Do you like the idea of 'respawning' in Warband?

[captain lust]

**** that actually sounds really cool.

A survival mode.

Dismounted, though.

four guys with poleaxes take on 400 peasants. sweet.

 

[killer-blead]

Sweet.. im all for that. 

i do think there should be more then 1 place to respawn for both teams since you would get up having archers spawnkilling all the time. maybe some shelter from where you respawn? a ditch for example.

 

[captain lust]

Well it seemed the spawn areas were fairly out of the way for a start but I can't forsee spawn camping being a problem.

It's one of those things that I really trust Taleworlds to get right.

 

[Mabons]

I think I have found our answer. I am slightly deaf so I might have heard it wrong, but on this video:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K16bIpGnd1o at 3:06, I think he says you don't respawn.

 

[captain lust]

I think he means "the single player is close to this but [the single player is] without respawning."

 

[captain lust]

nothing new there, then.

lust=lightning

 

[Mabons]

I had considered that too. Damn.

 

[Rahzahm]

If unlimited respawning is allowed, there is no real advantage, especially if bots are included.

I say, when a PC dies, they are dead for that battle.

However, to keep the player from "sitting it out", control could be shifted to another NPC (bot) in that players army, assuming bots are in that specific battle. This way, the player gets to keep playing, except without all the cool weapons and armour that give them an advantage. When all of a players bots are dead, no more respawning.

 

[tommylaw]

I think reinforcement spawns are a good idea.

 

[captain lust]

If unlimited respawning is allowed, there is no real advantage, especially if bots are included.

I say, when a PC dies, they are dead for that battle.

However, to keep the player from "sitting it out", control could be shifted to another NPC (bot) in that players army, assuming bots are in that specific battle. This way, the player gets to keep playing, except without all the cool weapons and armour that give them an advantage. When all of a players bots are dead, no more respawning.

That's all well and good but, first, you have to tell us why there should be an advantage to either side.

 

[CtrlAltDe1337]

I would like to have all these options.  A lives-per person system would be good, but so would a team-wide ticket system (a la BF2).  Having reinforcement waves would be good as well.  A no respawning mode would be fun too, but I wouldn't want to play it all the time, as the battles would be pretty short.

Even unlimited spawning would be okay if you played to whichever team gets the most kills during a time limit.

 

[captain lust]

I would like to have all these options.  A lives-per person system would be good, but so would a team-wide ticket system (a la BF2).  Having reinforcement waves would be good as well.  A no respawning mode would be fun too, but I wouldn't want to play it all the time, as the battles would be pretty short.

Even unlimited spawning would be okay if you played to whichever team gets the most kills during a time limit.

haha, we've got a decisive one here.

 

[kingofnoobia]

I voted for respawning as much as you like (In multi), simply because sometimes it's just fun to be reckless and charge with a two handed axe. I'm absolutely sure that no respawning will be only annoying, everyone will just play very defensively. The few mentioned 'heroes' will soon get tired of being the only 'hero' on the server and being butchered by 20 men, then having to wait 10 minutes just to respawn. Besides, it won't be massive battles like in single player, simply because that amount of players would cause lag.

IF everyone insists at no quick respawning, please make it an option that can be decided by the server, or a special game mode, or in specific maps. Everyone happy.

I also don't like it if everyone tries to make this just another first/third person strategy game. This game has a unique and unquestionably cool combat system, both mounted and on foot. I would prefer to focus on that.

What I saw in the videos was good. Just quick respawning, constant action. In the video they didn't show much tactics though, but I think that to effectively win a round you will need some strategy.

I think even most ppl voting for no respawning will just imagine it to be cool, and get tired of it very soon. Imagine, you join a server. Your entire team are idiots who don't care about team play. A few seconds later you are attacked by 3 guys at the same time and get killed. Then you have to wait or join another server. In the other server, the archers work together quite well. They volley at single targets to be able to pick off ppl one by one. You are their first mark. You're dead in a few seconds. That's it. Another server. You are doing quite well, but suddenly someone couched lances you in the back. Believe me, no respawning may look cool and realistic, but it'll just piss everyone off... In the end, noone will enjoy it with the possible exception of a few successful clans.

And plz think about the new players. How will they have to have fun in a game where they can't even play because they suck too bad? They can't train themselves properly either.

 

[Ruanur]

I say, when a PC dies, they are dead for that battle.

However, to keep the player from "sitting it out", control could be shifted to another NPC (bot) in that players army, assuming bots are in that specific battle. This way, the player gets to keep playing, except without all the cool weapons and armour that give them an advantage. When all of a players bots are dead, no more respawning.

I like this.

 

[captain lust]

Being reckless won't be what gives me enjoyment in warband.

I'll derive enjoyment from excellent execution of perfectly crafted tactics.

The team's victory is my victory.

 

[Temeraire]

Naaah, make it more like Star Wars BattleFront with team lives, that way you can avenge your death, and not be killed to cheaply, and unfairly. and it can shift the tide of battle

 

[captain lust]

Naaah, make it more like Star Wars BattleFront with team lives, that way you can avenge your death, and not be killed to cheaply, and unfairly. and it can shift the tide of battle

Could you explain the battlefront system. I, literally, have no idea how it works.

 

[Llew2]

The BF2 system is good. It's got a 15 second respawn time, which I like. Better than instantaneous, and I like it better than the reinforcement wave type.

The no respawn is just plain a bad idea, because then you have the one loser who runs away to the edge of the map so he won't get killed; not fun for anyone but the loser. Who is a loser, so he doesn't count.

 

[Temeraire]

The BF2 system is good. It's got a 15 second respawn time, which I like. Better than instantaneous, and I like it better than the reinforcement wave type.

The no respawn is just plain a bad idea, because then you have the one loser who runs away to the edge of the map so he won't get killed; not fun for anyone but the loser. Who is a loser, so he doesn't count.

You've got the jist of it mate, but i was talking about the total team lives. example both teams start out with 100-200 lives per team, 16 players a team, 30 min match

 

[Ghoura Agur]

Whilst the Counter Strike-esque "Your dead, now wait till the next round" certainly will push a sense of desperation on the players, I worry about some battles, namely seiges, seeming drawn out, the maps too large for too few players, the besiegers too scattered and few to really impress any sort of ...anxiety.

I mean,I can forsee it being along the lines of, "Oooh!  Eight guys with axes are coming over!  Archer?  Do your thing."

I hope we're able to take the sieges though into the town streets and then the keep in Multiplayer, now that would be cool.

Maybe even set up simplified campaign like they have in Dark Messiah.