PDA

View Full Version : Rainbow Six 5: No Respawns!



GhostReconJunky
03-07-2006, 08:51 PM
Rainbow Six has been the best franchise to ever grace the FPS genre in mine, and many other's opinion. All of it's great attributes make it a knockout in SP and MP (with the exception of lockdown). I cannot stress how important it is to me, and many others that the team leaves out respawns. It'll make our community happier as a whole.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

GhostReconJunky
03-07-2006, 08:51 PM
Rainbow Six has been the best franchise to ever grace the FPS genre in mine, and many other's opinion. All of it's great attributes make it a knockout in SP and MP (with the exception of lockdown). I cannot stress how important it is to me, and many others that the team leaves out respawns. It'll make our community happier as a whole.

"If it ain't broke, don't fix it!"

TedSmith
03-07-2006, 09:42 PM
I really don't care if they have respawns as an option, myself.

What I DON'T want, is the way it was handled in Lockdown. If you want to add a respawning option, so be it, but DO NOT make the game less convenient to play in a non-respawn mode. DO NOT make it so that the only way to have a ranked server is to have it with respawns. DO NOT make us load the map between each and every round on a non-respawn server and DO NOT force people to wait until the end of a round to join a game that has respawns ON.

That is largely why there are so few non-respawn servers for Lockdown. If it weren't for all those issues and the dedicated server mess, the competition ladders would have started up and there would be a ton of non-respawn servers to play on.

If you're going to add respawns as an option, make it a bloody option. Don't design the game AROUND respawns and make classic gameplay an afterthought.

Xessive
03-08-2006, 12:20 AM
I think it's a good idea to have respawn as an option. In all the rpevious R6 games it was tedious when we're just in the mood for some tactical Deathmatch or mad Terrorist Hunt to have to wait for the round to end. Sometimes we (the group I usually game with) feel like a quick game, and having to wait just makes it frustrating. The respawn as an option idea I think first came in Ghost Recon, we never used it at first until we realized how long one person could survive, or there would be the occasional player who just left his game logged on but just sitting there doing nothing, while we waited for the round to end so we could spawn.

fedayn81
03-08-2006, 02:15 AM
I dont want see RESPAWNS in a R6 game anymore.

So ( for devs & community managers ) donat make same error as in Lockdown.

Dirtydog28
03-08-2006, 05:36 AM
No respawns no way, leave that for lockdown, or if you feal like some oh well i just died i will just respawn fun have a bash at Bf2 , its not for r6.

XsargenX
03-08-2006, 08:07 AM
yeah leave respwan away from R6.

Eldest_One
03-08-2006, 08:09 AM
Nope I think it should be added as an option.

RAZE_672
03-08-2006, 08:27 AM
I'm opposed to respawns in games that involve objectives. Missions are realistic game modes and should not be disrupted by fantasy features like coming back to life every time you fail.

However, I am not against having respawn as an option in game modes like free-for-all death match, team survival, tango hunt(coop). There is nothing inherently realistic about these game modes IMO although they can certainly be played that way. I just don't see why people should have to wait in matches that merely involve killing off the opposition. Those that would rather spend all of their time playing in these types of games should have respawn available to them.

subzero1900
03-08-2006, 08:29 AM
well, If they do (hopefully NOT) include respawns a few things need to be changed

A. A spectator mode needs to be added (for both non-respawn and respawn servers...get rid of the viewable spawn areas (see below for reason, and this would promote spawning near allies instead of just a random location with an easy kill)

B. No Selectable Respawns with a VIEW (oh ill wait untill either a. my time runs out, or b. Someone runs into view where i spawn and while my respawn invinciblity is still on ill kill him)

C. Make it so we can have a selectable limited number of respawns (non-infinite, like maybe 5 per person and then they have an new type of game...last man standing )


I DO NOT WANT RESPAWNS, THIS RUINED THE GAME FOR ME IN LD

orbit22679
03-08-2006, 10:13 AM
I think respawns should be an option. I also think there should be a "join on the fly" option for coop tango hunt. I only play coop modes, mostly tango hunt, and one annoying thing about RvS is joining a server and having to wait 10 minutes or whatever to play. I think you should be able to just join in the middle of a round and start killing. Make the two options seperate though. I don't see myself using respawn much, but the join on the fly option I would.

BAC_Adamsap
03-08-2006, 11:14 PM
No Respawns please !!!!

LEAVE RESPAWNS IN THE CONSOLE !!!

KEEP THE REALISM IN THE PC !!!

If you die YOU DIE.

There is no second chance in real life...

The R6 series needs to stay with REALISM !!!

http://www.clanhome.ca/Signatures/BACSIG.gif

MD_Sennet
03-09-2006, 12:12 AM
I could make the politically correct statement and say they help reach a new audience of FPS gamers and I wouldn't mind them as long as they are an option....

but let's be honest, not having them at all is the easiest solution.

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 04:14 AM
Respawn Feature:
This is Rainbow Six we're talking about. A tactical game cannot and should not allow immortality. If you get killed, you must suffer the consequences of being the inferior player (wait for the next round). Then maybe you can better yourself as a tactical player, and survive the next round. Putting respawns in R6 makes us gamers not value our life (in game). And if we do not value our in game life, we are just putting the tactical aspect of the game in the trash. Not to forget, every single title up to RvS was a huge success. If the games a hit without respawns, UBI has nothing to worry about as far as selling the game without the option.

Spectator Feature:
The spectator feature of R6 will make or break the series. It MUST be in R6 for the game to be a success. R6 is a personal game. Everyone knows everyone. Having the spectator feature in game enables players to focus their attention on others. This level of personal gaming is loved by the community. So if you are a new person to the series (RvS or later), your opinion on respawns is somewhat irrelevant. And you must develop the respect of the series as a whole.

In the Extreme Event:
If the developers refuse to remove respawns from the game, they must at least implement it as a tactical/realistic feature. An idea that approaches a "Realistic Respawn" (two words that should not be together) would be a helicopter that brings reinforcements to a safe extraction zone, once half your team is dead. That would significantly decrease in "waiting" as well as serve a somewhat fun feature. This feature could also be used as a "Join On The Fly" feature. Once you have 3-6 players waiting to join a round, a helicopter could be dispatched to "Join On The Fly." This could be fun for a capture the flag game type too.

Note:
Lockdown's respawn feature is extremely abused. If it is an option, the newbs will use it too much.

I'm going to move this to a personl r6:5 guideline post.

DreamMarine
03-09-2006, 05:56 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by MD_Sennet:
... and say they help reach a new audience of FPS gamers... </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

ok, dudes, let's think a little bit further:

<span class="ev_code_RED">what kind of players ARE the "new audience" players?</span>

would you agree, that they are casual players (might become R6-junkies later on), newbies, noobs, or however you want to put it?! i know what i am talking about, because i am a veteran R6 SP... but just a casual R6 multiplayer... so i am in the eyes of a lot of people here a "noob", when it comes to no-coop MP! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Next question is:

<span class="ev_code_RED">What exactly is the problem for such "new audience" players when they would wish there is a respawn feature?</span>

is it, they have to wait for some minutes ONCE IN A WHILE? Definitely not!!! I personally have absolutly no problem with waiting from time to time. This really just raises the stack and lets get you more careful next time.

but the situation in most MP games, i have experienced, is: There are a few players, who massacre the more unexperienced players in a few seconds. usually they not even know WHAT hit them!

THAT is the problem for most players who start and try some MP games!!! THAT is why a lot of people get very frustrated after a while!!!

it's no fun at all to wait several minutes every round to play for only a few seconds, before you are canon fodder! it's no fun at all!!!


imho, exactly THIS is the main problem from which EVERY multiplayer FPS (afaik) suffers from. You have some highly trained and specialized players in the same sand pit as those poor casual players, noobs, newbies... however you want to call them.

it's like you want to learn karate and your lessons are to do free fight training with black belts from the start on. you know what happens? exactly, you won't see him again! and this is true for MOST people. i really doubt that a lot of people would stay with this for a long time!!!


i raised this theme once before. i became remarks like "i should not howl like a little girl" and so on. but tell that the guy who tries to learn karate and gets beat up all the time. you might get some really good players out of this, but you will NEVER reach the "broad audience" and therefore the mass market!!!

some other told me to join a clan and play with them. i consider that a good advice. but do you really want to expect that every player from the "new audience" has to join a clan to get a little fun out of it.

cannot be the solution, either!


SO: that is the problem with MP and respawns and the "new audience"!

i have no solution for it for myself at this time. i just want to wait if this matter is well accepted in this community.

in my opinion there is no way around the matter! not if you want to get the most of fun out of MP for a LOT of people! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif


Your comments are welcome! http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

DreamMarine

Dane175
03-09-2006, 06:03 AM
The solution is to leave respawns out COMPLETELY. What makes a good game is its competitiveness, and it needs to have a large skill gap (ie. Starcraft). I would love to see you jump into Starcraft and act like you should be able to fit right in (it would take at least a year for you to even be able to compete with the average player). That is what makes the game so good. It has a huge skill gap from the worst player to the very best player in the world. Please leave respawns out of this game, they don't belong in an R6 title. Let people who want to play every day and be the best, be the best at the game. Let the newbies and casual gamers be just that: newbies and casual gamers.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 09:12 AM
Personally I players should mind their own business and keep their nose out of how others have fun playing the game. Respawns are a server option in LD and should stay that way. If someone wants to setup a server and wants a respawn game, that's their business and no one should dictate to them that's not how to play R6. If the majority of the people out there believe R6 should be a round based game with no respawns, well that's the way the servers will be setup.

The idea of community doesn't mean a hegemony is needed across the board. Every server shouldn't be playing the exact same game at the same time. There should be variety so you can find the game you enjoy while others find one they enjoy.

Removing options is not the way to go.

Dane175
03-09-2006, 09:16 AM
But the option is so bad and unrealistic! If you are going to have a bad option like that in the game, at least use GhostReconJunky's idea as he stated in his other thread. I really don't want to see any options in this game that take away from the realism that is R6.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 09:23 AM
You can choose not to play on a respawn server. It's not that hard. Myself, I would lean towards a round based game as well because it would be less R&G, but I won't tell someone else that enjoys playing that way that they are wrong and try to limit them.

Dane175
03-09-2006, 09:38 AM
Neither will I. No one is limiting them to respawning. Pretty much every game out there has respawns. They can go play those other unrealistic games while we enjoy R6.

I am afraid that if we allow respawns as an option, the server list will be plagued with respawn servers like Lockdown and Ghost Recon. I don't see the reason why Ubi should take this chance. R6 and Rogue Spear didn't have respawns and they were great games. I say Ubi sticks with the formula, tried and true.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 09:50 AM
But see what you are arguing? If the servers are plagued with respawns, then obviously they are popular with the people playing. So you want to limit how everyone plays so that you can play you want. Personally I see that as very selfish.

One one side you are arguing that round based gameplay is the tried and true way of playing, how everyone wants to play, but at the same time if the option of respawns is there no one will play without them? Well then obviously the tried and true way isn't the popular way.

Dane175
03-09-2006, 09:54 AM
I think it's selfish for all the run'n'gunners to steal our series away with their respawn BS.

This is how it is: leave respawns out completely or figure out a way to make them realistic like GhostReconJunky posted.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 09:59 AM
no one is forcing you to play with the R&Gers. Let them have their servers and have their fun.

Play on a more realistic server with like minded people.

When I go to the local YMCA to play a little pickup ball I look for people that want to play pickup. I don't go tell the people playing 21 or HORSE that they aren't real ballers and they can't play that way. It's their choice. They are using the structure there (ball and hoop) to play the game they want to play to have fun.

Same thing here, using the structure within the game through options to play the game they want to play. Options such as gametypes, respawns, etc broaden the appeal of the game so that more poeple enjoy it. What there should be is more options. Have variables for respawn limits teamwise or playerwise. Variables on spawn timers, etc. Provide a sandbox for people to build the MP game they want to play, not create 1 type and force everyone to play it. I think inclusive is the way to go, not restrictive.

SODsniper
03-09-2006, 10:04 AM
First off, right off the bat, let me say that I agree with DayGlow.

Make it an option. That way ADMINs will have the choice. If Respawns Server Admins see they don't have any players, then they have to decide. If the ReSpawn option is to die, it should die of natural causes, rather than being murdered...


BUT......

Just playing Devil's Advocate here (a great movie, by the by)....

I can see where that attitude (make it an option and let the people decide) would pose some problems.

Like.... Where does it end??

I mean, if we say "Make ReSpawns a choice, let people decide" where do we stop??

"Make Player-Jump a choice, let people decide"

or

"Make Personal Teleporters a choice, let people decide."

or

"Make Tactical Nukes a choice, let people decide."

Yea, it may come across as silly, but you see my point?

Again, just playing the DA here. I fully agree that giving the player/admin as MANY options as possible is a good thing.

Personally, if RB6 commandoes started being able to JUMP, I would scream to high heaven, option or no. When you start adding options that take away from the CORE VALUE of the game, you run the risk of creating an environment where there is no standard.

Again, I am not trying to argue with anyone. I see merits of both positions and I see where both positions can go horribly wrong.

Just something to think about.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 10:09 AM
I see at a difference between game rules and game dynamics. Take it to real life to something close such as paintball. You cannot change the dynamics of how the paintballs shoot and how people move in the field, but you can change the rules and gametypes.

The attraction to the R6 series should be the dynamics. How guns perform, how you move through the evironment. Then let the players themselves decide on what rules they will play with each other.

Dane175
03-09-2006, 10:11 AM
Why not let them have the option for grenade launchers while we're at it? I mean, they were in Lockdown right? I'm sure that would make it 10x more fun for the run'n'gunners as well. What makes you so set on the idea of respawns, and not on all the other unrealistic possibilites we could jam into this game? We need to draw the line somewhere because this series is based on realism and thats the main reason it's so good.

Please read this: IF for some reason there needs to be respawns, there ARE possible solutions to make it realistic, such as GhostReconJunky's idea which I will repost here.

"In the Extreme Event:
If the developers refuse to remove respawns from the game, they must at least implement it as a tactical/realistic feature. An idea that approaches a "Realistic Respawn" (two words that should not be together) would be a helicopter that brings reinforcements to a safe extraction zone, once half your team is dead. That would significantly decrease in "waiting" as well as serve a somewhat fun feature. This feature could also be used as a "Join On The Fly" feature. Once you have 3-6 players waiting to join a round, a helicopter could be dispatched to "Join On The Fly." This could be fun for a capture the flag game type too."
----

Just respawning out of thin air hurts my eyes when I see it. It just looks silly to me.

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 05:51 PM
Actually you are both right.

DayGlow I liked your example of basketball. But unfortunately, Dane is right in regards to drawing the line. If you allow respawns, the option will be ABUSED. Lockdown is testimony to that. Now imagine going to play some pickup games at your local YMCA (something I do very often), and it is infested with little newb kiddies playing HORSE on all the baskets. Your ability to play what made basketball the great game it is, is completely annihilated. And again, Lockdown is testimony that the game's core values will be annihilated if the respawns are offered as an option. You're right, options are good! But the line must be drawn at a realistic balanced level.

Also, UBIs reasoning to offer respawns was to reach more audiences... and we all saw how that turned out. All installments of the series were successful up to Lockdown. By now, you should have realized why. (hint: altered formatting, and poor gameplay choices such as respawning)

If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

GhostReconJunky
03-09-2006, 05:58 PM
I am also very nervous that somebody in a respectable position is actually open minded to such a game-ruining decision such as optional respawns. DayGlow, I don't mean to be rude... but they already tried your way, and it flopped. Now they can simply return to the correct "formula" to make a successful installment to the series.

DayGlow
03-09-2006, 06:17 PM
Now is it game ruining because a lot of people are playing with respawns? If so how is it ruined? Because there are people not playing the way you think they should?

I believe that MP should be a sandbox for someone to build a server to the game they want to play. To do this you need options. The more options to build the game rules the better. Then the challange to the community is to play on the servers they want to play on. Forcing everyone to play the exact same way isn't the way to do it.

Some people love a rainbow vs terrorist frag fest with respawns so they will play on those servers. Others like rainbow vs rainbow TDM with rounds, so they play on those servers.

The sucess or failure of LD can't be attributed to respawn. It has more to do with the dynamics, such as run-speed and weapon performance/balance. This drove the more hardcore players back to RvS.

Dirtydog28
03-09-2006, 06:48 PM
Might as well just port it to PC and be done with it.

SAS_Shield
03-10-2006, 07:12 AM
i too see it as an option that can be turned off so there is no reason to worry about it and should be left alone.

FI_FlimFlam
03-10-2006, 08:46 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DayGlow:
Now is it game ruining because a lot of people are playing with respawns? If so how is it ruined? Because there are people not playing the way you think they should? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Good question. In concept I agree with you. But in implementation I am going to have to disagree. I think another question is does the feature fit with the game in the first place. Just like jumping. Should it be included in a Rainbow Six game? How will it affect gameplay. Is it consitent with, will it carry on, does it enhance the gameplay that defines the series or does it completely change it?

In theory choice to enable or disable respawns is good. But in practice I see respawns negatively affecting gameplay. To say that respawn does not affect how people play is rediculous. Simply spend a couple of hours in a no respawn LD server and then spen a couple of hours in a respawn server. You will quickly see how your tactics and gameplay are directly affected by the respawns. If you know that you can respawn in a few seconds and keep playing, the impetus to stay alive is greatly reduced. And you will find the gameplay speed is greatly increased with people rushing ALOT more because there is little penalty. Adversarial is dramatically different from previous iterations of the series as a result.

