t be frustrating for new players?
new players also won`t have that loyality points, they would need for those repairs.

also your game model is very costly for those who really want to play the game. nothing much left of F2P. having a set amount of matches i can play without paying? that is almost P2P for those who spend a lot of their time playing.

also, those Battletech games you mentioned were "simple" deathmatch games only, no objectives, no territory warfare, just plain spawn and shot what you see games. nothing that has anything long lasting in them, so actually that reference is a bit out of place.
for a solaris mode, or practice mode, why not, bring respawn on, but for territory warfare? hell, no!

besides the argument about driving people away with no respawn is growing old... as a matter of fact it is nothing than covering up that you want the game as YOU think it is enjoyable. if so, just state it, but don`t make this pointless assumptions about people going to abandon the game cause of one detail about it!
i know not all people speak their mind in a forum and only a minority of the whole player base is voting on something, but even so if you take a bunch of people and let them vote on something you get an average opinion, you can then multiply that result and get what a bigger group would have voted.
that is how it is done in real life, in economics, everywhere. it is valid (though might have its flaws, but in overall it works), so look at the voting and you see what the majority wants. how can you tell that people gonna leave this game when most of them going to want it that way?
so stop putting that one argument up time after time. speak your own thoughts and not what others might think... CAUSE YOU DON`T KNOW!

[MaddMaxx]

Dihm, on 20 January 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Just sharing new info and promoting the NGNG podcast actually.

"Bazinga"

[Omigir]

Chuckie, on 20 January 2012 - 09:55 AM, said:

Then nOOb gets fed up with this holier than though approach, because he isn't very good. Leaves and talks bad about the game. You guys HAVE to realize this is a F2P... it should be fun to keep people engaged. People are NOT engaged when they have to leave a team they took 15 min to find, in 5 min and do it again. Thats a recipe for the game to be only enjoyable by the core fans.. a F2P can't win with just core fans, especially if its not a Fantasy MOORPG. It has to be enjoyable to the casual gamer and the hard core MW/BT Fan.. and sorry that will include respawn of some sort.

I answer you with a quote from the past.

Omigir, on 14 January 2012 - 08:49 AM, said:

As a side bar note, THE GAME SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER SACRIFICE ITS GAME PLAY TO MAKE ITSELF 'MORE PLAYABLE'
<Microsoft did this and that is how we got Mechassault. >

People that suggest a 'respawn' because they think people wont come play should probably just leave... really. If this were at all true, no one would play WoT or EVE or any other simulator game. And all of these games are thriving and are actually expanding.

So take a step back, take a look at what 'Mechwarrior: Online' is. Take note, it is not CoD, Battlefeild, Socom or any other FPS. It is a mech piloting simulator game.

It is not going to be a game, from the get go, that all people can just jump into be automatically good and have everything. There will be a learning curve. That does not mean a new player is going to die the first time, and they will quit.

If that were the case, the first lost match because they sucked and rushed over and over in a respawn game, they would still quit. After a score of like 2 and 30 they definitely would have as much chance of sticking around if they had 0/1. Particularly when they get out of that 2/30 game and had to pay to have their mech repaired 30 times.

And lastly, 'new players' will have a disadvantage compared to vets no mater what the game style, vets will always know what is going on before a new player. They will also have XP vetted mechs and pilots. So are you going to ask that they take away XP from Mechs and Pilots too so New players wont quit?

Also, I strongly susspect that there will be Difrent game modes that do/do not support respawn. I hope that the faction warfare section will *NOT* be respawn. This is becuase I know, even with the previous conversations that work out allot of the problems between me and Zorak, i still would be disapointed in this.

Dihm, on 20 January 2012 - 07:52 AM, said:

That's exactly why I put the caveat in there about "at least in the current testing mode". It does SEEM to imply that one of the modes has respawn.

Did the podcast mention anything abour after match repair mechanics?

[Chuckie]

Khushrenada, on 20 January 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

well... you always talk like "people will leave this game when they don`t get respawn", but what you suggested there is almost a guarantee to drive people away, most of all the new ones.

I did say that probably wouldn't get in..

Khushrenada, on 20 January 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

besides the argument about driving people away with no respawn is growing old... as a matter of fact it is nothing than covering up that you want the game as YOU think it is enjoyable. if so, just state it, but don`t make this pointless assumptions about people going to abandon the game cause of one detail about it!

