Winning a standoff

[CHHš Stormin']

If No Respawn is make or break, you don't actually HAVE to spawn.
When you die, you go into spectator till you click a spawn point.

Want no respawn...don't respawn.  It's not Automatic.

I was wondering if that would be feasible.  Thanks for the clarification Defender.

Ah, so we're talking about another game entirely?  From everything I've read about MWLL so far, it will have an arena, which will be close quarters instant action kind of stuff, one death only.  The other game type will be very open maps that will basically have objective areas, where victory is based on territory control.  If the enemy wants to run off and power down far from the objective, who cares?  You won't get bonus cash for killing the cheesy bastards, but I thought victory was going to be based on who controlled capture points (as per the FAQ)?  If victory is indeed event-based, then the old "run out the clock" strategy would not apply.  It would become a problem if you added in a no-respawn mode where every mech must be killed, but then perhaps this is one of the reasons not to go this direction?  Come on, they're giving us access to aerotech now.  Total annihilation of the opposing force is an unrealistic mission objective on a 60km map... unless you develop some kind of sensor-specialized aircraft that could detect powered down enemies via radar (but has little armament itself).  But if you think a mech is good at disappearing, just imagine a tiny vehicle or fighter..

I am new, so go ahead and fire up your flamers for any mistakes I've made here.

BTW, will there be flamers in MWLL?    Those things were really not that good... but maybe against infantry... I'm melting!!!

Disregarding your obviously harsh response, I agree, killing everything to the last man is a bit unrealistic considering aero and BA assets.  I don't know what the solution is...I've never played the game.  I'm assuming the best solution would be a game timer, shutting down the game if there is no action within X number of minutes.  If not, I guess folks are in for a long wait of the other side wants it that way.  Of course keep in mind that in an inventory-based league, such as planetary, the equipment in the match depends on what was brought to the fight, so you may not have those assets in place.

Artillery may help soften up a target that is holding a capture point, that is true.  So it could be useful in that regard.  Solaris Arena does not mean fighting in an arena...it is simply a game type that is not objective-based other than killing your opposition.  It does not guarantee "close quarters".  I'm curious though...how does close in-fighting validate your artillery argument?

In the case of no-respawn, which is required for many leagues, running and hiding is something that affects game play.  I'm guessing this is something with which you may not have experience...no offense.  But if you wish to argue a point, it helps to understand what you are talking about.

And flamers...not good?  Best damn gun in MW3.  Load out a Strider with...I can't remember...16? 32? flamers and you could dominate any mech, or sometimes even a whole lance, if you were a good enough pilot.  It's a harasser weapon with bite if you have enough of them.  Why do you think they are so often outlawed?

[PukinDog]

Well put Stormin'...

I have NEVER been a member of any Clan where the use of Flamers were allowed in any Trial of Position or Entry...b/c of their immense effectiveness...

On to the main topic issue.

I am very glad that Defender clarified this for all of us here.  I am in disagreement with Ghiest, even though his opinon is respected and understood.  I originally thought that a No Respawn game would be the only way to serve an interesting league.  I was wrong.  It will involve more work for league admins, and unit leads, (Stormin' jump in here anytime)....but it is not necessarily the "end all, be-all" of league play.  There are ways around having a Respawn game, and implementing it to work in a planetary capture based league, with inventories brought to battle, we just have to screw down our thinking neurohelmets a little tighter.

We are all intelligent enthusiasts of the greatest gaming universe ever created.  Look around you.  Has anyone taken into consideration the amount of talent, skills, and dedication that reside all in one place, with a common goal?  Its here, MWLL.  Not just the devs, sure they are a large, the majority of it, but with the amount of input all the registered members have submitted to these forums...that combination can solve ANY problem.

The important thing to remember, as we all have learned over the years, is that "you can't please everyone".  Anyone attempting to do so, will spend their time in a futile misconception of reality.  We ALL, as members and supporters of this site, MUST be willing to accept the fact that in some way we all want something different.  It cannot be perfect to us all.