Now the next question to ask is it for the better? Only the individual player can answer that because it is a preference. I believe that it does NOT improve gameplay or enhance it. I feel it negatively affects the series and attempts to make it something it is not and jeprodizes it's identity. It make the game feel like another generic FPS. However you might feel differently. However since I know you are primarily a singleplay gamer, I encourage you (as I recommended above) to play both respawn and non-respawn and see the difference and then decide.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I believe that MP should be a sandbox for someone to build a server to the game they want to play. To do this you need options. The more options to build the game rules the better. Then the challange to the community is to play on the servers they want to play on. Forcing everyone to play the exact same way isn't the way to do it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Options are nice. I think if you are going to add non-standard/new features and chose to make them options, then the least you can do is make the new features NOT the default options. I say this because LD uses respawn as the default setting for adversarial. Any new server going up will probably use the default settings. For the time that I played adversarial LD, I only saw one server consistently with no-respawns (thanks Moose). All the others were respawn and most ranked with classes. This is such a dramatic depature from that we have known as Rainbow. I stopped playing adversarial LD because of this. I don't know if this was a result of the default settings, or lack of support from the vast number of teams/clans from older series as that the number of servers hasn't even begun to touch the number of servers that RvS had in the same time frame from release. Granted this could be from problems with the dedicated server package as well but some will be from the gameplay itself.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The sucess or failure of LD can't be attributed to respawn. It has more to do with the dynamics, such as run-speed and weapon performance/balance. This drove the more hardcore players back to RvS. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

True but respawn is definitely large a contributing factor that for many does negatively affect the gameplay. It's another gameplay aspect that for many has changed the game for the worse. It's a feature that many, myself included feel just does not fit with Rainbow Six.

GhostReconJunky
03-10-2006, 10:24 AM
DayGlow while we're at it, why don't we just have R6 support 128 players too? Maybe we can include jetpacks as an option as well. Let's not forget jumping. Let's completely demolish the award winning, multi-gold selling series just because some kiddies don't like waiting 2 minutes for a round to end. Sounds like a great plan!

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 10:44 AM
like I said there is a difference between game dynamics and game rules.

I think the rules should be open for the players that want to play on a server to make the game they want to play. Why is that so bad?

You don't like respawns? Play on a non-respawn server. Why should you care how someone else halfway across the world playing a server with his friends is playing?

FI_FlimFlam
03-10-2006, 11:19 AM
DG, I think for me and many others it's not an issue of having the option but rather if having the option belongs in the game in the first place.

It's an option that changes the game so much that it seems to make the game LESS of a Rainbow Six game and more of just another generic respawn FPS.

It's a feature that detracts from the games unique identity - which is the very thing that draws most of the players.

Should RSE code vehicles into the game? Add tanks and Humvees? Will that add to the game or detract from the game. It would add to game in the sense of having to have larger outdoor maps and another gameplay aspect. Admins wouldn't have to run the maps with the vehicles. It would be an option. But does it belong in the game? Rainbow has always been about CQB anti-terrorist tactics. Does it fit? Will it change the games identity? IMO it doesn't fit in a Rainbow game - Ghost Recon maybe but not Rainbow.

Respawns are the same for me and others.

Yen Lo
03-10-2006, 11:48 AM
on the surface it sounds nice giving more features, but literally, Ubi struggles with even the basics it sounds like something that would end up being another bugged feature.

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 11:48 AM
I fully understand that. Many people do not like respawns, don't think it fits the game. My question is why do you have to restrict it for everyone out there? Why is a hegemony so important?

I'm all for a very flexible MP experience. Different modes such as DM, TDM, Last man standing, objective based games such as capture the flag, holding a position or positions on the map, excort type games.

And from there you can craft the gameplay rules that include kit restrictions, time limits, respawns, which inlcude total team max number, individual number, delay times, etc.

Have a toolbox full of options and let people make and play the game they want to play.

If you think R6 is a round based TDM game, you can setup or seek a server that offers the game you want to play. What attracts players to the R6 universe is then the dynamics of the game. A tight CQB style of play with realistic weapons and movement.

Others like a domination style game with a team limit of 10 respawns. Have at it, have fun.

Why should any one's idea of what is a fun game be limited for the sake of an overall hegemony that really does nothing?

Akedo
03-10-2006, 11:59 AM
what you guys have to realize is that.. ubi (or whoever) does not care what the die hard fans want! they are looking at the numbers! like dayglo said look at all the ppl playing the respawn servers... does that make them wrong? yes dayglo it does.. because when this game was first made it was made with the clancy core ideals (the most realistic tactical shooter available) that was the original draw to the game SKILL TACTICS but.. now ppl want halo those pl come to play this game.. and what .. they get impatient so them and all "those" ppl who want to play that way use repawns then when we go to look for a game... nobody is playing the non respawns cause all their impatient "freinds" are playing the others ... so instead of removing them(respawns) and MAKING ppl become better gamers we give in (so they will buy the game) that is the thing that has ruined this franchise &lt;&lt;&lt; keyword so guys give up on this thread because there are a whole lot more ppl out there who want the QUICK NOOBIE FIX than us who want to play the real way..$$$$$$$$ BOTTOM LINE

Akedo
03-10-2006, 12:03 PM
to be clear we ARE talking about respawns in TEAM DEATHMATCH not the other modes in which they are free to play.. yes whe are saying no team sharp or whatever its called... but not saying no modes like ctf or retrieval or satelites or whatever thats what we are saying! THOSE should be the other options.. not the core gameplay tho...

Akedo
03-10-2006, 12:07 PM
ok dayglo go on ld RIGHT NOW and do a search for team deathmatch ..... see how many ppl are playing.... 0 none i just tried not a single room. where is my options? to make a room and hope some ppl join now? again i say the problem with this series(and when you started getting all the complaints is when you GAVE them that option!!!) ps (why is there a forum for this but not for CH??? it comes out in 4 days...(supposedly)...

ruled
03-10-2006, 12:52 PM
dayglow im not questioning your experience but i was just wondering how long u played rvs mp

FI_FlimFlam
03-10-2006, 01:03 PM
Sometimes having too many options weakens a product. Just like the do it all camera/video/phone/pager/PDA/can-opener devices. You muddy all the features and do none of them well. Your product loses it's uniqueness that sets it apart from the rest of the flotsam and it gets lost in a sea of mediocrity.

Why try to be all things for all players. One thing Rainbow Six has going for it is it's unique gameplay. Why try to make it like everyother game by including options to make it so?

I see your point, but I also think maintaining the series unique is much more important than adding option in that doesn't fit. Adding respawns just to attact players that don't like the game's current identity doesn't make sense. Especially when it's that uniqueness that has made the game as popular as it is. Why make the series something completly different so it can be just like every other shooter out there?

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 01:08 PM
since the demo release. Not a huge MP player, but a casual one. I enjoy teamwork and roomclear much more, don't have the time to play in a squad to get it, so I do play the majority in SP. Now if I was to play R6 MP, I would rather play a round based game. I agree that it slows people down, they take more care as their life is more precious. I do not, however believe it should limit how others want to play the game.

Here's a tough question for you akedo, if the most popular game type includes respawn, why should it be removed to appease the obviously minority? (also I don't think LD is a good reflection of this since other game dynamics have made the game unpopular with the 'hardcore R6' crowd. If other things weren't so arcadey 10 to 1 you would have more people of the round based ilk playing the game and more round based servers)

When GR1 was really popular online there was a good mix of respawn and round based servers.

Akedo
03-10-2006, 01:25 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here's a tough question for you akedo, if the most popular game type includes respawn, why should it be removed to appease the obviously minority </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
you see.. tho you are missing the real point... why should you change a game that was designed (by the original team (and creator)to be a certain type of game.. (a realistic tactical shooter) to halo with regular guns, to fit the masses? if they want that type of game let them go play halo.. but see like i said before this is a franchise $$$ is the bottom line.. and you are right we (the minority-the original ppl who bought this game and made it so popular that a large company boutght out the smaller company to cash in and change it into something nobody but 11 yr olds want..) dont count anymore.. your right it is our own faults by loving a game so much we built it up so much to be bought out by a huge company that just doesnt care about the reason the game was made in the first place...oh well it doenst matter if i am right or not. it has and is happenning.. so as it stands black arrow was the last rainbow six game.. why dont yall just change the name then? instead of selling a different game based on the succes of another?

Dane175
03-10-2006, 01:28 PM
I want jetpacks and cloaking devices so I can hide better. We can attract some of the Unreal Tournament crowd if we add these. Who are we to decide how everyone should be able to play the game?

Akedo
03-10-2006, 01:31 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Here's a tough question for you akedo, if the most popular game type includes respawn, why should it be removed to appease the obviously minority? (also I don't think LD is a good reflection of this since other game dynamics have made the game unpopular with the 'hardcore R6' crowd. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
also if lockdown is not a good example of this... then we have nothing to argue about because team sharpshooter was NOT an option in all of the other (SUCCESFULL) games the ones that ppl love and still play today.. more ppl play black arrow than lockdown(console)... why is that?... the masses speak ;-)

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 01:41 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Dane175:
I want jetpacks and cloaking devices so I can hide better. We can attract some of the Unreal Tournament crowd if we add these. Who are we to decide how everyone should be able to play the game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

if you aren't going to pay any attention to anything posted, don't bother trying to smart.

As I stated before there is a difference between game dynamics and the rules used to make up a MP game. Within a game designed to be realistic in it's weapons, environments, movment, etc the players can decide how to play a game, ie the rules. Respawn falls under these rules. To be smart as well, round based play isn't any more realistic because you are still coming back to life. It's a obitrary rule. I'm talking about expanding the rule options so that, yes, more people play the game. This isn't an esclusive club, but you can create your own. Play with the real players that don't use any sticking respawn.

The difference between a Halo game and a R6 game goes farther than respawn vs no respawn. It's the dynamics and subject matter.

What it comes down to is control. People want to be able to fire up the game, click on a random server with a low ping and expect everyone to be playing the way they want them to. I lean more towards options. It means that you may have to search out like minded gamers, but that's what the MP experience is all about. Setup a filter so that round based games are all you see, ignore the rest.

Dane175
03-10-2006, 01:51 PM
No, actually respawning falls under magically coming back to life mid-round when you are supposed to be dead on the ground.

I can tell you really want to play some quick respawn games here and there as well. Why else would you be pushing so hard to get this crappy feature that doesn't belong into this game.

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 01:56 PM
because you aren't paying attention to anything I've posted?

Dane175
03-10-2006, 02:18 PM
You want respawns to be in this game badly, because I haven't been paying attention to your posts. That makes a lot of sense. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 02:43 PM
I've already stated my pesonal preference for MP type of game. It has nothing to do with limiting options on how others play the game. If you can't read, that's not my problem, just don't make assumptions because obviously have no idea.

If you can show me how having a respawn option in the game will ruin it for you when you can play on a round based server I'm all ears. So far all I've seen is wanting to dictate to other people how they should enjoy the game. Again, when GR was in it's prime there were round based servers and respawn servers. Was the game ruined across the board for everyone?

Dane175
03-10-2006, 02:54 PM
Please don't deny that you want respawns in this game to make yourself look better. You say you like round based servers but everyone can see that you are dying to hop in a few respawn servers every now and then for some quick games. And for some reason you completely ignored the realistic respawn idea I brought up two times in this thread. (I think because you dont like that idea and you want to be able to respawn immediately out of thin air when you play your quick games on the respawn servers.)

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 02:59 PM
well we aren't really discussing how to implement the respawn into the game. The renforcement model is one way of doing it, and a slick one at that.

And you can stop trying to assume anything about me, because I've told you how I would want to play. Take it or leave it, I just don't think that my way of playing is the only way and think the MP model should be inclusive, not restrictive.

GhostReconJunky
03-10-2006, 04:18 PM
As I mentioned before...

Lockdown is testimony that the game will flop with respawns as an option. Raven shield was borderline flopping because every single server pushed for famas using scoped running ***s. You basically were not allowed to stake out a room for more than a minute before you were kicked or even banned. People are so impatient that it makes me sick. THIS GAME IS A REALISTIC TACTICAL SHOOTER, AND AS A COUNCIL MEMBER.. ITS YOUR RESPONSIBILITY TO KEEP IT THAT WAY. This is ALL falling on you guys. Trying to be mr. optional is going to ruin this next installment again! Look DG, I really don't like being a rude person. But for christ's sake, the game sells off of the unique and original formula that EVERYONE can enjoy. Just because some damn impatient children cannot wait for a round to end after they run out into open gun fire with their lame tactics is not my problem or anybody elses. Supporters of the real R6 made this series with our devoted purchase to a solid and quality game. Supporters of Lockdown did not reach NEAR the popularity and sales of any previos launched installment. They are a newb fan base playing on strictly respawn newb games. And that is the facts. Ugly, but true. No disrespect intended. Your ideas and ambitions are nice but your ultimate outcome will be nasty as hell.

DayGlow
03-10-2006, 04:54 PM
Was GR a flop because it had the option of respawn?

Akedo
03-11-2006, 01:19 AM
dayglo.... look i understand you want options for ppl..and thats kewl but pls pls pls dont compare gr to rb6!! these are two entirely different genres and gamestyle plays... comparing them is NOT relevent. gr is war a much faster paced environment! your missing what we are trying to say! rainbow was originally DESIGNED and BILLED as THE TACTICAL shooter!! for the hardcore.. elite, hrt, snipers, swat style tactics.. in ALL the games up to black arrow.. we could really use those tactics.....and they work!! thats what made playing the game soo satisfying.. doing recon, planning. setting up ambush points .. predicting wich way the enemy will go.. in a real game (all before LD) once i killed one or two ppl in a certain area .. i knew what direction the others went(most likely to flank.. ) but now.. they just keep coming.. and know where you are in THAT round.. so planning and tactics go out the window... just a quick example.. intead of like halo just running into fire not caring if you get shot.. cause you know where they are now and can come back seconds later...like i said EVERY RAINBOW GAME before NOT gr (totally diff game.. like halo call of duty etc... (not what we are talking about here) RAINBOW .. NEVER HAD RESPAWN IN TEAMS! THEY WERE SUCCESFULL ! the ONE rainbow title you DID put it in is the most awfull game ever! do you know how many used copies of ld are at every game store around here and everyone i talk to on ba.. and now these 11 yr olds parents will buy it cause its cheap .. and now that they are bored with halo they play respawn rainbow! look on black arrow look how many play that and also the first rb6!!! this franchise was built on realism not fantasy.. if we want a fantasy game then we play a GAME mode not a simulation like deathmatch then we can play retreival or satelites or whatever and respawn all we want... aneehoo srry its so long but pls listen to what we are SAYING im not the smartaleck kid whos arguing up there who is just arguing to argue.. im trying to get a point across to you just like gr junky and flim flam and thousands of others back on the other forums..... pls listen

MD_Sennet
03-11-2006, 06:50 AM
DG doesn't need to defend himself about whether he "wants" repsawns in the game, he stated his opinion that having the choice is whats important multiple times.

But, that said, the fact of the matter is these guys are right about respawns and how this game is packaged. DG I totally understand your viewpoint but where you lose me is when you make the statement that "more options are the way to go, not less", which nobody disagrees with, but then totally disregard the success of every previous R6 game that did not contain respawns. They did not give MP gamers that choice either, and yet they sold very well. It doesn't add up.

And again, I am terminally depressed by the situation we find ourselves in because money *is* the bottomline here, and UBI does not care if a casual gamer buys their product and only plays it for 2 weeks. Therefore the kind of passion these guys are showing on such a minor issue like this is sadly and ultimately going to fall on deaf ears and fade into nothingness. At least it will unless something changes.

Woosy
03-11-2006, 08:08 AM
I can see DG's point of view.

1) You set your server up to play standard TDM on roundbased or whatever mode game mode you like, which could be filtered out in the server list. I don't play TDM oftern I'm a co-op player so untick the game modes I don't require.
2) You have respawn servers for people who wish to have respawns, which like 1 can be filtered out so you don't get confused with the standard mode.

The arguement is quite amusing, if YOU and your clan play the standard mode with no respawns and you filter it out HOW can respawns effect you? You're not forced to play that type of gameplay if you don't want to. The same people who run and gun or the mindless gameplay you're talking about, when they come in to your server will have to play with the standard rules which is being careful, they cannot apply the same tacticsin respawns in round based, you have the advantage straight away.

To be honest Respawns have been in Rainbow Six not TDM but co-op you die you get a new Cylon body and carry on the good fight. Even though it's limited you can still respawn, and before someone says "but yeah they are already there not apearing out of thin air" though I agree it's still respawning. Does that mean we should get rid of co-op?

I personaly don't play on servers which have backup AI on it's simple as that, now apply that concept to respawn servers and you're on the right path. I'm not a person who would play respawn servers, but I can't see the harm in them if I can't see them when they are filteed out. It's like me complaining about the microscopic cheese spiders which do exist and they live on every piece of cheese but can you see them? Do they harm you no!

Dane175
03-11-2006, 08:11 AM
There were never respawns in co-op in any R6 game except Lockdown. You had the option of switching to a different player on your team, which is a totally different feature.

Woosy
03-11-2006, 08:30 AM
Nope, You can turn on backup AI and have up to 4 other teammates or back up lives as i call them, when you die you respawn in one of their bodies, though it's a limited number, or none at all depending on if the server is full. But you can, respawn in co-op if it's turned on. Standard co-op there is no AI and when you're dead you're dead and have to restart the round.

Depends on your defintion of respawning I guess, my definition is being able to come back alive from being dead in the same round and continue which is possible in co-op.

Dane175
03-11-2006, 08:42 AM
You aren't respawning and coming back to life, you are just switching to another teammate that has been following you all along. The teammate that just got killed is still laying on the ground, dead. We are talking about the same thing here.

Back on topic, I don't think respawning should be an option in R6, but if for some reason it must be an option...it should be realistically implemented.

Woosy
03-11-2006, 09:20 AM
Yeah, you switch to another body, but as people in the thread have said when you die you should die, when you die and go to another body it is respawning in a way. As I just said above when you're dead you expect to be dead and a new round starts, If I have 4 AI with me thats 3 lives I can run around like a mindless fool and get killed and still complete the mission with the last 1, I respawned 3 times in different bodies *lol* as I say it depends on your definition of respawning, to me it's respawning 4 times instead of being KIA the first.

