Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

To respawn, or not to respawn.

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • To respawn, or not to respawn.

    I'm just making this pool so we have only one thread, where people can discuss the respawn feature and are able to see the past discussions on this theme.

    EDIT: I placed this in the wrong place, can someone from the admin team move this to general discussion, or is it fine here?
    42
    I don't want to respawn, never.
    47.62%
    20
    I want to be able to respawn, allways.
    0.00%
    0
    I like respawns in small/short missions.
    0.00%
    0
    I like respawns in big/lengthy missons.
    52.38%
    22
    I really don't care if there is respawn or not.
    0.00%
    0
    sigpic

    PR BF2 Alias: NewOrder_JoyDivision

  • #2
    Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

    I actually prefer revive than respawn and either way, I prefer the option to turn it on or off so I didn't vote. I don't like respawns full stop but I do recognise they are needed in certain game types (because at the end of the day we are playing a game).

    For smaller missions I don't think respawns are necessary unless the mission maker has made it too difficult for the players to complete (and also what the AI settings are for the server).

    There are many variables so you need to add an option

    - Should there be an option for respawns/revives to be added to every mission

    My answer is yes :)
    Jex.

    Comment


    • #3
      Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

      Not much time ago, I asked the same question to a mission maker, if it was possible to have respawn as a option, and he said you can't do that, you have respawn or you don't. I don't know why but that was the answer I got, so I quit the idea.
      sigpic

      PR BF2 Alias: NewOrder_JoyDivision

      Comment


      • #4
        Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

        Originally posted by Jorge.PT View Post
        Not much time ago, I asked the same question to a mission maker, if it was possible to have respawn as a option, and he said you can't do that, you have respawn or you don't. I don't know why but that was the answer I got, so I quit the idea.
        AFAIK, you can pretty much do anything in arma so I would be surprised if this was not achievable. I know for a fact that revives can be made optional.

        Can you tweak the OP poll? :)
        Last edited by jex; 03-19-2009, 10:17 AM.
        Jex.

        Comment


        • #5
          Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

          Do you know how to do it Jex? It seems I only have the option to edit my posts, not the thread...
          sigpic

          PR BF2 Alias: NewOrder_JoyDivision

          Comment


          • #6
            Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

            Respawn is sometimes a bad thing, while other times it's pretty damn nice to have. From a player's perspective I can't say I really enjoy waiting for a few hours as a seagull or spectating while the mission is completed, so some form of respawn is nice on long missions. Imho we shouldn't try to simulate everything from real life. Most of us come to the server to play, not watch while others do. Example from one of yesterday's runs on the BHD mission: I mounted up our teams stryker as a passenger. After some minutes of confusion we started to drive, and after a few minutes of driving BOOM, dead. Never saw anything besides the inside walls of the Stryker, so hell of a fun mission eh?

            As a sidenote my muscle fitness has been slowly creeping up since I started playing Arma on TG. I have a set of weights right next to the computer, and there's no better way to get rid of the frustration caused by a stupid death than working out a little :)

            Comment


            • #7
              Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

              I think it is very much dependent on the mission.

              As to the answer about having respawn as an "option", technically, that is not possible. BUT, you can hack it, and have the players respawned, but put into a spectate script as soon as they do. If the script fails though, they will be able to run around and such.


              I think people are judging respawn in the wrong way. It does NOT have to be something used as a crutch to complete impossible missions, but it DOES serve a very real purpose.

              Let's face it, we don't have a lot of people that play here, even if we did, we CANNOT get 150 people on the server at once in order to make a true large scale operation "feasible". So, we design missions where the players are reinforced at regular intervals to represent another Platoon from the Company taking over (for example).

              Respawn does not HAVE to be either none or all. You can limit it so that it will only happen in specific circumstances. The more I think about it, the better I like the idea of respawn after objective failure/success. If the objective fails, you could have a whole new element of the game, losing the momentum of battle. If you fail your objective, you are seriously in trouble. Not only do you have 20% of your Platoon now "behind enemy lines", you ALSO have an enemy counter-attack on the away to your previous objective (for example). The dead players are respawned on this objective, and the battle continues.

              If you happen to complete the objective, the dead players can be spawned on the objective that was completed (make sure it includes having the area clear). The momentum was kept, and you continue on with your next attack.


              A mission that is longer than 1 hour without respawn is doomed to fail. Especially if there is contact within the first 5 minutes. People will die, get bored, and leave. It kills the server population very quickly. Missions shorter than 1 hour are usually fine for no respawn, as you usually don't have to wait that long to play.

              Also, "instant" respawn are NEEDED on the server. You need something to build the population up, and it is hard to keep people interested when they join and immediately get to spectate for 30 minutes. These missions can be less "serious" and just fun (very bad odds, way too many enemy to kill for your group size, etc.) since they are meant to build the server population.