There are ways to deal with Respawn.  I think its now up to US, to start being a part of the solution, and stop being part of the problem.  We should spend less of our time complaining about "Respawn"...and spend more time thinking of the best way to deal with it in a planetary league situation.

Let them continue their work....and let's start ours.

CHHš was not founded on the belief that MWLL would be a NR game...so it really doesn't make a difference to us.

Attempting to "kill everything to the last man" as so eloquently put by Stormin'^ would only cause more "hiding" as expressed by Stalker at the top of this thread.

[Caneghem]

Artillery may help soften up a target that is holding a capture point, that is true.  So it could be useful in that regard.  Solaris Arena does not mean fighting in an arena...it is simply a game type that is not objective-based other than killing your opposition.  It does not guarantee "close quarters".  I'm curious though...how does close in-fighting validate your artillery argument?

I guess I'm thinking of the Solaris arena from MW4... sort of a mech free-for-all.  Pretty much assuming no artillery needed, and that it would be a much smaller map.  My response was harsh in response to the nastily dismissive reply I got from another poster (not the one I quoted), along the lines of "artillery is teh suck, you wouldn't know where they are if they are powered down lolz".  Artillery attacks an area rather than a target.

In the case of no-respawn, which is required for many leagues, running and hiding is something that affects game play.  I'm guessing this is something with which you may not have experience...no offense.  But if you wish to argue a point, it helps to understand what you are talking about.

And flamers...not good?  Best damn gun in MW3.  Load out a Strider with...I can't remember...16? 32? flamers and you could dominate any mech, or sometimes even a whole lance, if you were a good enough pilot.  It's a harasser weapon with bite if you have enough of them.  Why do you think they are so often outlawed?

Yeah, I'm a newb, and MW3 was the one I didn't play.  I just remember flamers in the games I played would overheat me just as much as my target. 

[CHHš Stormin']

Yeah, I'm a newb, and MW3 was the one I didn't play.  I just remember flamers in the games I played would overheat me just as much as my target. 

Heat sinks.  Lots and lots and lots of heat sinks.  By the way, I don't think MWLL is including flamers...I think I saw that somewhere.  Also, I'm trying to remember but I think they nerfed flamers in MW4.

[Ghiest]

Having run two leagues in my gaming career, I'd have to disagree with you Wolf'

The move to a new game for some leagues will be painful enough, any reason to not do it will be the death knell.  MWLL is fighting an uphill struggle with allot of the old schoolers, primarily a) system requirements to run Crysis at a decent level (and more because of the increased land mass effects and model/textures that it brings) and b) the change to a new system that doesn't support anything they have previously set up natively will be just another excuse in my opinion.

I take as an example Call of duty 4 compared to call of duty world at war.  World at war was based off of Cod4 but wasn't released with any decent support and the mod tools come out 6 months after the game was released (unlike 2 weeks after cod4 was released) and wasn't released with all the source files needed to make a decent match mod, now after 18+ months of Cod4's release and 10 months after W@W there are 5x the servers for cod4 and the amount of 'matches' being played on popular leagues and ladders is more than 10x the amount all because there is the facility to set up a match mode/mod for leagues/ladders easily in cod4.  People are playing more cod4 than w@w now even though it was deemed a better Multiplayer experience for the pub servers because leagues/ladders extend the life of a game by a massive amount.  You think people would still be buying counterstrike 1.6 if there was almost no leagues supporting it?

[CHHš Sturmadler]

Ghiest,

I see your point, but I also think some of you are stuck to a very narrow idea of what a league needs to be.  I can think of all kinds of ways to support both the TOA and SA game modes with a player community.