Vert22110
03-11-2006, 09:31 AM
I am sure this has been mentioned before. But I will say it.

Respawns, even as an option, do not belong in Rainbow Six. Let me explain...

When the common player who plays Battlefield or Unreal Tournament sees respawns as an option, they will likely include it in their server. Now you have a server running with many people, who don't really enjoy Rainbow for what it is, playing and having a good time with respawns.

Now, tactical gamer Joe goes to the server list and looks for some no-respawn servers. He sees about 10 percent of the servers have no-respawn. He wonders why.

Why? Because respawns are the popular thing. And Rainbow Six has never been about "the popular thing". When respawns become an option, they will attract players who don't follow the gameplay style of true tactical games... the same players that are going to TK, call names and disrespect admins. Now, thats not to say all arcade fans are like that, but many tactical gamers that play online don't want that crowd in their community.

So you see, just because it is an option, does not mean it will be a split 50-50 server list of respawn and no-respawn.

And you have to remember that RB6 has never been a large-scale server count game.

DayGlow
03-11-2006, 10:24 AM
so you are telling the devs that they shouldn't include a feature because it will be popular? I don't really think that is the right way of approaching it, but I have no idea what they think on the topic as well. Don't fear my opinion because it's only one.

What it comes back to is the desire to tell other people how to play the game. I don't think MP should be some exclusive club. It's fine to do that on a clan level, but all of MP doesn't have to be where the real R6 players play.

So if only 10% of the servers are setup to be roundbase, so what? That means that you will find top notch, like minded good peope to play with on those servers without the riftraft you fear respawns will bring into the game.

Vert22110
03-11-2006, 02:10 PM
Trust me, no ones playing an online game if they can only find 10 percent of the servers they like. I like to be able to pick and choose what maps I play, server rules, etc. Eventually, the minority of those servers will shut down or change over to respawn.

subzero1900
03-11-2006, 04:50 PM
Dayglow let me sum it up

We the Rainbow Six fans would rather see our game Die In its truiest form, instead of mutating into something that it Isn't and survive in false pretenses.

Plain, Simple, to the Point that is what its all about.

DayGlow
03-11-2006, 05:13 PM
I've yet to see someone explain how letting other people play the way they want to with a common MP staple such as respawns effects how they play.

I would whole heartly agree with you if round based play was removed, but to add an option for respawn has zero effect on you, other than you cannot join every server out there. If there are many tried and true Rainbow fans, then this won't be an issue.

What is an issue is that people want to dictate to all others how they should play the game. You aren't some elite club that people have to be vetted to join. If respawns is popular, so be it. Don't play on the popular servers and look down your nose at all those who do, I don't really care.

What I do care about is making the game fun and accessable to as many people as possible, and I think the devs probably do too.

subzero1900
03-11-2006, 05:29 PM
Dayglow, as much as id like to belive that would be the case.

Look at lockdown, How many servers are REspawn ALL, How many are non-respawn ZERO,NADA,NONE,ABSOLUTELY NONE

Tell me something else do you even own LD, Do you play the MP and feel how Washed out it is, DO you feel how Noobified it is to be able to respawn over and over and over again withought any Tactics envolved, Do you have a clue?

Respawns is the death of R6, too bad there are those who feel it draws in a new crowd, but at what cost? is it to hide the real identity of R6, it to Cover up The true game and create two communitys who despise each other?
Is it to mutate the game into something that it ISNT?

Look to the future dayglow, what about R6:6...What then will we the Hardcore & general people who like R6 for what it was to be overshadowed by CS wanting fans, Bf2 fans, what then, who will be listened to then? I can only predict one thing will happen UBI will give into the CS fans because they have more numbers, I can only dread the day that comes, what then? is R6 to live on in a shadow of its former self?

DayGlow
03-11-2006, 05:37 PM
so LD would be a hit if it didn't have respawn?

I think there are much more important dynamics that limited the success of the game. Remove respawn and you still would have the same situation. Things such as network issue, server browser issues, the fact that you have to reload the map after every round, movement and shooting dynamics are all more important and weigh much heavier into why LD isn't a success.

On the other hand I look at Ghost Recon when it came out and how strong it was online, with both round based and respawn based game types and servers, all configerable by the players. It isn't a flop, it had the other dynamics that made it a hit, with the option of respawn no less.

I don't know what utopia you are living in, but even in RvS most of the public games are R&G, 'noobfests' with people running around with no teamwork or tactics gernade spamming and shooting up a storm, no different from a LD server right now. Like any other game you find a server or 2 that has people you enjoy playing with and play the way you like. Respawns or no.

You still haven't answered how, if respawn is allowed as an option, all the hardcore R6 players and clans will not be able to remove that little tick from a box and create the server they want.

You say the fans have spoken, they can still speak. The true fans of round based gameplay still have the option and ability to play that way. Also please explain to me how someone that say's 'I've played R6 for 6 years and like playing this way' is any more important than someone that picks up the box and says 'cool, I like playing this way'. Why are you more imiportant? You have the option to play your way, why do you feel the need to decree that it's the only way to play?

subzero1900
03-11-2006, 05:53 PM
Poll Question:
Do you want respawn, and reasons why

Results (58 votes counted so far):

5 (9%)
Yes
47 (81%)
No
6 (10%)
for certain gametypes

RAZE_672
03-11-2006, 06:00 PM
Well reasoned and well said Dayglow. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

Vert22110
03-11-2006, 07:11 PM
"You still haven't answered how, if respawn is allowed as an option, all the hardcore R6 players and clans will not be able to remove that little tick from a box and create the server they want."

Because, Dayglow, it is a Domino effect. When the majority of servers start to support Respawn, then the minority of non-respawn servers will shut down or change over to Respawn when they see a loss in activity.

Anyway, I see no need to include respawn in a &gt;TACTICAL&lt; shooter game. Respawn creates a LOSS in tactical thinking, and concern for self-preservation.

A game like Rainbow Six IS AND SHOULD ALWAYS BE exclusively TACTICAL. I don't care what the battlefield fans want to play, they can play BF2 for all I care. Selfish? Yeah, because I'm a fan of tactical gaming, and I want my game (that I paid 50 ****ing dollars for) to be TACTICAL and ONLY TACTICAL.

DayGlow
03-12-2006, 12:51 AM
why will they fall? If so many people like the idea of a round based game, then the support for it will be there. No one is saying that the game should be respawn only. You keep saying that the real fans want round based play. Well have at it. It's an option. You then say that if respawns are an option everyone will play with respawns and no one will play rounds? What just happenned to all these people that you say want round based gameplay? That's what I don't get. You show me the poll results. Are you saying that everyone that voted for round based gameplay when they go online will then say, 'oh respawns, I'll play there instead'? If the will is there then the gameplay will be there.

You seem to think that the only way to get tactical gameplay is to force everyone to play a single way. That's not how it works. You get tactical gameplay by playing with people that want to play tactically. That means you have to make an effort to track these people down. Again, looking at a RvS public server, most of the players there don't communicate, they rush their favourite choke point and start hucking gernades. After that it's 1 on 1 R&G straffing circles of death. No teamwork, no tactics, straight arcade playing. Lack of respawn hasn't changed this 'noob' effect.

I see this exact same arguement against quicksaves. People say there shouldn't be quicksaves because it ruins the tension and skill needed for a game. Tell them it's an option and they don't have to use it, well that doesn't matter. It's the same self-defeating arguement. I don't want option x to be in the game. Even though I don't want it in, if option x is available I will use it, which I don't really want to do. Therefore no one should be able to have option x because it makes the game better, even though I don't have to use option x in the first place. It doesn't make sense.

Ghost Recon didn't fail online because it had an option of respawns because it got the feel right for everything else. If R6:5 gets the dynamics down I don't think a respawn option will throw all of it away.

SODsniper
03-12-2006, 04:09 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by DayGlow:
why will they fall? If so many people like the idea of a round based game, then the support for it will be there. No one is saying that the game should be respawn only. You keep saying that the real fans want round based play. Well have at it. It's an option. You then say that if respawns are an option everyone will play with respawns and no one will play rounds? What just happenned to all these people that you say want round based gameplay? That's what I don't get. You show me the poll results. Are you saying that everyone that voted for round based gameplay when they go online will then say, 'oh respawns, I'll play there instead'? If the will is there then the gameplay will be there.

You seem to think that the only way to get tactical gameplay is to force everyone to play a single way. That's not how it works. You get tactical gameplay by playing with people that want to play tactically. That means you have to make an effort to track these people down. Again, looking at a RvS public server, most of the players there don't communicate, they rush their favourite choke point and start hucking gernades. After that it's 1 on 1 R&G straffing circles of death. No teamwork, no tactics, straight arcade playing. Lack of respawn hasn't changed this 'noob' effect.

I see this exact same arguement against quicksaves. People say there shouldn't be quicksaves because it ruins the tension and skill needed for a game. Tell them it's an option and they don't have to use it, well that doesn't matter. It's the same self-defeating arguement. I don't want option x to be in the game. Even though I don't want it in, if option x is available I will use it, which I don't really want to do. Therefore no one should be able to have option x because it makes the game better, even though I don't have to use option x in the first place. It doesn't make sense.

Ghost Recon didn't fail online because it had an option of respawns because it got the feel right for everything else. If R6:5 gets the dynamics down I don't think a respawn option will throw all of it away. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>


I think what people are saying, DG, is that ReSpawns ruin the "feel" of what RB6 should be and that, if available as an option, then it will dilute RB6.

And the point is valid.

Like I posted before, why stop with ReSpawns? Why not add personal teleporters as an option? Why not add tactical nukes or the ability to jump as an option? Because those things, EVEN AS AN OPTION, would take away from the tactical "feel" that RB6 games represent.

It's the same reasoning with ReSpawning. It simply takes away from the "feel" that RB6 games have.

KungFu_CIA
03-13-2006, 12:24 PM
One solution would be make instant respawns a MOD function/cvar ONLY which requires modders to "unlock" it and therefore, those who want to play on a respawn server would also have to download the mod which would minimize how widespread respawn servers and gamers are as a whole.

For example, Raven Shield's Unreal Ed offers tons of map customizations in terms of implementing randomized location spawns for MP games -- But it was not a default function and modders/mappers had to gradually discover and "unlock" this feature which limits how widespread games with randomized spawning is because it is essentially a server-side mod since it only effects maps on the server.

Another example is there are now respawns in Counter-Strike Source... However, this was a community made mod and was never a default feature, hence, this has not "destroyed" the CSS Community by any means because again, nine times ot of ten, people are lazy and don't want to have to track down, download and then install a mod just to play a slightly different version of the regular game which itself limits the effectiveness and how widespread the gamemode is in a self-policing way.

The point is the community can control things better if certain features are NOT a default function like DayGlow and others want instant respawning to be...

Which I think is the real issue here and not people trying to be "elitist", stubborn of unwilling to give gamers more options.

A final example are some of the mods I made for RVS. The AI Mod is primarily for SP... But if you ran a server with the moddified files, it would work in MP CO-OP as long as everyone else had the files as well. In addition, I tweaked the arsenal to be more realistic in terms of recoil, thus, you could theoretically also use it in MP Adverserial games as well... As long as everyone had the modded files which again, limits my "version" of the game to those who also want to play it as well.

Relenquish
03-13-2006, 12:36 PM
I think if ubis going to make respawns possible, they are not going to have it as only a mod function. I dont see it as an option that ubi will take. I mean I am not ubi, nor do i know the devs, but it seems more likely they would leave it out all together than hide it.

TedSmith
03-13-2006, 01:12 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
The point is the community can control things better if certain features are NOT a default function like DayGlow and others want instant respawning to be...
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

No one said they wanted respawns to be the default. They said adding the "option" of respawns might bring in more players and would not harm the game intrinsicly.

The problem with your line of reasoning Kung Fu is that the hardcore players who are the ones likely to go searching around for a mod are generally the ones that DON'T want to play with respawns. The newer players that the respawn style of gameplay might appeal to aren't likely to go hunting for some secret way to unlock that style of play, they just won't buy the game.

A better argument that so many have avoided making (probably because of the response people get from mentioning the letters C and S concurrently on a Rainbow Six forum) is that Counter-strike doesn't have respawns (save for that mod that makes up a tiny percentage of the community). Now, CS is played entirely without respawns, yet it is the most popular online shooter in existence. That being said... would adding respawns to the game natively make CS even more popular? Not likely.

The counter argument to that is also fairly simple. CS is a fast paced game to begin with. Rounds typically last 1-2 minutes even if the time limit is set higher. Rainbow games (especially RvS) on the other hand are often prone to full 5 minute rounds. People who are willing to wait 30 seconds to a minute to play again, may not be willing to wait 4 minutes. So respawns would give those people more immediate gratification in gameplay.

The point has been argued back and forth a great deal, but frankly this entire argument is pointless. EVERYTHING depends on how popular the game is for ladder matches. Laddering teams are the ones who primarily put up the most adversarial servers and they also set them up to match the rules of their ladders (which are predominantly NON-Respawn in tactical games).

The reason Sum of All Fears and Lockdown were primarily filled with respawning servers is because they were BAD GAMES from a competitive point of view. No one wanted to compete in them, so no one put up round-based servers to play/practice/match in.

Conversely the reason Ghost Recon had a mix of servers that were respawn and non-respawn is because it was a GOOD GAME from a competitive point of view. Teams who played it competitively on respawn ladders set up their servers as respawn servers and vice versa with the non-respawn ladders/servers.

Everything comes down to whether or not the game is a GOOD tactical game. If they give us a game with depth that allows for a great deal of strategic planning and tactical play, ensure that there is anti-cheat support from the beginning and proper server controls and most importantly get the gameplay feel right, people will want to match in it. If they get that part right and non-respawn play is good, then having a respawn option will balance itself out and not dominate the majority of servers.

The three above-mentioned games prove one thing very clearly. Optional respawns only kills bad games, not good ones.

Relenquish
03-13-2006, 01:54 PM
Woo that makes a lotta lotta sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I do have a worry. Unlike Adver, Co op does not have laddering etc etc, and will be prone to a huge number of respawn servers, even more so because a good tactical co op game can last 3 times as long as adver. Respawns wil not encourage tactical play in co op, and wil not be solved by the huge number of competetive teams who play on good adver games.

Now the simple fact maybe serious co op players, and clan may be in such few numbers its not worth UBI worrying about.

Best Regards

aNewHope
03-13-2006, 02:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I think what people are saying, DG, is that ReSpawns ruin the "feel" of what RB6 should be and that, if available as an option, then it will dilute RB6.

And the point is valid.

Like I posted before, why stop with ReSpawns? Why not add personal teleporters as an option? Why not add tactical nukes or the ability to jump as an option? Because those things, EVEN AS AN OPTION, would take away from the tactical "feel" that RB6 games represent.

It's the same reasoning with ReSpawning. It simply takes away from the "feel" that RB6 games have.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif


The next Rainbow Six should not include Respawning. It really ruins the feel of the game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_mad.gif

That being said, i can understand Ubisoft wants to implement it to achieve its objective, that is to attract new customers/players...(to sell more copies)

But, as i am sure respawning will be part of Rs5 http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_frown.gif, the game has to designed for NON-Respawning, unlike Lockdown...
The Default must be NO-RESPAWN.

RAZE_672
03-13-2006, 03:06 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Relenquish:
Woo that makes a lotta lotta sense. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

I do have a worry. Unlike Adver, Co op does not have laddering etc etc, and will be prone to a huge number of respawn servers, even more so because a good tactical co op game can last 3 times as long as adver. Respawns wil not encourage tactical play in co op, and wil not be solved by the huge number of competetive teams who play on good adver games.

Now the simple fact maybe serious co op players, and clan may be in such few numbers its not worth UBI worrying about.

Best Regards </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

If this sort of thing is going to be inevitable then the "Joining on the Fly" option is preferable to the respawn option for coop tango hunt. I believe that jotf would alleviate the waiting problem without disturbing the game all that much. Ghostreconjunkie has some good ideas about a realistic storyline implementation here (http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3801065024/m/8881085024)

These two features will not be used by serious coop players for missions however. You may as well do away with objective matches altogether if respawn & jotf were to be made anything more than an option.

Vert22110
03-13-2006, 03:45 PM
This is such an interesting argument here. I mean, wasn't the planning stage just an option too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif

DayGlow
03-13-2006, 04:00 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Vert22110:
This is such an interesting argument here. I mean, wasn't the planning stage just an option too? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/35.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Be careful how you argue, overall the casual gamer didn't want to do planning and if that was dropped, well what does the casual gamer want in MP..... http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/blink.gif

GhostReconJunky
03-13-2006, 11:44 PM
You know... they told us they'd make these forums for us to let the developers know what we want.

However, DG acts like he doesn't know whats going on. He asks questions that he already knows the answer to in almost every single one of his posts.

Guys just give up, these developers don't care about the fanbase. Even the council is corrupt now. We voiced our opinion on respawns. Nothing left to do but wait till the end of 2006 to see if anyone cares. Let them ruin another game, only hurts them in the long run.

I walked into EB the other day and acted like I never heard of LD. Asked for the managers opinion of this game, and he said: "Let me put it this way, this should be called R6: Letdown." No joke. With the devs/council all pro option, we can just wait for the same outcome. Nobody get your hopes up.

DayGlow
03-14-2006, 12:29 AM
I'm not a deveoper, I'm a community member with an opinion, which I'm expressing. There are people on the council that will disagree with me, hell kungfu did in this thread.

I think options are good, others do not, who the devs listen to in the end is up to them. Why do you assume that I won't be fair. If I was asked what the community thinks about respawns I'd say a lot of them argue that it goes against what they think is the R6 style of gameplay. That's what you guys say. I don't agree with it, but I won't lie.

TexasRanger_562
03-14-2006, 12:45 AM
Respawn should NOT be an option.

