103 replies to this topic

[mekabuser]

I sensed a bit of elitism from the NR crowd upon release of game type info. THere was a bit of "only NR should earn xp , leave the other type for the not so serious crowd" really>?
Does anyone want to die in game>? Are we not all trying to do our best in a game when it launches?
Its not as if the gametype is unlimited respawn, its a total of 3 or four, cant remember. THats hardly the same as going 0 and 12.

FOr one, IMO, I think that the multi drop is far more tactically advanced than NR anyway. THere are more variables for each pilot to take into account and therefore more options tactically for the commander.

Should I drop with a scout first? or is our battleplan to engage with heavies first for a maximum initial push?
DO I need to perhaps sacrifice an assault in order to establish a flank for my team?
Should half the team run mediums for a blitzkrieg type assault.
These are just three hypotheticals that illustrate the tactical variables that arise in multidrop.
Not to mention the gameflow and tactical dynamics that arise from multidrop. Many here wished we could have larger scale battles i.e. 24 v 24 etc. WEll , this is one way to simulate a larger scale conflict

Secondly, you know what i hate about wot, and the reason I never got into it is because its game start, 4 minutes later game over.At least thats the quick game feature that I played. WHeres the fun in that? where are the evolving tactics over the course of a match>?
This is an older, waaaaaaaaay older community , with wives who like to ask questions and ask you to do things when its mech time. That doesnt go over to well in a NR enviroment. At least in a 3drop you can loose a mech and still return to the fight 5 minutes later .
Not to mention there are going to be alot of really good pilots out there, and many more not so good.
Having NR be the only place to earn xp is going to be a ragequit experience for many who get taken out "like that", then have to sit and wait for next game , rinse and repeat. Sure that will work for some noobs, but i think it would turn the majority of them away from the game.

Finally, a 3drop gives this "older " community a solid mech fix for the day. ONe would have to think a three drop would last 20,30,40 minutes. Enough time to get your mech on, enough time on the battlefield to learn something and gain experience. A satisfying experience, where you can kill and be killed within the context of a larger battle without having all the WTH just happened if you happen to make one wrong move and wind up dead in a second
<Dont want to hear about "playing smarter" things happen in game , not always to your advantage, especially if you are a proactive player. Alot of the playing smarter crowds origins are within the tactical handbook of. "oh.. im a gonna just stand way back here and let everyone else die whilst I take potshots at my leisure">
I could go on and on about this, but to be pigeon holed into having to play NR for xp is not my cup of tea.
To be quite honest, I think the NR crowd is a minority, a very vocal one along the lines of the OMG pinpoint accuracy crowd!!!
IDK if you even earn half xp, No xp is wrong.

[That Guy]

You deffinatly should get some BIG bonus for not needing a respawn. more bonus than having to repair only one mech instead of 4
also it would beawesome if the round ends if you killoff the entire enemy team before the next respawn occurs, netting you a huge bonus to xp cash and whatnot.

and having a long respawn timer will also keep the tactical feel of the game intact with out it degrading to say a round of MW4 w/ respawn. say every 5 min the dropships will fly by and dose the drop. in a 20-30 min game that should be a good balance of chances to get back into the action vrs running to ones death.

the biggest problem with the drop however, is a great chance to simply devolve into some muddled cluster F* of leroys aimlessing running around with out any rudimentary command or control (for the random quick matches) as with pretty much every respawn type game.

i really dont see why a dropship round would get you less XP, or no XP however

[HUEY350]

How about an XP boost if you the last man standing, and you get a few kills?

[mekabuser]

having played mwll , a modern mw title for the last several years, I can tell you its not leroys running around, some people just arent that good at this kind of combat game. Additionally, a 5 min respawN? sry but the 30 second timer is by far much worse than you can imagine most of the time. 5 minutes is equivalent to "see you later"
I would also imagine if you are the last guy standing you would get a big bonus xp wise. With artillery and a commander tho, I think there would be far fewer chances to come through a multidrop unscathed since no matter how cautious you are, any commander worth his salt would target you.

[Dlardrageth]

Very simply - NO!

Not even adressing pure conjecture like "the NR crowd is a minority", not really worth replying to, but there is a very simple reason why "earn XP like" is pretty much ridiculous. No matter that I personally likely won't play the "3 drop mode" much or at all, it simply would be totally unbalanced if you could earn XP the same way when you have triple the Mechs and thus TRIPLE potentially armor, firepower and opportunity to make XP.