[Ghiest]

Part of being old I suppose, being in the business and also being part of leagues and ladders for the last 15 years has my outlook very jaded I admit.  I just want their hardwork to be appreciated and played for another half decade but without league support and adoption I don't see how it will be feasible, yes they can make leagues 'around' it but the majority of leagues don't work as Crysis does .. name me one popular Crysis league and ill give in.  What I'm talking about is that the crysis way of doing things isn't/wasn't popular, so much so the two major leagues in Europe don't even support it ... and they do games like Worms and even soldier of fortune 2 still.  This alone should question why it's not 'worked' so far and change what is wrong about it before it's released.  See I worry about these types of things because as a 'problem solver' in my workplace I am payed to think about them and it's what I do well.

The way I would go about things.

Server side variables (of which I know some already exist):
starting cash
available items/mechs/equipment/vehicles (simple 0 / 1 to turn certain items/equipment/vehicle/mech off or on)
prices for all equipment available
Spawn times (set to zero for no respawn)

All available to be exec'd from the rcon console you can then have a league ready game with a few simple config files.  A league can then determine which mechs/vehicles they will allow for it's own league type, you can store any number of config files that can be exec'd and the server restarted in minutes without any fuss.

I can also see the reasons behind wanting public servers as newbie friendly as possible, no-respawn isn't friendly towards the newer players with sometimes a single mistake costing them their life and not being able to respawn for 3-5 minutes is enough to make them disconnect, let alone the amount of time it could take to finish a mech combat round.  But I implore the mod makers to take a reasonable stance on it and at least take it into consideration to make it easy for leagues to adopt the game you have worked so hard on.

[Nick]

That was beautiful. But yes, I agree.

[CHHš Stormin']

The way I would go about things.

Server side variables (of which I know some already exist):
starting cash
available items/mechs/equipment/vehicles (simple 0 / 1 to turn certain items/equipment/vehicle/mech off or on)
prices for all equipment available
Spawn times (set to zero for no respawn)

All available to be exec'd from the rcon console you can then have a league ready game with a few simple config files.  A league can then determine which mechs/vehicles they will allow for it's own league type, you can store any number of config files that can be exec'd and the server restarted in minutes without any fuss.

I can also see the reasons behind wanting public servers as newbie friendly as possible, no-respawn isn't friendly towards the newer players with sometimes a single mistake costing them their life and not being able to respawn for 3-5 minutes is enough to make them disconnect, let alone the amount of time it could take to finish a mech combat round.  But I implore the mod makers to take a reasonable stance on it and at least take it into consideration to make it easy for leagues to adopt the game you have worked so hard on.

Agreed, Gheist.  A tremendous amount of code has already gone into leagues that work and have been proven over years of loyal players.  To retool for a new mod is hopefully a matter of rebuilding an engine, but using the existing framework.  I don't know if others have done it, but I have intentionally written Lance Command to be ported to new games (even non-BT) if need be.  To write something from scratch is not only a tremendous undertaking, but it is likely that the code will not be reusable once MWLL loses popularity considering its rather proprietary design.  Instead of rebuilding an engine, it's more like buying a new car.  I'm hopeful that SA matches will work if access to all tech is provided, but it will require a match moderator to verify that no one respawns (unless those teams trust each others' intentions).

[AoP]

I'm hopeful that SA matches will work if access to all tech is provided, but it will require a match moderator to verify that no one respawns (unless those teams trust each others' intentions).

I really don't see the problem with this. The scoreboard will clearly and beyond a shadow of doubt show how many kills and deaths a player has as well as their ingame rank.
Make a screenshot of that scoreboard and forward it to an admin. Other leagues in other games require teams to document matches with screenshots as well, so why should this not be an acceptable approach for an MWLL-based league. Yes, I'm well aware that this is not a prime solution, but it's one that could work until a better one is available.

Now, on to the issue at hand:
We never said that server-side settings for c-bills, allowed vehicles, respawn time / number of respawns etc. are out of the question and will never happen.
For us, however, these are not top priority right now and won't be until after public release. We're well aware though that quite a few people consider these things to be important, so you can be sure we won't be ignoring them.