If you add respawn as an option in MP, then you might as well add LIGHTSABER as an option in SP. And the hardcore gamers can choose to not use it.

lol

Have you read the book at all? Did the dead get resurrected in Tom Clancy's books? Did any dead SWAT member, or any human being, ever respawn? The only man who ever "respawn"ed in the entire history of mankind was Jesus, and even he took 3 days to "respawn".

So, get real. Respawning, just like lightsabers, does not belong to a Rainbow Six game.

TexasRanger_562
03-14-2006, 12:56 AM
POPULARITY

DayGlow you say that respawn might make the game more popular, therefore it should be added as an option.

Let me ask you: the game would be more popular if live porn was added in it. Would that extra POPULARITY justify doing so? Does live porn belong in a Rainbow Six game?

In games with respawning, wanton teamkilling is widespread, because life has no value anyway.

What's the point of rescuing hostages, if life has no value anyway?

If Rainbow commandoes can respawn, then WHY CAN'T HOSTAGES RESPAWN TOO? http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/compsmash.gif

finger999
03-14-2006, 05:28 AM
Yes well, respawns would be a good option as it would encourage people of all ages and rake in a lot more cash for your next r6 title , so people give up your true values of r6 and come on over.... yay!


I am not an employee of Eagle Dynamics nor Ubisoft and I do not speak for them.
All my comments are IMHO

Yeah right if your not your certainly sounding like you wanna be.

Relenquish
03-14-2006, 06:03 AM
I think to many people are un willing to compramise on some points. Respawns will not the the end of R6. If the games good the will be plenty of good, no respawn servers.

After some thought I think I have changed my mind on this issue. In terms of opening up the game to more people this will really help. One of the biggest things many casual players might find off putting about The Rainbow Six series is the long waits between rounds. At the end of the day if they want to just run and gun with no cares against each other or on coop, why not? It will not be used by the serious clans. The will be plenty of servers with respawns turned off. If anything serious servers will be less effected by casual players as they will all be having fun respawning.

Many may also decide to have a bigger challenge and try to play seriously in no respawn servers.

R6 may be about tactics, and this may mean this is no longer 100% true. But a large part of the community will still keep that alive.

As long as the games made for tactical gamers, and this feature is added in to enable casual play I really cant see any reason it will not work.

Even serious players occassionally enjoy no worry gaming.

I really dont believe this option will lower R6 at all. Other features associated with alot of respawn games will do this.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">so people give up your true values of r6 and come on over.... yay! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Respawns will not do this. True more people who dont have "true values" will play the game, but all those who do have these "true values" will still be there, and so will their servers.

Best Regard

finger999
03-14-2006, 06:25 AM
My concern is if we break on respawns, PEC will be next, no head gear, Ranked servers ETC

FWF_BooBoo
03-14-2006, 07:00 AM
Respawns are not that big of a deal. It might bring in a few extra players, and in the end a few more bucks to ubi, which is really what the game is about to them anyway. As long as it isn't done like lockdown where the loading is screwed up making respawns the popular option. I think that in the long run, as long as the options are done right, you will for the most part see most servers as no-respawn.

Woosy
03-14-2006, 07:03 AM
It boggles my mind, DayGlow said that he doesn't have time to play the game round based, and would prefer and "option" key word here option, where by you could have respawn servers. People are spinning his words by saying he wants it as the default mode which is untrue, as an option only.

Respawns as an option wont wreck the game at all. Your assumptions is, if respawns is a popular mode and attracts a huge crowd of players who run and gun and that you will have to reform to respawn servers because no one will play on roundbased, which is ridiculous. Ladders for serious clans will never ever have respawns, people are over exaggerating, and considering it's could be an OPTION I don't see how it effects the people who don't play it.

I know if i rent a server It will be co-op if there is options for respawns in co-op mine will be the standard mode of no respawns, I'll play and have fun. How will respawns effect me please? If you're all so hardcore like many people are saying and are dedicated multiplayers of R6 the same roundbased mode will be the popular mode.

Even Ghost Recon 3 on xbox360 has respawn option but guess what? Thats right there are tons and tons of roundbased servers which seems to be the norm, and there are respawn servers too, so I can't see peoples arguements that it will break the game, not when there is a plethora of servers of both respawn and non to suit everyones needs.

TedSmith
03-14-2006, 08:24 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by TexasRanger_562:
Let me ask you: the game would be more popular if live porn was added in it. Would that extra POPULARITY justify doing so? Does live porn belong in a Rainbow Six game? </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Bad analogy. Adding porn makes the game instantly AO rated which most stores WILL NOT sell. The lack of availability and shelf space in stores would cost them far more in sales than they would get back.

Woosy
03-14-2006, 08:44 AM
Well if you remember back there was some porn in Black Arrow, I had to stop my nephew playing that game for a while because of it. I dunno how that got by ubisoft, but it eventually got patched out some how. It didn't make the game any more popular, it turned me and parents alike in to a burning rage.

DayGlow
03-14-2006, 09:38 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by finger999:
Yes well, respawns would be a good option as it would encourage people of all ages and rake in a lot more cash for your next r6 title , so people give up your true values of r6 and come on over.... yay!


I am not an employee of Eagle Dynamics nor Ubisoft and I do not speak for them.
All my comments are IMHO

Yeah right if your not your certainly sounding like you wanna be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Can't handle I have a different opinion than you? Too bad.

KungFu_CIA
03-14-2006, 11:25 AM
The only issue I have with respawns is after some more discussions on related threads about how to make the game more "accessible" to new players, there now may be a conflict between the concept of respanws and what TedSmith cited game developer CliffyB (Unreal Tournament) describing as "Clarity of Experience".

CoE, from what Ted said, is basically paramount to another achronym most of you have (or will) heard which is K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid - In according to CliffyB, what makes a game successful isn't necessarily having this unique feature, or that, but the player knowing exactly what he/she must be doing at all times within the boundries the game has already established.

This applies to R6 as R6 is a realism based game which centers around CQB action, realistic locations, realistic scenarios, realistic weapons, realistic damage model, etc. This is the predefined universe a gamer agrees to "live in" when they play R6.

The CoE in MP should be you have one life, therefore, use it wisely.

This isn't being "elitist", stubborn, et al.

In fact, what the CoE for R6 MP should be doing is reinforcing the themes and experiences the player may have had in SP as well as the game's established rules overall.

In this case, it should be a realism-based cause and effect model:

Your virtural character cannot survive beyond a few multiple hits (armor rating; locational damage) before you die and you only get one life per round. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to not play the game as if you will respawn every single time you die.

Once again, the Clarity of Expreience in its simplest form as far as Adverserial MP goes that also isn't counter-intuitive to the rest of the themes and rules the game as a whole is trying to promote.

Relenquish
03-14-2006, 12:36 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
This applies to R6 as R6 is a realism based game which centers around CQB action, realistic locations, realistic scenarios, realistic weapons, realistic damage model, etc. This is the predefined universe a gamer agrees to "live in" when they play R6.

The CoE in MP should be you have one life, therefore, use it wisely.
</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

CoE must differ for different modes.

If Realism is the CoE for the whole game, then scrap Adver. Operatives shootng operatives, running and gunning in a crazy way. It totally disagrees with what the SP game is about. As you can see the arguements pretty ridiculous.

One shot kills will still apply iwith respawns. Just the penelty will be drastically reduced. Which for some will lead to a far more enjoyable MP game.

It, imo, will not take away anything from those wishing to play the game normally. ANd as long as when playing normally, default, the CoE is clear, I dont see a problem. CoE will differ in different game modes. SP != Coop != Adver. The experience changes in all of them. if it didnt we would have only 1 mode for 1 experience. CoE is obvioulsy important, but a games a game. And people / gamers can adapt. Some really popular games like the AoE series has different game types which completely alter how you play. 1 key part of AoE stratergy is how you gather resources. yet some game types give you unlimited resources. This doesnt ruin the game. Only gives the player a different experience.

Best Regards

TedSmith
03-14-2006, 03:21 PM
cliffyb.1up.com (http://cliffyb.1up.com)

That's the link to where he posted the blog about this specific topic. I think you folks have confused what CoE refers to.

It is NOT about consistency, or maintaining a theme. It's simply about making a game in such a way that the gamer understands what's going on, and what's expected of him. It's all about avoiding those "... What now?" moments in games, or small confusions, wondering if that person you see is an enemy, a civillian or a friendly, wondering if you actually hit that guy you just shot at, etc.

Respawning gameplay is inherently no more confusing than round based gameplay. People are not going to get confused by respawns, so long as it's made clear when they die what's going to happen. "30 seconds to respawn", or "Press space to respawn" or "Press space to spectate a teammate, the next round will begin momentarily". So far as clarity is concerned, it doesn't matter when they come back to life be it in the same round, or the next one, what matters is that they know when and how they will, and what they're supposed to do when they do.

While there may be some issue with consistency regarding respawns in how people react to them, valuing their lives less, technically there's a consistency issue with soul switching as well. Both imbue the player with the idea that the game isn't over for them when they die, both allow the player to be more reckless than they should. Yet the people arguing against respawns in MP, are the same people arguing FOR soul switching in SP. Funny that. Slightly different reasonings behind the existence of each, but ultimately, they have the same effect on gameplay.

I'm not a fan of the way respawns were handled in Lockdown. What I'd prefer to see is more Global Operations style respawns. Timed team insertions with spawn guardians built into the insertion devices. Helicopters had minigunners to kill any enemys attempting to spawn camp, hummvees had .50 cal machineguns, etc. They were a little too far reaching and lethal in that game, but the concept is sound. Having the dead team members all respawn in the same location, at the same time helped maintain teamwork where Lockdown's individual respawn method failed to. The difference with GO of course was that the game was entirely objective based and not about kills. If both teams just sat about gunning each other down and the aggressor did not attempt to complete their objective, then the defenders won, regardless of how many of them died comparatively. Has a very different mentality of play than TDM.

All that aside, I still see no reason to restrict the option of respawns from the game. Fear mongers will have you believe that every server in the game will end up as a respawn server just because the option is there, and others try to argue that it cheapens the realism, when in actuality, there is no fundamental difference to realism between either mode - both have you respawning eventually, the difference is merely when and with whom. It all boils down to playing on the servers that support the gameplay you like, or putting up one of your own.

SoK-BaTisTa
03-15-2006, 03:12 AM
I agree with dayglow in all his statements don't take away options. Look at lockdown that game has few options the way it is. Now from what i read and what they did to you no respawn people i understand ur frusturation. If i had to restart maps couldn't play ranked etc because of respawns i would not be happy they need to patch it for you people. Why would you want a game where its dictated to you how you play it? Im all for options and ALL FOR RESPAWNS. I would never tell you rvs people how to play if thats your thing do it. I like the guys comment about clogging up the server list with respawn games thats comedy. Have you ever heard of a filter? If there is so many respawn games why is that? Maybe cause people like them... just maybe!

Druac
03-15-2006, 10:01 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
The only issue I have with respawns is after some more discussions on related threads about how to make the game more "accessible" to new players, there now may be a conflict between the concept of respanws and what TedSmith cited game developer CliffyB (Unreal Tournament) describing as "Clarity of Experience".

CoE, from what Ted said, is basically paramount to another achronym most of you have (or will) heard which is K.I.S.S. - Keep It Simple Stupid - In according to CliffyB, what makes a game successful isn't necessarily having this unique feature, or that, but the player knowing exactly what he/she must be doing at all times within the boundries the game has already established.

This applies to R6 as R6 is a realism based game which centers around CQB action, realistic locations, realistic scenarios, realistic weapons, realistic damage model, etc. This is the predefined universe a gamer agrees to "live in" when they play R6.

The CoE in MP should be you have one life, therefore, use it wisely.

This isn't being "elitist", stubborn, et al.

In fact, what the CoE for R6 MP should be doing is reinforcing the themes and experiences the player may have had in SP as well as the game's established rules overall.

In this case, it should be a realism-based cause and effect model:

Your virtural character cannot survive beyond a few multiple hits (armor rating; locational damage) before you die and you only get one life per round. Therefore, it would be in your best interest to not play the game as if you will respawn every single time you die.

Once again, the Clarity of Expreience in its simplest form as far as Adverserial MP goes that also isn't counter-intuitive to the rest of the themes and rules the game as a whole is trying to promote. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif

GhostReconJunky
03-18-2006, 07:33 PM
guys let them ruin it.. it's no use arguing with them because they don't care what we think...

the council was designed to take feedback from us, and work with the devs to get the game right TO OUR LIKING if im not mistaken...they have threads that ask specifically what WE WANT

so if all the stubborn council members want to put their OWN 2 cents in on the game instead of ours (which coincidently, our opinion is basically at this point just to keep r6 an r6 game)... LET THEM... when this one flops, we can all point the finger and laugh

who would have thought we'd need to argue with an R6 player who mainly plays SP instead of MP.. just to keep respawns out of a realistic game LOL... this is such a waste of time

from the polls and the comments it is blatantly obvious what we want... i just cannot wait to ask EB's opinion of R6's latest installment.. tisk tisk

Dirtydog28
03-18-2006, 10:50 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GhostReconJunky:
guys let them ruin it.. it's no use arguing with them because they don't care what we think...

the council was designed to take feedback from us, and work with the devs to get the game right TO OUR LIKING if im not mistaken...they have threads that ask specifically what WE WANT

so if all the stubborn council members want to put their OWN 2 cents in on the game instead of ours (which coincidently, our opinion is basically at this point just to keep r6 an r6 game)... LET THEM... when this one flops, we can all point the finger and laugh

who would have thought we'd need to argue with an R6 player who mainly plays SP instead of MP.. just to keep respawns out of a realistic game LOL... this is such a waste of time

from the polls and the comments it is blatantly obvious what we want... i just cannot wait to ask EB's opinion of R6's latest installment.. tisk tisk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Funny you say that, but then you have people that say we are the minority and what we want is on the light end of the scale. There are just oodles of gamers and r6 fans that dont bother with forums so we are led to beleive. Personally I feal some of the council members are just F.O.S along with some moderaters whom seem to twist and manipulate what we want or what we feal is r6. I guess drawing in a bigger crowd for more money has its price in another sense too..

XGN_King_George
03-19-2006, 12:39 AM
the rainbow six series has never been about spawning and scurrying as fast as you can across the map to the other teams spawn with the intention of sitting outside it and slaughtering the other team as they attempt to exit it.

this first of all is not fun but more importantly it's not the rainbow six series style of gameplay that we've all come to know and love.

now some here are going to argue we should keep respawning in the game as an option and to that i say i honestly don't think we should and let me explain why.

if respawning is kept in the game as an option people are going to enable it when hosting a server. why? the answers simple gamers don't like to wait to play again after dieing. the problem with that however is the scale of rainbow six series maps in my opinion are not large enough to support respawning.

in my opinion and experience from having played lockdown pretty hardcore i can tell you your able to get right up on top of the other team and effectively hem them right into their spawn due to the scale of the maps and the speed of the players especially the recon class.

now some games can pull off respawning due to the scale of there maps, there player speed, and the total amount of players they support in multiplayer. a good example of one of these games is the delta force and or joint ops series. in the delta force and joint ops series due to the factors i mentioned above respawning can be implemented into the game pretty much without a hitch.

at least in those games you know the maps are so large and the amount of players in, around, and exiting your spawn is so many that spawn camping for the other team really isn't going to be an effective option. not to mention that once again do to the scale of the maps in games like that an opposing player is not going to be able to traverse the distance between himself and your spawn as fast as he can in lockdown.

so by the time that player does traverse that distance your long gone from your spawn or the location where you last killed that player.

it's little things like this that can make or break a game.

the way i look at it is like this. let's say your a new player to lockdown and you just install the game and you jump in a multiplayer server. you start you run out the door of your spawn with the notion that your going to kick *** and take names but before you even get three steps out the door your dead because an experienced player like myself was camping right outside your spawn and shot you in the back as you exited it. so you spawn again thinking i know right where that !@#$%^ is and i'm going to get him but before you even able to move a frag grenade comes in the door of your spawn and blows you up into a million pieces. sounds like fun right? wait it gets better so let's say this time by some miracle of god your actually able to succesfully exit your spawn and even better kill me. how long do you think it's going to take before i'm back across the map hemming you into your spawn again? on prison map as a recon class i'd say it would be about 3-4 seconds tops.

now ask yourself this how long is it going to be before a new player says " this !@#$%^& game sucks and exits" if that keeps on happening to him every 5 seconds or so?

exactly.....nuff said

when it comes to the rainbow six series style of gameplay think about it like this. everybody loved coca cola then one day they decided they needed to change the recipe and what happened? a **** storm happened.

if it isn't broken don't fix it!

sure we the community have beefs and issues with the game but the gameplay and or modes of gameplay were never an issue as far as i'm aware.

all i know is i played lockdown during the demo spent $50 for the full version played it for a few days and have not touched it since. why? honestly because i just don't have the urge to play it anymore. i just got tired of spawn camping people and being spawn camped by people.

along with a long line of other issues but i can only fight one battle at a time and today the enemy is respawning.

and that's my 2 cents.

KG out

FI_FlimFlam
03-19-2006, 10:52 AM
One thing that I was thankful for in playing the Rainbow series is never having to listen to people whining about an enemy camping a players spawn point for easy kills.... at least that was until LD.

A variation of the CoE concept has some merit if applied not exactly how CB intended. How about calling it CoI or Clarity of Identity. The Rainbow series up to LD has been defined by a particular type and style of gameplay. Respawns completely eschews that. It's that specific gameplay that makes Rainbow Six games what they have been. One of the things that the majority of gamers have complained about with Lockdown is that it abandoned the gameplay (on many many levels). Respawns is just one of those things that is at opposites with the previous gameplay styles. I still don't understand the need for people to want to include a feature just to appeal to a wider audience at the cost of what identifies and defines the series - not incl lockdown (you have to at least acknowledge that respawns contributed to how much of a failure it was).