You want to earn XP? Fine. But I don't see why PGI should cater to you wanting an EzMode to get the same amount of XP in that very EzMode. While people who'd get XP in a "no respawn" mode have to work potentially three times as hard for the same amount. Because they have only one Mech at hand as opposed to your three to make XP with. When their Mech dies, there ends their earning of XP. While you happily exploit the other 2 Mechs you have waiting for you to continue getting XP? I'd be tempted to call you delusional that PGI would totally throw out the reward balance like you suggested, if I didn't have the impression that you didn't quite think this through.

It might somewhat work if you get only one third of the XP in the "3 drop" mode, but that's about it. Even the "half XP" you suggested would be giving the "3 drop" mode a completely uncalled for advantage.

If PGI followed your suggestion, they would pretty much kill the "no respawn" mode they themselves introduced with much diminshed rewards in comparison. Don't think they really plan on shooting themselves in the foot like that.

And let's assume the "3 drop" mode really gets no XP rewards. Even then, if you only want to play with respawns, who is preventing you from that? Noone is forcing you at gunpoint to earn XP in the first place. Apparently you don't need XP to pilot a Mech, otherwise you'd never get started in one. So it'S your choice if you want to earn any or not, just like it is PGI's choice if they want to give out XP rewards in one game mode or in all. You wrote quite a bit about "tactical this" and "tactical that" there. A very basic tactic is to adapt to the circumstances. So if PGI decides to grant XP only in the "no respawn" mode, you can adapt... or not.

Or you can of course just whine...

Edited by Dlardrageth, 10 March 2012 - 06:51 PM.

[Zarkan]

Unfortuantly if they want NR not to be a ghost town they probably will need to make multi-drop games either reward no c-bills/xp or 1/6th or less the amount NR games award. Simple fact is most casual players neither like or are used to games without respawns and your going to have to punish them sharply to drive them to the NR servers.

[Nick Makiaveli]

Wow. I never saw this coming.

I don't see this as exploit territory. So they earn more XP in the same time frame. We don't know how long it takes to get dropped, how far from the "frontlines" etc.

And even if it is "EZ" mode, so what? This basically is the same thing as you having 5 hours a day to play vs me having 30 minutes a day. It's just as fair. The 3-spawn mode is there if you want to use it.

Another example that springs to mind is the cash shop. What if they offer XP boosts? Sure some will gripe that that is OP as well. Run both and you can level up and have mad skills on your character. So?

FTR I am married, have a kid and a job. I won't be playing hours a day even on weekends. I also have a 401K that is starving to death so I doubt I will be pouring buckets of cash into this either. Some yes, but not direct depositing my checks to my MWO account. Yet you don't hear my crying about the CS not being fair etc.

[Dlardrageth]

Nick Makiaveli, on 10 March 2012 - 07:02 PM, said:

We don't know how long it takes to get dropped, how far from the "frontlines" etc.

Exactly, like I stated in my first post, mostly pure conjecture. Could as well be quicker to get into the fight there. Or not.

Not sure what the cash shop suddenly has to do with anything related to the topic but okay, whatever. If you don't want any balance in the reward system, then I'd just boldly suggest that in "no respawn mode" you get ten times as many XP as in the "3 drop" one for the same actions. Why? Because I can.

About as good an argument as any other made so far.

Edited by Dlardrageth, 10 March 2012 - 07:20 PM.

[Shepherd]

Well for starters I think it's a little premature to be worried about the relative XP gain or C-Bill gain in the different game modes. We know very little about XP gain and C-Bill gain in the first place.

That said: Why is it exploitative to earn more XP/money in a game mode that realistically will take longer and/or will demand more resources? Let's consider C-Bill gain per mission for now. In No Respawn mode, you're risking a single chassis for the potential gain you'll get for the mission - presumably you'll get some contract payout, plus bonuses perhaps. And you're of course hoping that what you gain is enough to cover ammo expendatures, armor repairs, replacement weapons, plus a little extra to save up for a new chassis down the line. We'll sum that number up as "X." In No Respawn you want to earn X amount of money. In the dropship mode, you're risking 3 times the amount you risk in No Respawn, as you have 3 chassis queued up for the battle. Certainly cases will exist across a spectrum of "oh crud I got all 3 of my mechs blown to kingdom come" all the way to "I just aced that match and we won without me taking serious damage to even a single one of my chassis. But the potential exists for you to lose all 3 chassis, which means you'd need 3 times "X" in order to make it a safe investment to take that contract and make the drop in the first place, right? So where is the sense in saying "Dropship mode is EZmode and players should have zero or restricted rewards for that mode?"