Yet what many people seem to forget or even ignore is one simple fact: we are not to deliver commissioned work here. The team has not been assigned the task of creating "MechWarrior 5", has not been ordered to create a logical successor to MechWarrior 4. In fact, this is not MechWarrior 5 - it's MechWarrior: Living Legends. More than two years ago, two brothers, enthusiastic MechWarrior fans and videogamers, sat together and wrote down visions, ideas and facts, resulting in a design document. They assembled a group of individuals with the necessary skills to bring this design document to life - to bring this VISION to life. MechWarrior: Living Legends is this vision and would these people not firmly believe that what this vision has become is fun and entertaining, they would be doing things in an entirely different way.

I really can't stress this enough: the developer team is not a bunch of shaved monkeys, we're not idiots! However, we're facing a tricky problem here: as said in our mission statement, we'd like to get new people into the universe as well as excite those who have been around for a while - and all that with strictly limited resources, so we need to agree on certain things which are most likely to achieve our goal. As a matter of fact, we're tossing around ideas for an additional game mode that should, by its design at least, suit leagues based on planetary invasions quite well BUT at the same time appeal to a wider and less aspiring public audience very much. Details might be revealed in a not too far future.

[CHHš Stormin']

I wasn't criticizing MWLL, I was saying that I think I can make it work based on the information I have.  I assumed a moderator would be needed to verify that one team isn't using its "dead" players for not only combat, but non-combat as well, such as seeking out and locating enemy positions and strength.  A score card doesn't see that.  I really don't see this as as issue (I don't intend to require moderator presence) but you never know.  It's just better to be prepared.

By stating this I am in no way making any demands of the MWLL staff.  Once again, I hope my posts have not been construed as such.  Much of what is tossed around in here I think is more of a community brainstorm and is not specifically directed at the developers.  In this case I think people are speculating the difficulties of integrating MWLL into existing league models.  I did respond to the statement that a new league could be envisioned, and what I saw as a roadblock to that approach.

I am looking forward to anything that the dev team produces, and with the following statement...

I really can't stress this enough: the developer team is not a bunch of shaved monkeys, we're not idiots! However, we're facing a tricky problem here: as said in our mission statement, we'd like to get new people into the universe as well as excite those who have been around for a while - and all that with strictly limited resources, so we need to agree on certain things which are most likely to achieve our goal. As a matter of fact, we're tossing around ideas for an additional game mode that should, by its design at least, suit leagues based on planetary invasions quite well BUT at the same time appeal to a wider and less aspiring public audience very much. Details might be revealed in a not too far future.

...I am very interested to see what you guys come up with.  Although, I'm not sure where the "shaved monkeys" statement fits in...

[Defender]

This is a super secret picture I took of our Code Monkeys hard at work at a development meeting.
When they don't work hard enough, we shave them.

[(TLL)Cowking]

We're so lucky, we have real code monkeys instead of human claiming to be monkeys! Way to be progressive with species right's movement! 

[Aidan]

This is a super secret picture I took of our Code Monkeys hard at work at a development meeting.
When they don't work hard enough, we shave them.

As Code Captain Toeball looks at the screen and says, "Why isn't this thing working?"

Code-a-saurus Keeper says, "It works better when you plug it in ... duhh"

"Chuckle ... Chuckle go the kiddies"

[Ghiest]

Now, on to the issue at hand:
We never said that server-side settings for c-bills, allowed vehicles, respawn time / number of respawns etc. are out of the question and will never happen.
For us, however, these are not top priority right now and won't be until after public release. We're well aware though that quite a few people consider these things to be important, so you can be sure we won't be ignoring them.

You see, that's all that is needed.  Leagues will sigh a relief that these things will be on the drawing board. Of course not everything will make it to the initial release ... I can understand that and just wanted assurance from the mod makers that league play or just a few  concessions towards league setup will be looked at.