I've said it before, by including respawns you jeprodize the games identity and weaken it. You will ultimately remove the things that made the game unique - what made it stand out from the rest of the chaff. It no longer is special and loses it's uniquiness and it becomes more and more like the hundreds of other FPS's out there.

Relenquish
03-19-2006, 11:49 AM
Swat 4 has respawns implemented into its MP adver. I dont see anyone calling it anything other than a tactical shooter. It oesnt even give people the option, it forces people to play like that. Yet its the most tacical online shooter I have ever played. In adver mode that is. I think its a good example to prove respawns dont need to spoil the image of a game.

As long as its done well I dont see how respawns will hurt R6. It will open the game up to audiences who dont always want to wait several minutes between play.

I think UBI has made it quite clear, by asking the council to get ideas which allow it, that the current audience is not going to be the only target of up coming games. They want to widen the audience of this game. That means change. Implementing things a wider audience will appreciate. I think a wider audience will appreciate respawns, and as long as its an option it will not hurt us.

Not everyone wants to be punished so heavily for dieng online. A lot of people will enjpy running around without huge pauses in game play.

...

As for ideas for implementing respawns properly.

MP ADVER: As people have pointed out already, spawn campers could be a problem. The easiest way to make spawwn camping less effective is to have multiple spawn points. Even without respawns I see this as a good idea. With set respawns to much of the "skill" is simply remembering off by heart the clash points, then fragging them. I remember when 1st playing adver on RVS it really really annoyed me that no matter where I ran I got a frag land on me. Fun maps like training, warehouse etc just turned into frag fests.

Also deploying respawns in a group of people. Any spawn camper is not going to be able to pick people off one by one as they respawn. He/she will be faced with multiple targets, which also means multiple eyes and a far greater cahnce he/she will be seen.

MP Coop: Personally my opinion is respawns shouldnt be implemented into this. If people want to run around just shooting without a worry I dont see why they wouldnt do it in adver respawn. Anyhow if it will be implemented I think its important to have a way to try and keep the team together. Maybe being able to select some1 who is alive to respawn on would work. It alteast gives the option for people to use teamwork other than running though the map to catch up with the team. Although this cant be implemented under the reason of reinforcements. But rainow getting reinforces means isnt realistic anyway.

Best regards

FI_FlimFlam
03-19-2006, 12:03 PM
Ahh yes but R6 is not SWAT4. Do we want it to become like it? R6 has an identity created over many serveral iterations that does not include respawns. To me and many other it's part of what defines R6. To add respawns makes the game less like a R6 game and more like any other generic respawning FPS.

Addittionally, it can be disabled in Barricaded Suspects via the GUI config, and in Escort via an edit on the server config files. I personally prefer S4 without Respawns, much more fun and getting arrested is even worse when you don't get to come back from it. LOL.

Relenquish
03-19-2006, 12:12 PM
I was just using swat as an example that respawns dont need to ruin the games image as a tactical shooter. R6 is very much different than Swat 4.

It may make it more like other genetic fps. But that will appeal to some people. Thats the whole point. Widen the audience. But those that do not like it will not play it and the image in their eyes will be the same R6 we all know and love.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Respawns will make the game more attractive to some people, whilst others, us, will not even have to bother looking at it.

You know playing a game is very much like making love to an ugly woman. You have to be able to look at the features you like and ignore the ones you dont. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/inlove.gif

Best regards

DayGlow
03-19-2006, 01:57 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by GhostReconJunky:
guys let them ruin it.. it's no use arguing with them because they don't care what we think...

the council was designed to take feedback from us, and work with the devs to get the game right TO OUR LIKING if im not mistaken...they have threads that ask specifically what WE WANT

so if all the stubborn council members want to put their OWN 2 cents in on the game instead of ours (which coincidently, our opinion is basically at this point just to keep r6 an r6 game)... LET THEM... when this one flops, we can all point the finger and laugh

who would have thought we'd need to argue with an R6 player who mainly plays SP instead of MP.. just to keep respawns out of a realistic game LOL... this is such a waste of time

from the polls and the comments it is blatantly obvious what we want... i just cannot wait to ask EB's opinion of R6's latest installment.. tisk tisk </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

So I'm not allowed to have an opinion, to state it and argue why I think the way I do? Why shouldn't I have a voice? Please explain that to me.

Le Tigre
03-19-2006, 05:54 PM
Big Brother is watching...

subzero1900
03-19-2006, 06:44 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Relenquish:
Swat 4 has respawns implemented into its MP adver. I dont see anyone calling it anything other than a tactical shooter. It oesnt even give people the option, it forces people to play like that. Yet its the most tacical online shooter I have ever played. In adver mode that is. I think its a good example to prove respawns dont need to spoil the image of a game. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Swat 4 works out because the players are at a crawling speed. The fact that the maps are tiny and that the player is litterally crawling along the map and that there is alot of cover (walls,objects,lighting) make it work out all righ. but then again that isnt the style of R6. CQB (close quarter battles) at a medium pace (slower than GR and faster than SWAT) with good enviormental cover (except LD & RVS)

subzero1900
03-19-2006, 06:45 PM
to you dayglow I provide this topic


http://forums.ubi.com/eve/forums/a/tpc/f/3801065024/m/9271088424

DayGlow
03-19-2006, 07:55 PM
you can be a smartass all you like, at least I can back up my point of view with cogitative thoughts.

It's a simple fact that a common rule within online games is respawns. It is not outlandish to suggest them as an optional playing style. It is a very basic option that is very common across the board within all online games. Every game has to have rules about when the player can return to the action and how the action is structured. To go off on jetpacks, nukes and other outlandish examples is simply redirecting the argument into the absurd.

Other than the IMHO overreaction of some people believing that by making it an option within the game will mean that no one will play without it (even though a solid tactical shooter like Ghost Recon has shown that respawn and round based gameplay can happily co-exist with the online community for the game).

But take solace in that fact that it is merely an opinion of mine and is not a driving force in the design of the game. Also I will be upfront in any discussion within the council that there is very strong opposition to respawns within this community.

subzero1900
03-20-2006, 01:19 AM
I respect that dayglow. Im sure that most R6 players would agree with me that Respawns don't belong under the title Rainbow Six and thats why I get pist whenever I see a post about How it would draw in more people for what its not ment to be, I would rather see R6 grow/die under the true name of R6 than masquerade around as something that its not.

Common rule for MP games, Yes and No. Some MP games are driven by respawn because their gametypes demand them.
<LI>CTF, yes
<LI>Onslaught (command all bases, nodes, etc...), yes
<LI>Team Adversarial (last team standing), no
<LI>Last man standing (last man standing), no
<LI>Team Death match (score as many kills possible) yes and no
<LI>Bomb (plant a bomb on some objective) Yes and no
<LI>Vip (take person from Point A to point B) Yes and no
<LI>Coop (mission) No
<LI>Coop (Tango Hunt) No
<LI>capture and hold (shoot the other team till they are incapacitated for a few seconds and then handcuff them or restrain them) No

Simply Put there isn't a hole lot of gametypes that "Demand" or "need" respawn. Most of those gametypes have been done withought Respawn in RVS.

The only thing Respawn does is make the game play of all games exactly the same. Making every thing seem just as plain and boring as the next and hence they go and search for other games and end up with the same results. They do not contribut to the community, but degrade it with the constant "pathetic Fun" of ruining other players experiance by Tking, Gimping, Swearing, Racism, Blocking peoples paths (CS movie) and drive the people who want to play the game the way it was meant to be played away.

but still there is a valid point if you look at the analogy's I provided in the other post all you have to do is use your brain and apply common scense. This post is also a Valid Point against your post, the best argument which you've overlooked which simply put is that it Ruins the atmosphere of R6 and it will split the community down the middle, This isn't Ghost recon with Huge maps that Dwarf the R6's maps this is R6 where in CQB with respawns melts down any gameplay with a mentality of Run and Gun. These are not huge maps that can take litterally minutes to see someone or get to the action, you can litterally run down a hallway and meet with one or two players and have a gunfight in very little time. If you add respawns to the equation then what happens, the exact same thing as LD which is what the Council is trying to prevent. even though alot of other things added to the disapointment, but the MP portion was the real kicker for me.

TedSmith
03-20-2006, 07:53 AM
The "analogies" you provided in the other post were ludicrous. You compare respawns to adding a theme park building section? To adding wall perforating rail guns? To adding car jacking and "beating a hoe with a baseball bat"? And you wonder why you're not taken seriously in this discussion....

Does respawning remove players inhibitions with dying? Sometimes. Again, as has been asked so many times, does that affect you on non-respawning servers? No.

Using Lockdown as a basis for your argument is inherently flawed in the first place. Lockdown isn't the way it was because of respawns. Everyone had the chance to put up their own non-respawning server yet no one did. Why? Because the people that wanted a hardcore tac shooter took one look at how it played, even on non-respawn servers and then deleted it. As it was said, SWAT 4 has respawns, Ghost Recon had respawns, Red Orchestra has respawns... all tactical games.

Your attempt to blame respawns for tking, gimping, swearing, racism, etc, etc is just as foolish. Did you PLAY Raven-Shield? I did. It had no respawns. It had tking, gimping, swearing, racism, blocking people's paths, etc, etc. Have you played Counter-strike? I have. It has no respawns, and yet that is where most people assiciate all those negative things with most frequently. I've also played SWAT 4 on servers where they increased the movement speeds. It didn't suddenly turn into a run and gun fragfest either.

Respawns do not make a game run and gun. This has been evidenced in all four above mentioned games. RO, SWAT4, Ghost Recon and Counterstrike. Of those, which is a run and gun game? Which have respawns and which do not? The gameplay mechanics define how the game is played, how fast you move, how accurate you are when moving, the damage model, etc.

As always, this argument boils down to one thing. Self-centered attutides and arrogance. I don't like HDR lighting, but I don't argue that it shouldn't be in the game. Why? Because I can turn it off. Just like respawns.

subzero1900
03-20-2006, 08:37 AM
Ted, Ludacris, you wanna know what ludacris is? RESPAWNS IN A R6 game, NEVER in my entire life did I ever once say "dam*, This game would be so much better with respawns" and you still ignore my previous statements about how the game is built for them and can co-exsist,

GR Huge maps that take awhile to travel

Swat4 you move at a Babys crawl, That is how they work, Now you add R6 to the eqation

NOTE: this is where everyone turns the blind eye and ignores my VALID ARGUMENT JUST like you <span class="ev_code_yellow">TED</span>

Then you combine a Medium SIze-Small map with a Medium pace, You get what? (ill let you figure it out seeing as I've already posted it)

I'm not being self-centerd, Im being reasonable. Most R6 fans dont want it, If you take a look at the poll I provided its at 80% that realise how it has a negative effect, it changes the atmosphere, there is no constant fear of death, there is no mentality of team cooperation in respawn, it becomes just a KILLING SPREE to see who can kill the most, Changeing the spirit of R6, DEVIDING the community, Living on with false Pretenses, Who would they build the next game for? The R6 fans, or the ones who just came along for the ride with a fake idealism that thats the way the game should be?

I've only seen the R6 games get worse and worse since UBI took over and decided to "mainstream" it, this is just another step before the game is completely lost to those who it wasn't meant for.

Call me all the names you want, I don't care at how you look at me, I speak my mind, and I speak what I know most R6's want, R6. If you fail to aknowlege the group this game was meant for and decide not to listen to them, then we've already lost R6 and should prepair for another Lockdown

KungFu_CIA
03-20-2006, 10:24 AM
After re-reading this entire thread I think the biggest concern isn't respawns will take over as the dominant servers...

The biggest concern is when trying to make a game appeal to a larger audience decisions like whether or not to add respawns, even as an option, usually fall into the category of being the LOWEST COMMON DENOMINATOR, aka "quick and easy", as opposed to focusing on the harder decisions of how to make the game experience overall more accessible (like planning in SP) and not alter, aka dumb down, core gameplay mechanics in the process.

I think this is what upsets people the most because we've been discussing various OTHER aspects of R6... Like simplifying the planning aspects as mentioned before... Which can be made more accessible to new gamers, but which also DO NOT alter the core gameplay mechanics, nor cater to the lowest common denominator most other games cater to, and as much as some of you may not want to admit, respawns IS a core gameplay mechanic even if it is an option and not forced on people.

Also, I don't pretend to know what people are thinking when they post and what I am about to say is not meant as a flame, or personal attack...

But I believe those who are in favor of respawns probably don't care, either way, if they are included or not if we are going to be completely honest here. I believe most are saying they want the option of respawns because not having them as an option, or taking away options ala Lockdown's MP isn't a good position to support either.

Again, I am not trying to make gross assumptions or insult people...

But this is the vibe I am getting from those who support respawn more than they really want and more importantly would use respawn servers themselves.

They say it will help bring in new players. True. It will help increase the R6 Community. True... But debatable in the sense WHO and WHAT KIND of players will the new R6 game (w/respawns) attract?

Herein lies the heart of what I said before in I don't think people are anti-option, or even anti-new players either as supporters of respanws like to pigeonhole them/us.

I think the bigger concern is exactly who and what type of gamer the next R6 is going to be targeted at and whether or not a lot of the new R6 players will in fact be the ones a majority of this larger community want as new members because if the ultimate goal of UBI is to turn R6 into nothing but another Counter-Strike/BF2 clone... Then that IS a valid concern in my opinion because most of us here like R6 because it is R6 -- which includes round-based, non-respawn play -- Because a lot of us who aren't in clans, or can't afford to rent and setup private servers will have no choice BUT to abandon the series all together because R6 will have become just like every other shooter, aka catering to and appealing to the lowest common denominator overall.

TedSmith and others cite the fact the game itself doesn't determine the MP experience as much as those who you play with.

I agree.

But the counter to that is if there is more incentive, aka respawns, for the casual gamer to venture into R6 there is more than likely the chance the community is going to become made up of casual gamers more and more and those will eventually want the series to become the next CS, or BF2 and THIS is where the line needs to be drawn in my humble opinion.

As selfish, arrogant, and self-centered as this sounds, I think it is something which needs to be said because there is merit to it because as is the motto of this forum and others, "majority rules", but when the potenial majority would rather have respawns, drivable vehicles, more Hollywood cinematic cliche dialogue, etc. which turn R6 into just another run-and-gun arcade shooter... Does this make the majority right?

Also, as much as we don't want to admit it... Lockdown is the PERFECT game for casual gamers. There are people who like Lockdown (PC), believe it or not, because they've never played the original R6 games and now think this is what the series is all about. It is sad from our perspective, but this is another aspect which ties directly into the argument against respawns: LD catered to the lowest common denominator and there is a potential audience there -- Outside the R6 Community -- And adding respawns is just another way to keep catering to the lowest common denominator while simultaneously dumbing down core gameplay mechanics...

Something I have been desperately trying to get across to this community which DOESN'T have to happen to appeal to the so-called masses to increase sales.

Defuser
03-20-2006, 11:47 AM
There was a time where games with multiplayer took their cues from singleplayer - they attempted to replicate the same sorts of feelings and emotions the player might experience, but instead with other players instead of AI. The most basic and fundamental form of this is co-operative play. The next rung on the ladder is adversarial, competitive. Games in the past took the singleplayer, examined its game mechanic and took what worked best from the game, while preserving its design philosophy. This was, and is, the best way of designing mutliplayer, in my opinion. I'll get to why in a minute.

Arena-style multiplayer is now the normality in multiplayer gaming. The multiplayer game has been stripped back to its bare bones to facilitate better integration into a competitive multiplayer environment and the transferability of skill sets. Gone is the attempt to immerse the player into the game's lore and design nuances - instead we are made to feel painfully aware that we are playing a game, and what's more, a game in a fiercely competitive environment. The ability to freely customise a multiplayer environment to the player's whim is a mistake. Look at the multiplayer landscape around you - multiplayer is becoming more and more homogenised by the players themselves eager to make the transferance of skills from one game to the next as smooth as possible - no longer do multiplayer arena combateers want to spend time learning and appreciating a game's subtle nuances and aligning themselves to its design perspective. Instead they can merely enable respawns, ramp up the run speed, enable running-with-leaning and scope, change the average grenade load-out, put high-caps on every gun, etc. etc... (Hypothetically speaking...) Now I agree that where there are imbalances in gameplay, the player must be able to sort it for themselves BUT this would not happen with adequate and thorough playtesting. It is not the role of the player to balance the multiplayer, it is the designers'. It is also not the role of the player to customise the gameplay of the various multiplayer modes - it is the designers'.

Now, I am fairly free-thinking man. I like to think that choice, wherever, and in all its forms, is a good thing. In this case, however, I think it is a very bad thing. What the designers should be doing is looking towards the multiplayer as providing the player with an experience they can't get anywhere else that is CONSISTENT with the singleplayer game. The whole point of R6 is to emphasise the realistic deadliness of firearms in CQB AND the tactics associated therein. You are SUPPOSED to fear for your life. You are SUPPOSED to feel the tension of not knowing whether or not you will live or die. You are SUPPOSED to exercise caution and careful tactical play as a result of such fear and tension. Respawn, in CQB, would utterly compromise the feeling that the weapons are not only to be feared but that the life you have in multiplayer is a precious commodity.

The attempt to popularise R6 multiplayer by aligning it to the design perspective of other multiplayer games will kill any of the free-thinking and independent approaches left in multiplayer. Right now, thousands of people are playing co-operative because they WANT to feel like they're playing a game that complies with the atmosphere and tension of a single player game with their buddies. I can assure you that if a player could appreciate that atmosphere online, and feel as though they are playing something consistent with the seriousness and uniqueness of the singleplayer experience, they would be the first in the queue to play online competitively. Playing online competitively and cooperatively don't HAVE to be fundamentally different - it is just that the conventions we have begun to associate with a multiplayer scene have begun to erode the uniqueness of the multiplayer experience.