              I'd like to see more not non-traditional missions, like For A Few Dollars More. Very good concept in that mission, and everytime I've played it, it's been great. Similar thing, get some sort of zombie mission, or a mission where there is 100 enemy Camels and 10 players have to shoot them down with AAA cannons, space invaders style. Simple, fun, replayable missions that will keep people on the server until you can get enough for a "real" mission.

              Comment


              • #8
                Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                I mentioned it in another thread, perhaps it could be a good thing if mission makers made it so that after a certain percentage losses(50%?) the mission is aborted.
                This could make non-respawn missions more tolerable.(?)

                I personally dislike respawn missions.

                Playername Sparks444 in BF2

                Comment


                • #9
                  Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                  I don't want to respawn, never.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                    50% seems a little low. Seeing as in a frontal attack, "acceptable loses" ARE 50%. So, I think a new percentage is needed, I recommend 80% ...

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                      Personally I like waiting respawn say 2-3 minutes. I find it keeps people from charging into a bad situation as they do not want to sit and wait, however they can get back to the action after their "penalty" has been served.

                      Seems to work pretty well. But many of the points made above are also valid.
                      BlackDog1




                      "What we do in life... echoes in eternity!"

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                        I don't like respawns, but I would be fine if it happened only after main objectives are captured on long campaign style missions. A big problem with no respawn missions is in mission design. Many mission designers have 20 to 30 players vs 100+ enemy AI. When you have it set that way, then you can expect mass casualties. Like Beta mentioned also, when you get spawned a few minutes from contact you can expect several casualties. If you have a plt of people, then you shouldn't have an obsurd amount of enemies.

                        If you want a to simulate a massive battle then you need respawns, though revives or beta's respawn idea would be ideal. 1 life battles against tons of enemy AI would be possible if map designers gave propper supporting elements, but arty, tanks, and CAS Jets, and Assault helicopter aren't usually added in. If you had a plt of infantry, a few tanks, and a jet to do bombing runs, you could deal with a lot of enemies. Normally I see a few strykers and maybe a cobra, you need more than that to deal with a city full of enemies.

                        What Jex said about a certain percent of casualties and the mission is failed would be nice to. Nothing worse than waiting for 4 guys trying to attack a heavily defended objective.
                        |TG-Irr|LCpl. Soto
                        TGULT-Roel Yento

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                          LCpl. Soto that's really a major problem in ArmA.

                          I'm not a mission maker, but I can sense the struggle they have to balance the nș of players with the nș of AI's and missions objectives. If you have only 1 or 2 objectives, missions start getting repetitive and boring after some time, but if you go to more objectives it starts to be unrealistic for the normal nș of players, due to the nș of enemy forces needed...

                          That's why I defend the usage of respawns for the unrealistic ods, and non respawn for the simple missions. I've always looked to respawns as "simulation" of reinforcements and I'm liking the idea of the triggers to respawn.
                          sigpic

                          PR BF2 Alias: NewOrder_JoyDivision

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                            Originally posted by Jorge.PT View Post
                            LCpl. Soto that's really a major problem in ArmA.

                            I'm not a mission maker, but I can sense the struggle they have to balance the nș of players with the nș of AI's and missions objectives. If you have only 1 or 2 objectives, missions start getting repetitive and boring after some time, but if you go to more objectives it starts to be unrealistic for the normal nș of players, due to the nș of enemy forces needed...

                            That's why I defend the usage of respawns for the unrealistic ods, and non respawn for the simple missions. I've always looked to respawns as "simulation" of reinforcements and I'm liking the idea of the triggers to respawn.
                            Some misisons are made to be played only a few times or even the once. I try to add as much replayability to my missions and as I cannot do my own scripts, my missions will be limited or require help with scripts.

                            What would get rid of the need to replay missions is for there to be a lot more missions released of a good quality. If there were 10 new missions a week, we'd only need to play missions through a few times and they'd be added to the pool. Then people could play an old mission again because they haven't played it in a while.

                            You can replay a mission a few times because you can approach it differently each time, but in the end all missions loose there flavour. Evo was playe here religiously. We now play domination. That will get old eventually. Only new missions really keep things fresh and interesting.
                            Jex.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Re: To respawn, or not to respawn.

                              I'm more for redesign of mission objectives/end conditions in a non-respawn environment or very limited revives. This would mean shorter missions (~1h max) where you could either end the mission when 2/3 of the team died, or fail the objective and send the rest to extraction.

                              Damn, I can't wait to get my upgrade and get back to ArmA.
                              The most dangerous thing on a battlefield is an officer with a map.

                              Comment

                              Connect

                              Collapse

                              TeamSpeak 3 Server

                              Collapse

                              Advertisement

                              Collapse

                              Twitter Feed

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X