As far as XP gain goes, I think it's a far harder call, as you don't have the repair bill facing you at the end of the match when considering XP gain like you do with C-Bill gain. There's no standard of exactly what number you must earn in order to at least break even if things go horribly wrong. But in general, XP is typically tailored roughly to time spent playing. You're supposed to be able to earn XP at such and such a rate per hour played. And it shouldn't really matter a whole lot what mode you're playing in. Most games dole out XP per successful event - killing a target, completing a quest, finding a widget.. whatever - and they pace their gameplay such that those events happen at an appropriate rate and award an appropriate amount of XP such that the end result is the average player earning XP at the rate they have planned for.

So the TL,DR version here is that the game modes shouldn't be penalized simply because of the lack of or availability of respawns. It's all a reward based on time invested in the product. Whichever mode lasts longer will earn more XP. And whichever mode requires more of an economic risk will earn more economic gain.

[mekabuser]

Lol.
Was just starting a topic over the position I saw put forth by some in the no respawn crowd. THey said" no xp for anything other than NR"
And it was said in the style and manner of le wild response here.
Its a funny topic. There are those who think NR will be ghost town, I dont think quite that, but I think they might be one third ..

I mean , will 3 nr games be about equivalent to 3drop game timewise? etc. If you ask me, time on the BF is time on the battlefield.
Perhaps.... NR games can earn u specific types of xp? who knows..
Just wanted to throw this out there though because I think its fair to say that a larger portion than you might think in the NR crowd think the way drageth does.

[Tryg]

I tend to agree with Shepherd on this one, multi-mech drop games will run longer, why should they be penalized? Yes, they can get more kills/objectives in that time. But if you're running no respawn you can run three, perhaps even four matches in the time it takes them to complete one. So in the end, it balances out or perhaps even puts an edge towards the no-respawn games.

And why on earth would the developers want to force less skilled or experienced players into the No respawn servers? They want people playing MWO and enjoying it, players being forced into modes they don't like won't enjoy it, and will stop playing, that sounds rather counter-productive to me.

From an individual standpoint, I can see how playing No respawn might be seen as being more elite, but this isn't an individual game, its a team game. In a team based game, things like reinforcements, additional mechdrops, etc... are tactical considerations your team has to keep in mind. How many drops does your side have left, how many does theirs? Would a strong push be a smart tactic or suicidal? Its simply an additional game mechanic, the difficulty is ultimately the same. If anything...I would call the multi-mech drop mode the harder mode, as you have a lot more to consider then "Blast them down and win"

[Sassori]

The idea that anyone putting time into the game with a mech wouldn't earn xp with that type of mech is insane. Consider the time length of a 3 drop match compared to no respawn match. The NR match is probably over a /lot/ faster, since you know, no respawns. So long as the rewards match the risks in both cases, what is the problem? Really?

Get a grip.

[Lyon]

It's funny, I thought a topic like this would have started sooner. Of course, I also thought it would be the no-heat-unlimited-ammo crowd suggesting it first, but then again, maybe I'm too elitist because I prefer heat management and limited ammo.

No respawn = more realism. This being a sim, I thought that realism would have been the point of this exercise. If the devs have to cater to the equality-for-arcade-mode crowd, I hope that they at least keep the arcade-mode XP at a low level by comparison.

I see the sense in not removing all XP for the 3-drop gamers. I also see no sense in dumbing the game down any further than absolutely necessary.

What's the problem with simply playing MORE NR games to get your game time in? Discard all that crap about wives and such, we've all done this before. You'll get your game time, regardless, and you know it.

[cardinal vice]

While I have no problem with a comparable reward for 3-drop games, I do have large concerns over the impact of role warfare from respawns.

Losing a lance-mate should be a serious issue. It encourages the team to coordinate effectively and work together to assist each other since falling behind will be difficult to overcome.
Adding a respawn throws this critical concept out the window. Multi-drop games will inevitably devolve into mass zergs with only a fraction of the teamwork found in no-respawn matches. I have no doubts that multi-drop matches will draw a large ratio of the thick-skulled and juvenile minded players that would rather do their own thing... screaming **** I'm l33t! as they run into a killzone with all guns blazing.