Don't put respawns into adversarial OR co-op. It would be tempting to blame all this on the casual gamer, but I think the complacency and laziness of designers is also to fault. Great multiplayer experiences are not designed by commitee - they are the result of the design philosophy that made the singleplayer game great being carried across into an environment where people can gather together to experience it. In effect, give multiplayer BACK to the singleplayer. As paradoxical as that sounds, I think it would be a spectacularly bold and successful move.

subzero1900
03-20-2006, 12:04 PM
http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/agreepost.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/11.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/25.gif http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/clap.gif

KungFu_CIA
03-20-2006, 02:39 PM
Defuser:

I agree with the core of what you are saying, but there are two factors which have to be taken into account for this to be a fair debate:

1) As stated, the notion of immersion and re-inforcing what the SP experience provides is nice in theory, but it goes right out the window in R6 when you realize you have two CT squads running around a training structure, I.E. City Streets Large, with absolutely no objective other than to wipe out the opposing team.

I know it may seem like I am -- and others brought this up when I tried to argue this -- Splitting hairs, but the most popular gametype in R6 has always been Adversarial Team Survival.

The reason I believe TS has been "the" gametype is two fold:

A) It is human skill vs. human skill and not human skill vs. (usually inferior) AI as in CO-OP. This applies to all games not just R6.

B) TS gives the opportunity for both teams AND individuals to shine at any given moment.

For instance, you can have a match where your entire team decimates the opposing force in less than a minute and essentially, work together as one unit.

Other times, it is more even and you will have maybe one, or two players from one team left and about four, five on the other... Yet the chance still exists for the one or two remaining players to take down the other four, or five -- Which is where the individual chance to perform often presents itself.

The other reason which feeds right into what we are discussing is...

2) The international rise and popularity of e-sports which cites human skill vs. human skill as its competitive emphasis (like all legitimate sports do).

This is part of the reason why most MP games are becoming homogeneous and simplified. Especially, the first person shooter MP experience which seem to be the "only" competive video game there is http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif ... But the reason they are "dumbing down" what constitutes MP for e-sports is because...

One, the potential viewing audience has to be able to understand simple concepts like "run around and shoot everything that moves" if e-sports ever hopes to move beyond the niche/hobbyist place it is now in some countries like the U.S., and...

Two, the competitive players themselves are also unwilling to "unlearn" a game they invest a lot of time in unless they absolutely have to, I.E. the game itself is not popular anymore and a better game can now take its place.

This is all relevant to the discussion about respawns because as you said, the idea the MP experience has to be "simple" and "easy to get into" is once again a clear example of the confusion developers have between "make the overall game experience easier to get into, but NOT the gameplay itself".

I think respawns make the gameplay itself too simplistic (for this reason alone) because all there is in any kind of respawn game is run, shoot, die, respawn, rinse-and-repeat. I can't deny it isn't "simple" to understand, but again, this is the point I think you and others are trying to make with our "dumb down the overly complicated aspects of R6, but not the gameplay" mantra we are trying to communicate to the devs.

Like you, they are taking an "easy" way out by catering to the lowest common denominator instead of looking at other ways to make the MP experience more accessible via finding servers, tracking friends online, etc. I think devs think if you make the gameplay more simple to understand this automatically makes everything else easier for the player and this line of thinking is very flawed in my humble opinion and why I am against respawns in adversarial and CO-OP in R6.

Defuser
03-20-2006, 02:51 PM
I fully agree - adversarial has and always will be the big draw for players. What I was trying to highlight is that there is a vast reserve of players who prefer co-op and the suchlike to the more competitive side, purely because a lot of the aspects that make the singleplayer what it is (tension, realism, tactics) are lost when a game makes the transition to multiplayer in an attempt to appeal to the 'LCD'.

When I say you are painfully aware of being in a fiercely competitive environment, I don't mean the game per se, I mean you are made aware of the fact that what you are playing is a game in which most of the established things that result in an immersive experience in the single player are lost in multiplayer - players spawning out of thin air, bobbing and weaving maniacs, full auto-spraying and praying. With the proper game mechanics (such as going full auto for a full mag being utterly uncontrollable with a rifle as opposed to the fairly manageable recoil and spread right now, and leaning, crouching and proning within acceptably realistic limits), then the singleplayer CAN translate to the multiplayer experience. It is always a fact that you know you're playing with a 13 year old Portugese lad, or a 35 year old accountant from Chile, but it doesn't have to detract from the gaming experience.

Goliath.Ubi.Dev
03-21-2006, 08:07 AM
You guys need to stop attacking the moderators because they have different opinions then you.

Also please stop comparing the respawn option to outrageous things like light sabers and porn because that makes me not read your posts.

You have to understand that nobody has a direct line to tell us what you want, we read what we choose and where we choose and noone but Ubisoft has any impact on what happens. This includes the feedback council, their opinions are read but it is not by any stretch the final word on anything.

Now if you want to push your aguments over respawn or not and having it as an option, do it but do it logicaly without ridiculous fake statistics because i am telling you i will skip your post.

That being said, try to keep things civil please.

Yen Lo
03-21-2006, 09:29 AM
I dont like respawns, except in sp when you die and switch characters. I like when you die in Multiplay being able to Spectate and learn from others. To me, I like the feeling of having the round end, haveing the time to think about what happened.
Also, it could be optional as long as you figure out the bugs first. Iam sick of games coming out and we get to beta test it for you.

Druac
03-21-2006, 03:30 PM
Respawn takes away the feeling that got me into online gaming. The first online game I played was R6, and I will never forget the feeling I got when I first jumped into a multiplayer game. I knew that if I got shot, it was over and I would have to wait for the next round to redeem myself. It added a whole new level to the PvP experience.

I knew that I had to be tactical and watch my back. I remember shaking a little, because the adrenaline was pumping. I couldn't believe I was getting so excited about a computer game! I have to say that no other shooter online has given me that feeling. That feeling came from the 1 shot 1 kill in combination with the knowledge that I would have to bask in that death while waiting for the next round to start.

Having consequence, such as dying and having to wait for the next round, adds a whole new dimension to what makes us like playing against other people rather than some AI that we can read like a book because we know EXACTLY what they are going to do. Respawn takes away the challenge of knowing that you can be done with one shot.

I don€t believe Respawn and Tactical are two words that go together well. The reason is simple, respawn discourages tactics, where no respawn actually encourages tactics. So, if it truly is UBI€s goal to build a tactical shooter, I believe respawn should be left out. I guess that is the question I have for Goliath and other UBI devs, is a €˜Tactical Shooter€ the goal? If it is, leave it out.

Gillyy
04-11-2006, 12:45 PM
Respawns are only for WAR games. Rainbow Six is a tactial shooter. With out respawns you have to use good tactics or you have to wait a long time, but waiting is terible. So I dont care about respawns.

big_perm
04-18-2006, 07:07 AM
Main reason I dont want respawns is because it will divide the community. Were small as it is, we dont need any further division.

That said, respawns have their place and can be tactical in certain game modes such as capture the flag in Day of Defeat. However, respawns definitely do not belong in a Rainbow Six game. We have no modes that effectively need them.

Shrike_UK
04-20-2006, 12:32 PM
Respawning? in an R6 game?
It doesnt belong does it?
this isnt quake u know, its supposed to be a Tactical, realistic, close to simulation game.

how would you like it playing co-op if all your enemies kept respawning? not fair?, you wouldnt win would you? respawning is basically just a cheat. you cant loose if your invincible.

Nrj-KiNG
04-26-2006, 05:24 AM
no respawns ubi whatever happens.

ArchangelSKT
04-26-2006, 05:42 AM
Respawn is a really bad idea, first because of the obvious reason that with the rather small maps in the R6 series compared to other games that actually have respawn then it will be a spawnraping fest without comparison.

Second even if you would have a sort of "random" spawnzone that would enable you to spawn at locations where the enemy would not be highly concentrated it would just ruin everything that the game is about.
How come ?
Well one of the beauties of the R6 series is effective room clearing and securing an area knowing that your team is narrowing down the area in which the last enemies are, with random spawn it would be really lame not to say unrealistic and against core values of the game to get shot in the back by a couple of enemies that have spawned back in the rooms your team has already cleared.

Oh no, there should for sure never be respawn in a R6 title unless you actually go over to bigger maps, which basically would be left to Ghost Recon as I see it.
Having respawn in GR with big maps and a more military gamestyle is not a big problem for me as in a serversetting but never in R6 oh lord no.

WidescreenRules
06-16-2006, 10:24 PM
I realize that this thread is almost two months old, but I have to ask this to the anti-respawn people: who the hell are you to dictate gameplay to the rest of us?

For the past few years, several friends and I have hooked up over Internet/LAN every weekend to do some "Ghost Recon" team co-op. Although I much prefer the levels in R6 and its sequels, the reason why we don't play R6 is because it doesn't offer a respawn. So, if someone gets killed early on - oh joy! - he gets to twiddle his thumbs while the others continue on merrily. That does not make us any less "gamers" than you and I resent the implication.

Quite frankly, I have no problems whatsoever if you don't want to use a respawn function; but it's not your place to demand that it be removed for the rest of us who want it just because you don't. Shut it off if you don't want it but how dare you insist that it not even be made an option just because you don't like it!

If you're concerned about servers that allow respawns, you're perfectly welcome to have your own servers that don't allow it.

But how dare you demand that optional functionality be removed just because you don't like it. As long as Ubi makes it an option, you are under no obligation whatsoever to activate it.

What indescribable arrogance!

big_perm
06-17-2006, 06:55 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by WidescreenRulez:
I realize that this thread is almost two months old, but I have to ask this to the anti-respawn people: who the hell are you to dictate gameplay to the rest of us?

</div></BLOCKQUOTE>

You could actually use that arguement in defense of people who like to cheat as well. This is a niche market as it is. They keep adding toggleable options that change the gameplay a lot its going to be a bunch of split up communities. Respawn no 3rd person crowd, respawn with 3rd, no respawn no 3rd, etc etc. Its bad for the game. The Rainbow Six line on pc is a niche market... not too many people play it. We dont need less people playing it by dividing the communities. There are tons of other respawning games out there... leave ours be.

FI_FlimFlam
06-17-2006, 08:55 AM
It's a question of game identity and what most people want to play as a Rainbow Six game.

R6 has historically had tougher gameplay. You make a mistake and you're done. You HAVE to make the best out of what you have from the start no second chances. Or third or forurth, or fifth, or sixth, or seventh, or eighth, or ninth, or..... Well you get the idea.

Look at Lockdown. I have a feeling that you probably enjoyed it. Most of the community didn't and the fact that respawns were in there as the default setting played a big part in that. Granted respawns weren't the only thing that was different and people didn't like, but they definitely contributed to making the game feel like Quake or CS more than a R6 title. RSE moved away from what has defined the Rainbow Six series and made it a popular franchise in an attempt to attract a more mainstream gamer. All they accomplished it watering down the game and losing anything that set it apart from the rest of the cloned "tac shooters" on the market.

No respawns are at the core of what playing Rainbow Six multiplayer is all about. It supposed to be tough and hard. It makes surviving that much more rewarding. Adding respanws takes away from that IMO and makes me feel like I'm NOT playing a Rainbow title. If I wanted that I would have booted up FEAR or Quake or BF2 or any of the other hundreds of other shooters that have respawn.

spm1138
06-17-2006, 10:52 AM
<LI>Dorks. No, really. I think a lot of you aren't hugely interested in realism but are actually interested in keeping "your" game the same as it ever was. "Ultimate tactical simualtion"? Crosshairs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Unfortunately for you guys, this is actually Ubisoft's game. <LI>Respawning can actually be a real asset to a game if it's part of a well thought out game-type. TDM is borderline ******ed however you're playing it. It's just that little bit more camp-ey without respawns.
Ideally what you want is a gametype with halfways complex objectives where a Reinforcement system actually makes sense. For example... "Get in, kill the defenders, remove the objective and get out again before they are reinforced"

FI_FlimFlam
06-17-2006, 01:23 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spm1138:
<LI>Dorks. No, really. I think a lot of you aren't hugely interested in realism but are actually interested in keeping "your" game the same as it ever was. "Ultimate tactical simualtion"? Crosshairs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Unfortunately for you guys, this is actually Ubisoft's game. <LI>Respawning can actually be a real asset to a game if it's part of a well thought out game-type. TDM is borderline ******ed however you're playing it. It's just that little bit more camp-ey without respawns.
Ideally what you want is a gametype with halfways complex objectives where a Reinforcement system actually makes sense. For example... "Get in, kill the defenders, remove the objective and get out again before they are reinforced" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1)And respawing is realistic? And you're calling eveyone else "dorks" who don't like respawning. As if respawing will make the game more realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

2)And what type of game type are you wanting? CTF, some version of Domination? Unreal Tournament Rainbow Six? R6 has always had a clear identity and definition in the FPS genera. That was up until LD. Every major reviewer remarked that it didn't feel like a R6 game. And just how popular was it? How many people are playing it online at the moment? How many people are still playing RvS? Do you want to remake R6 into Bf2 or something? Just look at what messing around with the game's identity did for sales of LD.

One of the problems with what you are suggesting with the need for "reinforcements" suggests a much bigger map and droves and droves of tangos or very large multiplayer games. With gameplay focused on CQC rather than large outdoor environments it's not conducive to that kind of meatgrinder play. Pleny of other games have it and it's not what alot of people are looking for when the want to play Rainbow Six. They can get that from half a dozen other games out there. If I wanted to play CTF I'd play Tribes. If I wanted to play domination I'd play BF2. Why do YOU want to completely change the identity of the game? And what makes you so superior to say making the game into another watered down BF2/UT clone is what should be done over keeping the game unique? Because you know what, if they do that again like they tried with LD, they are just going to see another failure that doesn't sell well.

Woosy
06-17-2006, 02:40 PM
It's a catch 22, people don't want it in the game conciously even though they will never ever play respawns because they wish to think the game as realistic. On the otherside more people who don't have hours to spend gaming would prefer respawns, I don't have a problem with it, the excuse for not putting it in from most people isn't justifiable especially when they won't use it.

This is the real question here. Say Joe Bloggs only plays respawns and never plays RvS or CS online because of inbetween waiting rounds, yet you give Joe the option to have consistent respawns and attracts more players to the game who in fact would never play round based games. Where is the problem? Are you going to go into a Roundbased server and while having GGz go "daamn those Respawn servers, I never play respawn but daamn them, I'm having GGz though but bah!!!"

The theory that it will split communities is wrong, first of all it's like co-op and adverisal is that a community split? Anyone who plays the game in any mode apart fom cheaters is a part of the community thats a fact.

The same argument could be said about those who want TDM DM and teroristhunt adversial could split up the community. I think that idea is selfish, as most people want them to play their 1 mode TDM with roundbased and everything else not available, and you know thats right. Hunting terrorist shooting bad guys cuffing them and then having someone uncuff them is unrealistic but not ever heard once someone say anything about it. Too many contradictions here.

The other question do you play any mode apart from TDM? Does someone who plays a differnt mode i.e co-op split the community Is having AI backup wrong is Having FF off going to split the community? Do you know what community means? *lol*

BF2 has ranked and non ranked servers, people have said it's split the community, yet it hasn't. *lol* When RvS had ranked servers did that split the community? BF2 still does well 70,000 servers online most of which arn't ranked servers so I fail to see how it splits the community, because as a whole they're a community. I think the excuses are petty and there isn't a big enough excuse.

If the argument was 99.9% of players are going to pllay respawn and no1 will play our roundbased games i could maybe see an argument I think thats the fear. But I can't considering Ladders will host both modes, hardcore R6 gamers will play the original mode where as people who are attracted by the new mode who would never play online adds to the player count in respawn.

I mean here is the biggest contradiction here... Most people want TDM HBS and Rainbow Vs Rainbow which is just unreal, they run around shooting nade spamming, and would prefer to have scope and run which is another unrealistic feature online. LOL mention respawn and it's don't add that unrealistic feature. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif Makes me laugh so hard.

P.S

The only clear idenity that Rainbow Six has had is that it's Singleplayer portion of the game has been realistic, Multiplayer can attract a huge fanbase with different modes. Nothing in RvS online is realistic no matter how hard to try to say it is, because thats how it's been designed. Alot of you need to get off your high horse and reconise that the SP aspect is the only idenity MP isn't, never has been. TvT with no objectives is realistic? sets the Identity for R6? *does the Morpheus hum*

FI_FlimFlam
06-17-2006, 04:15 PM
I have to disagree with you Woosy.

R6, RS, RvS multiplayer have always been much different beasts than UT, Quake, and alot of the other shooters out there. It was more realistic (I'm not saying it was super realistic), slower, less forgiving (aside from instagib in UT), and round based. It's unique characteristics in this are what kept me playing Adversarial MP and keep me coming back instead of playing the other titles I have mentioned - I know it's the same for many other people out there because of the conversations I have had with people not only on my team but people who have played with while on comms. To say it's not my be your opinion but many others do not share that one.

I've said it before. One of the things that has been unique about Rainbow is it's identity. You starte changing it too much to make it everything for everyone and you remove what makes it different and special. Oh wait they already tried that with Lockdown. See what it got them? I'm not against change and adding features but I'm against trying to make Rainbow MP into another Quake or UT. They and other games out there already do it quite well. I have no desire for that same gameplay with UBI's Unreal Rainbow Six Tournament.

Relenquish
06-17-2006, 04:30 PM
What I fear about them including features like this, which imo dont really move the series forward are

a) They comprimise the game by trying to include the new feature. Example, to include respawns properly, they make the maps overly large.

b) They include a new feature, but neglect other things which imo are more important, like making it a none buggy game, stuff like that.

If they want to include respawns properly they are going to have to build more mp maps, seperate maps to suit the seperate game types. In RVS a lot of the maps suited all the available game types. TDM respawn would not of suited them.