OK apparently you haven't queued or looked for a team to play (especially if only certain levels play certain levels.. ala WoW).

I can envision something I ran into a lot especially on other MMOs. Take 10-30 mins to find a group to play in an instance.. then you play 5 minutes and die (especially if you don't have a place to play in a sandbox and learn the game (ALA MW:LL).. so now you get to wait 25-30 min for this group to finish to play again, or spend another half hour looking for a group.

Yea that would work well.. that would keep new people to the BT/MW universe interested in the game and have them want to stay around.. ESPECIALLY if there is no place to walk around.

It's simply common sense.. Casual players, and many other regular gamers only have a few hours to play. So your saying it I have a choice to play a game I am active in for 3 hours, or a game I get to play maybe a third of the time or less because I have to find a group or que the rest of the time because I am new to the game.. I will choose the other game. That in the end will kill this game.

In todays day and age, people have less time to spend on games. NO ONE will want to "play" a new game if all they do is look for groups to play with and que... over 50% of the time. To think otherwise is just simply shortsighted, its common sense. I know I wouldn't play MW:LL as much as I do it I had to wait up to the hour between matches..

Khushrenada, on 20 January 2012 - 10:27 AM, said:

so stop putting that one argument up time after time. speak your own thoughts and not what others might think... CAUSE YOU DON`T KNOW!

Dude.. you need to chill..

I think I have been speaking my own thoughts.. and NO ONE will KNOW really anything until we have a game to play.. so right now we are just kicking around ideas..

And what ONE argument..? I put up a whole game mechanic I think would work keeping people active in the game and still make respawning not desirable over death.

It not just about new players, its about players staying immersed and excited in and about the game. Which no one will do sitting in a queue.

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 11:22 AM, said:

THE GAME SHOULD NEVER EVER EVER SACRIFICE ITS GAME PLAY TO MAKE ITSELF 'MORE PLAYABLE'

No one is saying to sacrifice game play to make more playable..

I think not respawning maybe fun for those campers and assissians. But some of us like to play, and would score a 7 out of 10 for how well we play. So I see no reason to not have some dynamic that allows it, and allows players to be engaged with thier lance and with the game.

I think its sacrificing game play to not have spawning, just so better players can feel better about themselves by being "king of the hill". Which is what it really comes down too..

It also comes down to I would rather play an 20 min game and respawn 1-2 times, or an hour long game and respawn 4-5 times.. than die, wait 15 min, Reboot into new instance wait 3 min to sync, die in 5 min, wait 15 min.. repeat.

Its NOT ENJOYABLE to sit in a queue, it does nothing for my experience to sit and wait for the game to spend 2-3 min to sync and launch an instance.. I am in the game to PLAY the game.. its that simple.

Edited by Chuckie, 20 January 2012 - 11:34 AM.

[Omigir]

Chuckie, on 20 January 2012 - 11:23 AM, said:

[...] .. ala WoW). [...]

ala EVE and WoT n__n lots of people play both, and people PAY TO PLAY EVE while WoT is Free to play!

WoW is a difrent kind of game that is no where even close to a Simulator.

And I doubt its going to take that long to find a game to play in.

[Chuckie]

Omigir, on 20 January 2012 - 11:30 AM, said:

ala EVE and WoT n__n lots of people play both, and people PAY TO PLAY EVE while WoT is Free to play!

WoW is a difrent kind of game that is no where even close to a Simulator.

And I doubt its going to take that long to find a game to play in.

WoW Is different, but the queuing issue is true no matter what style of game it is.. if anything queuing can take longer in a simulator game due to map size.

Its like anything else, to be successful they will want to immerse the players into the game.. NOT immerse them in a queue.

Remember as far as we are aware right now there won't be any place to walk around, no worlds/ships to explore on your own, no sandbox to play in, so you are either in game or in a queue.

Now IF a nOOb is already part of a team/lance/group then he will have to wait for them to get out of the game. If he isn't he won't get to meet and develop relationships with anyone in the game if he can't be active in anything but the instance and dies quickly because he is a nOOb.

As for optional no spawn areas.. I don't have a problem with that. But whatever the rules are they have to be the same no matter what for instances that actually affect the "World"..

In Arenas, I can see having a choice to spawn or not.. but not in instances.

Those are things to consider is all.

Edited by Chuckie, 20 January 2012 - 11:49 AM.