As much as that disturbs me, I'm more worried about what a multi-drop game will do to the overall balance of damage vs. armor. We all have this pre-conceived notion that X amount of AC20 shots should take out a light mech, but I firmly believe that this damage needs to be scaled down a notch or two in order for role warfare to have a significant place. We need to break out of the damage mold that the preceding games have implanted.
Getting ganked by 4 mechs should be devestating, but I would be very disappointed if a player had no chance to react and use their resources to survive. If zerg and focus fire becomes the primary winning strategy, I feel that the role warfare will be marginalized severely and it will all turn into an arms race within a very short period.

[Sassori]

There will be different tactics for each game mode. This is as it should be. Just like in any other game where it's a different mode. Deathmatch uses different tactics than capture the flag after all. So on and so forth. Neither mode should be worth /more/ c-bills/xp than the other. If they aren't, then the dev's have messed up. Badly.

[Blackfire1]

I'm sorry no, I can't agree with that.
Go do some digging there is a respawn thread form November that covers EVERY known path and avenue of approach.

The more risk should equal more reward. Pure and simple. Its not a matter of NEEDING three mechs, its the option to simulate a large scale combat/battle with limited players. Also If you are going to have three mechs worth of repair bills. I better be getting up to two or so mechs worth of reward for winning.

Else noone would play that type of mission.
--------------------
As for role warfare, no need to worry. Most groups will be semi organized meaning they'll know what everyone is bringing. If you have a scout and your good at it, you'll be able to taken on an assault and still have a minor chance of wining IF your good. Role warfare will be there no matter what.

I would love to see a flock of jenners vs a few assaults.
----

ANY YES this is a VERY OLD TOPIC.
http://mwomercs.com/...h__1#entry89002

http://mwomercs.com/...__fromsearch__1

http://mwomercs.com/...clude-respawns/

See what I mean.

Edited by Blackfire1, 10 March 2012 - 09:33 PM.

[Polymorphyne]

Well, lets say for arguments sake, your average time alive in a mech is 10 minutes, and that on average in 10 minutes you earn 500 xp.
So, you decide to play normal matches.
You play 3 matches, with you surviving 10 minutes per match, each time you die you log out and jump into a fresh match. You earn 1500 xp in 30 Minutes.
Then, you play 1 3 drop match, In each mech, you survive 10 minutes before dying and respawning. The match takes you 30 minutes, and you earn 500 xp per drop, for a total of... 1500 xp in 30 minutes.
So, the same xp per mech is completely fair, especially as your load time in the 3 drop match is going to be longer as it will have to render dropships and have a high ceillinged game environment. (The fact that you have to load 3 seperate matches the other way is made up for by the fact you start on the ground instead of having to spend a minute or so fapping about in a dropship and dropping from the sky before you fight)

Its a fallacy to look at it as xp per match, its more accurate to look at xp per time spent.

3 drop matches are going to take the player 3 times as long as he gets 3 times as many spawns in a mech.

[Sassori]

That's what I meant, comparatively the matches should be the same xp/reward per time spent. Time is time. One should not be superior to the other in any way. I've played BT matches where each person controlled 400 tons of mech and it was a blast. At competitive levels it was always set tonnage in RL for me, that way no one side had an automatic advantage against the other.

If I risk 400 tons once, I should get rewards for those 400 tons same as if I risk 100 tons 4 times.

[Zarkan]

Ok, just to clear this up it's not respawn match as once a chassis is destroyed it's out for the match you simply have the option of dropping in a new chassis.

Seriously, if your going to complain about something get the nomenculture right.

[Sassori]

Zarkan, on 10 March 2012 - 09:39 PM, said:

Ok, just to clear this up it's not respawn match as once a chassis is destroyed it's out for the match you simply have the option of dropping in a new chassis.

Seriously, if your going to complain about something get the nomenculture right.

Nomenclature? That'd make more sense than Nomenculture. Right?

Anyways, if the 3 drop respawn has to repair their mech, then they need rewards just the same. If there is no risk then yeah, no reward is acceptable. Reward has to match the risk and both need to have the same comparable risk/reward so that one is not 'better' or 'more efficient' than the other.