I do not get why people would really want respawns on this kind of game. IMO it really doesnt suit it, UT series does. Rainbow six is never going to be able to pull off the game types like capture the flag because camping would completely ruin it. IMO respawns brings the game in a direction to trying to compete with games like UT for the extreme run and gun audience. And it will never be able to complete as UT is build for the ground up for that. And as a result is absolutely awesome at it.

KungFu_CIA
06-17-2006, 05:13 PM
The respawn debate is just the same as should we be allowed to pick up weapons off the ground, and should jumping be allowed?

The big thing that determines whether something is successfuly integrated or not is the developers.

Period.

There is nothing you, I or anyone else can say until we see how they've decided to implement it -- That "it" being whatever the hot topic of the day is be it respawns, picking up weapons, fiber optic cameras, third-person view, etc, etc.

Here is the basic problem with R6 as it now stands which Woosy summed up very well:

The style in which R6 MP Adverserial is played is contrived.

It's contrived.

On the one hand, R6 touts itself as being a psuedo-realitic game... Yet what are the top "skills" clans and ladders use to get to the top besides team communication coordination?

Running around fully scoped, bobbing up and down, side-to-side like a duck...

Three things you would never ever see a real life SF Operator do because it would result in them being killed almost outright.

However, the reason this huge inconsistency exists is because the developers -- The DEVELOPERS -- Have forced it upon the R6 and Raven Shield community and this is exactly why it is a contrived gaming experience compared to other games which offer more options which let the players choose how they want to play the game.

Also, part of this contrived gaming experience is how the MP Adversarial community perpetuates it themselves by saying they want "tactical" and "realistic" gameplay... Yet they come unglued when you point out running while scoped... An exploit... And bobbing up and down, side-to-side is not realistic at all.

If R6 MP was a truly realistic and tactical game there wouldn't even be TDM because real SF Operators don't go around killing each other to begin with, but they also never do anything as drastic as that without a greater objective at stake as well.

So, not to sound like an arse, but the argument "R6 MP is supposed to be realistic" doesn't fly anymore... Especially, when talking about MP Adversarial and you (people in general) are going to have to come up with more valid reasons from a strictly gameplay perspective why things like respawns, no-jumping, picking up weapons etc. should and should not be included like Relenquish did.

*Puts on flame ******ant suit and awaits Napalm air-strike* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

Woosy
06-17-2006, 05:39 PM
See thats incorrect, R6 has an idenity for being realistic in it's singleplayer, planning tactics and execution of them. It's why it "was" the benchmark for tac shooters. Thats what makes it stand out not the mutiplayer aspect, sorry but it doesn't. Back in 1998 it was reconised as one of the best newcomer games in the genre for the Singleplayer aspect and got game of the year. It didn't get game of the year and reconised because of it's multiplayer. *lol*

It is your Opinion that it shouldn't be in the game. Once again I ask, if it was implemented in the game would you be more likely to be playing TDM or Respawns? This mode is in The Regiment also and even though you say it's a mode for UT it works out ok, IMHO The Regiment is far far far beyond anything Rainbow six has in it's 8 years of conception... And more realistic, yeah it has a game mode which is unreal to some but it's an option. The other people who rather play TDM can and without fear of respawns. Btw maps on The Regiment are fine for respawns cause levels so big, they're well designed for TDM and CO-OP too as they are modelled on realistic buildings.

I don't play adversial because I'm not that competive of a person, I play a mode that I prefer like CO-OP apparently this is splitting the community. Respawns can be a part of games modes. I really don't understand where maps are concerned. If they make maps for each mode whats the problem? If you cannot trust UBI to make maps for each game mode which they have done for Splinter Cell Double Agent, what trust do you have with them making you a great game?

They don't compromise anything at all it's designed how they wish, it is your assumption that they will change things not t your liking from past experience. It would be far worse to do it your way have co-op adversial share the same maps, which arn't designed for adverisal. Aswell as putting respawns which would cause a problem, if maps are made for specific modes then it works out. But then your complaint will be but but... I rather they spend time on other features?!?!?! I don't understand at all so many contradictions, like "I don't trust ubi to make the game", I mean statements like that baffle my mind how you think the game is gonna come out even to your liking.

Look, they have a priority system at UBI and other Developer houses, if its high on the list it's dealt with. You can bet any Multiplayer features will be the last to go in the game as the Singleplayer is the selling point of most games regardless if the majority in here scream "I play Multiplayer only" 12.5 million say differently you're a small number in that pond in that graph of sales figures.

I probably get flamed for this one. *lol* On the console version of Rainbow Six 3 and Black Arrow there where modes like CTF domination with capture satalite and standard TDM which is exactly the same as the PC version, and many many folks had great fun and still do, exactly same problem with Lockdown with P.E.C players hate that system and still play the original games R6-3 and Black Arrow.

The maps you say wouldn't be able to do them on, but maps such as presidso was used for Satalite mode and exact replica of the PC version map, it's very fast and very fun with respawns. Lets see there is quite a few maps on the PC that are used on the console that are exact carbon copies some arn't but a few are. And on both those games R6-3 and BA they are exactly the same and are fine to play on those modes, might be good idea to pickup and play them? Before you comment, no it shouldn't be in the game when no experience bar Lockdown which in all honesty console players hate.

Maybe Kungfu can tell you he has the xbox version too, maps arn't super huge like you suggest, alot are original maps and funnily some smaller then the PC counter-part but work ever so well.

I do think alot of people need to try these modes on the console version yes it's a console it's not going to hurt you! and Play the Regiment, you cannot be ignorant and say naw won't work, without even seeing.

KungFu_CIA
06-17-2006, 06:56 PM
Woosy brings up some good points in I wish others had the chance to play both "The Regiment" and the console versions of R6 , "R63", "R63: Black Arrow" because you can see how they both have strong points even though they are extreme opposites in terms of target audiences and realism...

But the main thing both games have in common is more choices for the gamer and how you play is not a contrived, or forced style of play no matter what preference (SP; CO-OP or Adversarial) you choose.

Going outside of the R6 universe... There have been tons of games which have different modes to suit the different styles of play and it has never once split those communities. Ever.

Soldier of Fortune II is a prime example.

This is (was) another pseudo-realistic shooter that included respawns for part of the MP experience in games such as CTF, DM and TDM... And it also included one-life-per-round gametypes such as retrival, bomb and hostage rescue along with DM and TDM for the more competitive players, I.E. Clan and ladder players and no one in the community ever complained it split it up as I was a prominent member of that community in 2002, helping test anti-cheat measures across a variety of different serves and gametypes.

The realities are this:

R6 must evolve because it has already become a stagnant series with regards to the urealistic approach to stealth and dynamic entry Raven Shield is still promoting...

But that doesn't mean the gameplay has to be "dumbed down" or contrived, most of all in order to progress the series and keep the original fans happy as well.

If you give gamers more choices and then the developers do their jobs properly which re-inforce those choices then you will have a game which everyone will like which will maintain its "identity" at the same time.

Everyone needs to get past Lockdown.

In fact, here is some basic background on LD to help give people some closure:

Lockdown was originally designed for the PS2 which is the weakest of the console systems. It was also designed for a much younger audience than who plays R6 on any platform, that being the pre-teen demographic.

Stuart White refused to listen to any good advice by well-known and respected members of the game design world and (real world) military advisory personnel and proceeded to make LD into what it is today... And it was an abysmal failure across the board on every single platform, in every single review it got (print and internet) and is now the albatross hanging around his neck as far as reputation goes and having a huge failure goes.

This is the "poetic justice" LD and its producers got, so let's put it to rest.

As I said, change is going to be the biggest factor on whether R6:5 is a success, or not with this community regardless if they give us the game of our dreams and then some because some will not just be happy unless they get their game to be blunt.

That sounds harsh, but a lot of arguments for why something won't work in R6 just because someone doesn't like it in another game and "R6 has always been R6" just do not wash anymore and it is this lack of accepting change -- positive change such as giving gamers more choice -- That will ultimately doom and stagnate the series more than the devs messing up one feature, or leaving another out.

*Puts on double flame ******ant suit and helmet and waits for two incoming 500 pound Napalm bombs* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif

spm1138
06-17-2006, 07:51 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by FI_FlimFlam:
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by spm1138:
<LI>Dorks. No, really. I think a lot of you aren't hugely interested in realism but are actually interested in keeping "your" game the same as it ever was. "Ultimate tactical simualtion"? Crosshairs http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif
Unfortunately for you guys, this is actually Ubisoft's game. <LI>Respawning can actually be a real asset to a game if it's part of a well thought out game-type. TDM is borderline ******ed however you're playing it. It's just that little bit more camp-ey without respawns.
Ideally what you want is a gametype with halfways complex objectives where a Reinforcement system actually makes sense. For example... "Get in, kill the defenders, remove the objective and get out again before they are reinforced" </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

1)And respawing is realistic? And you're calling eveyone else "dorks" who don't like respawning. As if respawing will make the game more realistic. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

2)And what type of game type are you wanting? CTF, some version of Domination? Unreal Tournament Rainbow Six? R6 has always had a clear identity and definition in the FPS genera. That was up until LD. Every major reviewer remarked that it didn't feel like a R6 game. And just how popular was it? How many people are playing it online at the moment? How many people are still playing RvS? Do you want to remake R6 into Bf2 or something? Just look at what messing around with the game's identity did for sales of LD.

One of the problems with what you are suggesting with the need for "reinforcements" suggests a much bigger map and droves and droves of tangos or very large multiplayer games. With gameplay focused on CQC rather than large outdoor environments it's not conducive to that kind of meatgrinder play. Pleny of other games have it and it's not what alot of people are looking for when the want to play Rainbow Six. They can get that from half a dozen other games out there. If I wanted to play CTF I'd play Tribes. If I wanted to play domination I'd play BF2. Why do YOU want to completely change the identity of the game? And what makes you so superior to say making the game into another watered down BF2/UT clone is what should be done over keeping the game unique? Because you know what, if they do that again like they tried with LD, they are just going to see another failure that doesn't sell well. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

And two identically sized, identically equiped units squarring off inside a cube is realistic? http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Nope. I'm calling anyone who won't seriously think outside what the previous games had and who won't debate beyond "LOL STUF GO PLAY COUNTARSTRIKE!" a dork. Because they are.

Lockdown just wasn't a good game. That's a seperate issue to not being a good R6 game.

The maps in RvS weren't *that* small.

The gametype I was describing was one map from Infiltration's Enhanced ASsault gametype.

Essentially it was a scripting language that allowed for moderately complex objectives in a map. Typically you'd have some objectives from all three map types.

And the scripting in several of the maps included wave respawning either on a timer or as a reward for achieving certain objectives.

I am using this as an example of how respawning gametypes don't *have* to be mindless TeDiuM.

What makes the R6 series vaguelly unique is that it is a tac-sim focussed on CQB.

Tribes 2 is jetpacks.
BF2 is getting spawncamped with helicopters.
ArmA is probably going to do best at big open maps.

Rainbow Six is all the thrills and spills associated with shooting at each other at spitting distance with shotguns.

Don't talk to me about sales. Several people have already said in this very thread that they don't want respawn gametypes because people will play them http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-tongue.gif

That makes no sense to me.

That's just like saying "We don't want more customers for this series" or "We don't want you to provide existing customers of this series what they want".

Woosy
06-17-2006, 09:02 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Don't talk to me about sales. Several people have already said in this very thread that they don't want respawn gametypes because people will play them </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

LOL, my point about sales figures is if it was about multiplayer, which some think is the Rainbow Six Idenity is built on which it's not. We would have at least 30,000k plus players on when it launched, it did not. Hence why out of 12.5 million customers only about 5,000 where on at launch very low numbers for a game that sold that many copies. R6 franchise has been about Singleplayer tbh Multiplayer was a bonus.


There are alot of players who would jump in the game and play if it had respawn, some hate it more people love it then hate it though. I just can't see people complaining on a massive level about respawn, the only reason it happened with GRAW is because no other mode was included, funny I guess they got a taste of their own medicine. I cannot for all things good and holy see a reviewer going. "This is the best Rainbow Six series game to date, it has everything you come to expect planning, mutiple teams, a huge arsenal of 40 weapons http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_biggrin.gif highly customisable including players. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_eek.gif All things that where bad in Raven Shield ala running and gunning while scoped improved. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-happy.gif The graphics are Next Gen using shader 3.0, the sound ambience off the scale, tons of MP modes TDM, DM, co-op, respawn really immersive stuff here folks. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-wink.gif But we chose to give it a 4 out of 10 due to it having respawns http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif" http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/16x16_smiley-very-happy.gif

Darth_SS
06-17-2006, 09:17 PM
Just tossing this out there...

Would you all be as opposed to respawning if R6 took an approach like SOCOM or Republic Commando in that you cannot respawn on your own, but if someone happens upon your body, they can bring you back to life at half health?

If you needed someone to revive you instead of respawning magically?

KungFu_CIA
06-17-2006, 10:49 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:

R6 franchise has been about Singleplayer tbh Multiplayer was a bonus. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

Just a quick aside...

You know why R6 may be a more SP oritened game than MP?

Because the entire premise of the game is to simulate HR and CQB operatins with multiple teams... Teams... Working together toward a common goal.

This seldom happens in public MP games and only extends so far in TDM games that it isn't every person for themselves, but two teams gunning for each other... But even TDM provides the opportunity for "Duelists" to show off if they happen to be the last one on their team against five members of the opposing team.

big_perm
06-18-2006, 07:29 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by KungFu_CIA:
Woosy brings up some good points in I wish others had the chance to play both "The Regiment" and the console versions of R6 , "R63", "R63: Black Arrow" because you can see how they both have strong points even though they are extreme opposites in terms of target audiences and realism...

But the main thing both games have in common is more choices for the gamer and how you play is not a contrived, or forced style of play no matter what preference (SP; CO-OP or Adversarial) you choose.

Going outside of the R6 universe... There have been tons of games which have different modes to suit the different styles of play and it has never once split those communities. Ever.

Soldier of Fortune II is a prime example.

This is (was) another pseudo-realistic shooter that included respawns for part of the MP experience in games such as CTF, DM and TDM... And it also included one-life-per-round gametypes such as retrival, bomb and hostage rescue along with DM and TDM for the more competitive players, I.E. Clan and ladder players and no one in the community ever complained it split it up as I was a prominent member of that community in 2002, helping test anti-cheat measures across a variety of different serves and gametypes.

The realities are this:

R6 must evolve because it has already become a stagnant series with regards to the urealistic approach to stealth and dynamic entry Raven Shield is still promoting...

But that doesn't mean the gameplay has to be "dumbed down" or contrived, most of all in order to progress the series and keep the original fans happy as well.

If you give gamers more choices and then the developers do their jobs properly which re-inforce those choices then you will have a game which everyone will like which will maintain its "identity" at the same time.

Everyone needs to get past Lockdown.

In fact, here is some basic background on LD to help give people some closure:

Lockdown was originally designed for the PS2 which is the weakest of the console systems. It was also designed for a much younger audience than who plays R6 on any platform, that being the pre-teen demographic.

Stuart White refused to listen to any good advice by well-known and respected members of the game design world and (real world) military advisory personnel and proceeded to make LD into what it is today... And it was an abysmal failure across the board on every single platform, in every single review it got (print and internet) and is now the albatross hanging around his neck as far as reputation goes and having a huge failure goes.

This is the "poetic justice" LD and its producers got, so let's put it to rest.

As I said, change is going to be the biggest factor on whether R6:5 is a success, or not with this community regardless if they give us the game of our dreams and then some because some will not just be happy unless they get their game to be blunt.

That sounds harsh, but a lot of arguments for why something won't work in R6 just because someone doesn't like it in another game and "R6 has always been R6" just do not wash anymore and it is this lack of accepting change -- positive change such as giving gamers more choice -- That will ultimately doom and stagnate the series more than the devs messing up one feature, or leaving another out.

*Puts on double flame ******ant suit and helmet and waits for two incoming 500 pound Napalm bombs* http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_wink.gif </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I can agree with that post, but at the same time, as someone mentioned above, respawns may effect how the developers make maps. Imagine respawning on Presidio or Island it probably would be chaos. Devs may make maps a lot bigger to accomodate respawning. As long as they dont compromise the maps to accomodate a respawning environment I would be fine with that. I play these games to compete and now that I think about it every "tactical/realistic" game that competes on a high level is in a no respawn environment yet they usually have respawning options for the others who like it. Its not like I dont want others to have their fun, I just dont want it to jeopardize our classic games.

KungFu_CIA
06-18-2006, 08:21 AM
I think some (Big_Perm; Relenquish; Woosy; etc.) finally realize what I am trying to get at and that is:

It doesn't matter what feature(s) are, or aren't put in, but how the developers execute those features as to whether or not they will be good for the game as a whole and thereby how the community will react to them as a result.

Let's break it down:

Those who aren't against respawns (regardless of whether or not they would play on a respawn server) major concern is map design since map design (and game mode) plays a huge part in how effective or ineffective respawns might, or might not be executed.

This is a valid, intelligent argument that addresses real factors that only the developers -- key point -- Can address if and when they implement the feature.

Also, this argument doesn't rely on the subjective, "I hate respawns!" or "R6 won't be R6 anymore" arguments because these kinds of arguments are all personally biased and have nothing to do with whether or not including respawns will be good for the game as a whole and help R6 be a competitive (as in business) title alongside other shooters coming out in 2007.

It is this separation of what is good for the game and series and their own personal bias this community needs to start getting used to and thinking about because it gives everyone's (our) cases -- pro and con -- On issues like respawn much more validity when the Council goes to the devs and or the devs just read big threads like this.

http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_smile.gif

Woosy
06-18-2006, 01:52 PM
This is the thing though, Kungfu do you have R6-3 atm? IIRC if you go to multiplayer do the capture the satalite mode I forget it's actual name, it's been a while, you will find Presidio exact replica of the pc version has respawns. It's up to 16 players on the console. It does have other PC maps like Meatpacking there is one on a ship, castle off athena sword has the killing house and they are all respawn maps. They can however be set to TDM, which when played on those maps look the same as the PC.

You have to remember some maps on the console are cut down like Island down, it is partly simular to the pc but different inside, same with oil refinery. There are many maps though that are a carbon copy, and tbh half the maps are smaller then the PC for example. Airport hangar section and upstairs is the same can't go to the main reception or the firehouse. The airfield part where the plane is located is there, and instead of a door leading to where the car park is there is an alley, you can take the same stairs up in to the hangard like PC.

When you think that map is half what the PC is and can have respawns and is smaller!!! I don't think there is much of an argument. The console versions run speed is slightly faster too. Another map Garage pretty much a carbon copy I think few things different but has respawns for satalite mode.

Satalite mode for those who don't know is domination... You need to get all the satalites hacked into with your colour for the longest to win kinda like BF2 with tickets but with satalites, the idea is to send a message to the outside world before the other team. There is a CTF mode but those have different maps that are designed for that mode. For example there is a ship that can do CTF and satalte and TDM because of it's design but another map can't because of it's design, these are logical expectations.

KungFu_CIA
06-18-2006, 02:52 PM
Most of the R63/BA maps are the ones from the core game (Raven Shield) as well as Athena Sword and Iron Wrath.

Nuclear Plant and Rocket Base are from Iron Wrath -- In fact, the pre-mission cutscenes are so "Xbox-ish" with just Clark, Weber, Ding, Loiselle and Price which means Iron Wrath was probably going to be the next expansion after BA... That is until Lockdown ruined everything.

The major differences between the MP maps from the PC to the console are actually very significant in they are much smaller and half the maps are missing rooms and sections, so the player can't access certain areas... Like on Airport like Woosy said: The firehouse is in-accessible as is the rear parking lot and you can't go into the main terminal building behind the hangar.

However, her main point is if respawns can exist on on smaller maps on the console, there is no reason the PC can't have them with maps which are larger and designed specifically for certain gametypes than others.

big_perm
06-18-2006, 04:19 PM
Ya, Im just worried if maps arent designed for TDM. I think the main reason we arent seeing TDM in GRAW for pc yet is because the 5 maps that are out were all designed for Domination. I just dont want to see something similiar. People take for granted just how important maps are in a game. They are one of the most important things in a great game. Rogue Spear's maps are still unmatched at greatness for MP.

Woosy
06-18-2006, 04:59 PM
The reason GRAW doesn't have TDM mode is because the game isn't complete, thats a fact! It will be patched to have those modes though, and game types such as LMS, Hamburger Hill etc. This is what happenes when games are rushed out the door. However when the mode is introduced you can play those maps TDM style. In a twist many would rather play CO-OP hunting on those type of maps on adversial instead of the campaign, thats where giving certain modes certain maps can be a problem.

Another example, the console version of GRAW. There is 10 maps, each map can be played with all those modes including respawn it's optional even for domination. Alot of the maps on the 360 version are HUGE, where as only 3 are medium sized, it works out in a few ways. Say if you want a Domination game to be slow, you have a big map no respawns, if you do it on a small map it's very quick and very unforgiving, put on respawn and it's even more challenging. On CO-OP big maps work out well because you can have good fun hunting, if you have small map it's again fast and very intense. Every map on the console is designed well enough to accommodate every game mode and option, so many options infact I still haven't played all of them, there is thousands.

The only complaint about respawns on the console is people spawn camp, I don't have a problem with that. Some people hate it for being lame or other reasons, I think those people just don't play to win. For example on BF2 I would get a team of MEC on to the American ship, camp it and kill them as they respawn. The reason for this is they cannot do a counter-attack on my men on the battlefield. Mean while my men are dominating, grabbing flags and we win, thats how you play the game. *lol* Many will disagree but thats using stratgy and tactics, there is not such thing as honor online... Well unless you count not cheating, thats the only honor.

spm1138
06-18-2006, 05:00 PM
Hmmm. What about scale-able maps?

Like... if it's in this gametype without respawns with this many people then these doors are all locked and there's a big pile of crates here?

Woosy
06-18-2006, 05:10 PM
You could, which would make sence and is a fab idea looking how BF2 worked. But people wouldn't be happy, they want everything! Be on the lines of this is lame why can't we have the huge maps with small players? Give them the option they will complain, servers are running huge maps with small players and it's boring. Just no winning.

big_perm
06-18-2006, 07:17 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:
The reason GRAW doesn't have TDM mode is because the game isn't complete, thats a fact! </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I thought that until they said its not in the June patch. Something is obviously delaying it. I mean even UBIs stupidity I think wouldve been smart enough to include the most complained about mode to be missing from the game in the next patch. Maybe they actually are that ******ed. As for what you said about the maps, I hope it is this way for us.

Woosy
06-18-2006, 08:30 PM
I meant in the game from retail, but yeah they are messing around. As far as I'm concerned the game was DOA. Since playing it, I have retired and started to play old games such as Counter-Strike Source, I know I know. http://forums.ubi.com/images/smilies/51.gif

I think the biggest question is, how could GRIN not put in "standard" modes from the original game into GRAW. Domination isn't a mode that folk used to play but Team orintated ones. Some people remove respawns to have TDM but it's flawed because if you step in to any of the zones it gives away your position.

One mode of play is like GRAW is suicide, mutiple modes and options which can cater to a diverse group of gamers is good. It keeps things fresh and you can never get bored. To add insult to injury the console gamers are getting a super addon, not sure if I'll buy it but again it has a ton of options. What I think would freak you out alot is if you played the console online then compared the two you would be gob smacked, I know I was.

KungFu_CIA
06-19-2006, 12:21 AM
It's funny you mention GRAW PC because this is basically what prompted me to start shifting our discussions from the "Me, me, me! Give me the game *I* want!" cries from the community in response to any changes that are being discussed... Such as respawns... To a more realistic discussion of how if you give players, both old and new, more options from the start the game itself... If done right by the developers... Then the game adjusts according to the wishes of the community and not the other way around.

This is where I think a lot of the phobia about change comes from and why I am taking the time to focus on it here.

Also, GRAW PC is such a failure from a purely a business (objective) stand point because it was made by an inexperienced dev house, GRIN, who went out of there way to not listen to the GR fanbase and when they started getting criticized for a lot of their hair-brained and down-right illogical game design choices -- like mapping weapon switching to the mouse-wheel and not optimizing the engine for current, mid-range hardware -- They threaten to stop posting at GR.net because they can't take the heat. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

Basically, GRAW PC's biggest failure was it was made in a selective vaccum which GRIN controlled to the point they didn't have to really listen to anyone question their motives or decisions until the game was released -- Note, I did not say finished because the game WAS NOT FINISHED AT RELEASE. You do not release a game with almost no MP and then addon to it as the months go by and charge $50 for it...

Yet they still think they can do no wrong and won't admit where they screwed up.

Developers must make the game they are going to make... But, at the same time, they must also listen to the fans to some degree and this includes both the good and bad whether they want to admit it or not.

GRIN refused(es) to do this to this day.

This can mean only one thing: GRIN is arrogant and have not learned a damn thing about where they went wrong with GRAW PC and will continue making these same mistakes with their next projects until publishers wise-up and stop hiring them if all their games are flops... And GRAW PC was a complete flop compared to GRAW Xbox360 and it is obvious why.

By the way, this isn't just my opinion.

This is the opinion of those whom I trust who actually work in the video game industry and who have spoken to others in the industry as well... Including the original Red Storm Entertainment devs who worked on the OGR... And they are appalled at what GRIN did to the game/series because most of the mistakes could and should have been avoided if there was a more experienced dev house working on the game. Period.

Sorry for the OT on GRAW PC...

But it all comes back to the fact GRAW PC took the wrong approach when trying to "mainstream" the game in that it was a game made in a vaccum that didn't allow for any change or input... On the part of the fans, ironically... And I see the reverse happening with the R6 Community whenever drastic changes like respawns and other elements are brought up.

We need to find a happy medium and this can be achieved as long as the devs are truly wanting to listen to the fans feedback... Both bad and good... And then everyone will be happy: Us fans will get the game we want while the devs and publisher will get a competitive, progressive game they can market to new gamers at the retail level as well.

WidescreenRules
06-19-2006, 04:19 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">There are tons of other respawning games out there... leave ours be. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
So because I want to have a feature that you don't, suddenly the game is yours and I no longer have any justification for wanting to play it and I should be denied any access to such a function because "there are others"? Wow. The arrogance of that statement is staggering.

WidescreenRules
06-19-2006, 04:34 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by Woosy:
It's a catch 22, people don't want it in the game conciously even though they will never ever play respawns because they wish to think the game as realistic. On the otherside more people who don't have hours to spend gaming would prefer respawns, I don't have a problem with it, the excuse for not putting it in from most people isn't justifiable especially when they won't use it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Exactly. If someone doesn't want it, they're under no obligation to activate it. And respawning is not the same as cheating because everyone can do it on a server that allows it and it doesn't give an unfair advantage to any player.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The theory that it will split communities is wrong, first of all it's like co-op and adverisal is that a community split? Anyone who plays the game in any mode apart fom cheaters is a part of the community thats a fact. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Also well said. This is a common attitude among a lot of gaming companies, unfortunately. The idea that peope only want to fight each other is ludicrous. My friends and I greatly prefer team co-op. The reason why we've played GR every weekend for the past few years is that GR gave is not only team co-op but team co-op against bots. With our limited time schedule, we can go in, connect to my system (server), and play a variety of different missions, strategies, and so forth. If we get whacked, the respawn gives us the ability to get back into the fight.

We would so very much love to fire up some of the old R6 games/level because some of them were just fantastic. But we get frustrated if one of us gets killed early (which you can't tell me doesn't happen to those who don't like respawn) to teh point that if it's early enough we'll just cancel the level and restart. Respawn would prevent us from doing that and it's doesn't make us any less "serious gamers" than the elitsts who think otheriwse.

That's actually how I found this thread - looking to see if anyone developed a way to add respawn to the old R6 games.

And at least in GR if we don't want respawns, we can deactivate it from the multiplayer menu. Imagine that.

<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">The only clear idenity that Rainbow Six has had is that it's Singleplayer portion of the game has been realistic, Multiplayer can attract a huge fanbase with different modes. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Ironically enough, my friends and I have actually refused to purchase certain games because we expected them to have team multiplayer with bots so that we could do "us vs. them". As soon as we found out that the game was more "human vs. human-only deathmatch", those games stayed on the shelf.

WidescreenRules
06-19-2006, 04:42 PM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Its not like I dont want others to have their fun, I just dont want it to jeopardize our classic games. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
When you tell any developer to exclude a function because you don't like it but others do, yes, you are saying that you don't want others to have their fun in an indirect sort of way. I would never say "Get rid of CTF! I don't like it!" I simply would not play it. I expect the same courtesy for my gameplay preferences. My friends and I prefer team, co-op w/ respawns. That doesn't make us "less serious gamers" that do not deserve such a function.

And how exactly does the addition of an option that you are under absolutely no obligation to utilize "jeopardize" anything?

Woosy
06-19-2006, 05:45 PM
My point was that Rainbow Six has been an Icon for it's singleplayer, not multiplayer which some suggest is why Rainbow Six is so tactical, yet it comesa down to the player to do that most run and gun.

Me and my friends agree on this, I dunno if anyone else will agree but here you go.... The only way you can split the community as a whole is with "addons" not mods "addons". I guess BF2 here would be an example, there is 2 or more addons. The community splits in to three, those who don't want the addon, those who like the addons and those only sticking with one addon. It alienates the crowds as they cannot play each other without either purchasing the addons.

That IMHO is a community split. A game mode which is accessable to everyone on the same game is not a community split, it's preference of mode thats it, and everyone is free to play it.

Woosy
06-19-2006, 07:58 PM
The problem with GRAW is the game doesn't give the players freedom online, you're always forced to do something, having linear maps is one. Having to watch an intro every time you die is two, no option to have a game mode type is three. No option to have respawn for co-op is four, no abiility to restart the game is five, no standard spectate is Six. I add Six because even though you can spectate that bopping from FPV is enough to make anyone who doesn't have motion sickness like me throw up. Seven no kick/ban function which is essential to any online game, eight no filter, this one is the best how can you put out patches but no one can tell what version is running on the servers.

These are the main flaws with online with just co-op alone, forget about dedi files when something is that messed up, you do have to laugh. I not played GRAW for a while till you say now, so I went back in and now and I find out you can use "mods" thats right mods to add sniper scope to your SCAR. Who was the brainiac working for coding section who didn't think ah the GR1 community lasted this long on mods, they won't do it with GRAW. I bet they have a face that looks like a slapped arse now, because I seen people edit their weapons to have 50. cal in their SCAR and Auto Firing Sniper Rifles.

It amazes me beyond belief how people can even say the game is even ok it fails on the basic levels of game design BASIC!! You want to know whats ironic? Everyone was like Starforce will be in GRAW no they cried. So Starforce was removed probably because GRIN didn't know how to use it. But anyway I find it ironic that over 3000+ people living here in the uk can't install the game because of the 6001 error, who would of thought it would of stopped more users then what SCCT had with it's release when it sold 500,000 in it's first month which only stopped a few hundred who reported had problems.

I think this is a great example of failure we don't want in R6-5. We want the options we want the features we want the freedom of game design, controls, and when it comes to multiplayer choice is the main theme appeal to a wide variety of players who can choose their specific drug of choice may that be TDM or respawn TDM but don't go the GRAW route.

big_perm
06-20-2006, 06:32 AM
Ya GRAW was just such a disappointment. The game is atleast 6-8 patches away from where I will even consider buying it. I will give them this: the gameplay is awesome. Just the lack of literally everything else is whats ruining it. The maps look terrible from what Ive seen(made for domination mode...sigh). Ive also never seen so little from a game at launch. I mean if this is becoming the standard of PC games we better hope keyboard and mouse become the standards from consoles asap. I really dont know who is to blame, UBI or GRIN, but it is yet *another* Tom Clancy disappointment. Ive since switched my gaming over to Quake/UT. Atleast they keep making great games and dont take away from what made them what they are. Maybe one day a Rainbow/GR will be good enough for me to play again. I really hope so because Rogue Spear is what I was raised on and I sure do miss it.

KungFu_CIA
06-20-2006, 08:21 AM
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by big_perm:
Ya GRAW was just such a disappointment. The game is atleast 6-8 patches away from where I will even consider buying it. I will give them this: the gameplay is awesome. Just the lack of literally everything else is whats ruining it. The maps look terrible from what Ive seen(made for domination mode...sigh). Ive also never seen so little from a game at launch. I mean if this is becoming the standard of PC games we better hope keyboard and mouse become the standards from consoles asap. I really dont know who is to blame, UBI or GRIN, but it is yet *another* Tom Clancy disappointment. Ive since switched my gaming over to Quake/UT. Atleast they keep making great games and dont take away from what made them what they are. Maybe one day a Rainbow/GR will be good enough for me to play again. I really hope so because Rogue Spear is what I was raised on and I sure do miss it. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>

I tend to believe it was mostly GRIN and their arrogance and inexperience which lead to such a subpar game because of the reasons I listed above. I could be completely wrong and it really is not that important in the end, but this is what I believe.

Also, you should not feel bad for turning to companies like ID and Epic as they are good companies who produce quality games. Their games are finished games when released, have loads of content at launch and are constantly interacting with their communities and patching the games to address the communities concerns. This is how it should be done in my opinion... Unlike GRIN who charged everyone $50 for half a game then has the nerve to criticize everyone for complaining aobut it http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_rolleyes.gif

On a more relevant note, this also drives home the point I brought up earlier about how if drastic changes are made to game like we are discussing here then it is also the responsibility of the developers to identify possible exploits and problems with the new features and then either remove them (if possible for an exploit), or at least balance those problematic features with something which discourages their use.

For example, people hate "campers" in MP games because it slows the pace of the game way down.

Well, if the developer is on the ball for a game like R6 they will have properly programmed ballistic penetration of buildings and structures where you can nail a camper through a wall with a .50 caliber sniper rifle. Once the camper has been hit a few times, he/she will eventually learn not to camp.

It is a system of checks and balances like these which not only make the game a better game overall, but they also promote more realism as a side-effect since what I described above is how the real world deals with "campers" -- Which is a legitimate tactic on the battlefield if you are defending or securing an objective.

big_perm
06-20-2006, 09:12 AM
Oh ya, Im not ashamed at playing those games at all. In fact, I love Quake. It is the most skill oriented/requiring game there is. And as you said, iD and Epic are awesome companies and take care of their customers.

I think you are right about GRIN's inexperience. I think this is their first MP game. It would seem so because of how easy they made it for people to change their game and have it work in MP. They are very arrogant as well. Ive been spending alot of time on GR.net where they hang out and they never accept blame and the moderators over there defend them too. "If they had the workforce RSE has this game would be as complete as the xbox360's". They are always blaming UBI. GRIN can do no wrong over there. Well it was GRIN's idea to do Domination instead of TDM. What is the nonsense of the mission ending because the leader dies in Coop. Did UBI make them do that too? And yet again here we are... first patch comes and still no TDM and still no sa ded files. I guess that was UBI too and GRIN have absolutely no say in anything. I know UBI is to blame for a lot but damn, they need to accept some responsibility as well. They think they are perfect and by how easily hackable the game is, they are far from it.

kimi_
06-20-2006, 09:28 AM
ernie poo anyone still playing RvS?

big_perm
06-20-2006, 10:16 AM
Naa we havent played RvS since August of 2004 or so. We *need* a good team game. http://forums.ubi.com/groupee_common/emoticons/icon_cool.gif Some are playing World of Warcraft, others DotA, and a few of us playin Quake. GRAW was supposed to bring us back but I guess it will be many more months. What about you? Been playing any games?

AlphaDelta219
06-25-2006, 11:55 AM
personally i dont want to see respawns in R6 because it takes away some of the tactics involved. however give the people what they want and it seems they want respawns