Respawning

[Camp]

I picked up a copy of Wolfenstein for Xbox because I heard lots of good stuff about the Live play. I fired up my first game and, like the newbie I was, died within the first minute of play. I then had to wait four incredibly long minutes to respawn.

There seems to be two styles of respawning in multiplayer gaming: immediate (or almost immediate) respawning and delayed respawning.

 

Examples of "immediate" respawning:

 

Halo

Quake

Unreal Tournament

 

Examples of "delayed" respawning:

 

Wolfenstein

Medal of Honor

Battlefield 1942

 

Granted respawn attributes can be altered within many of these games. However, the stock game settings and situations make each fit into the two categories fairly well.

 

I'd like to discuss the merits and reasons behind using one method over the other.

 

Looking at the examples above it seems the more realistic games use the delayed respawning method while more action-based ("arcade" games, if you will) use the immediate method in an effort to keep up the game's quick pace. This begs the question: does the style of game dictate the respawning method used? Would Battlefield 1942 be just as successfull if it used the immediate respawn method?

 

I'm learning my game preference falls solidly in the immediate respawn camp. I'm there to play a game...not wait around for my turn. The only way I'm going to improve my skills is to die a lot which means I'm going to be waiting if I play a game using the "delayed" method. I don't have the patience for that.

 

Waiting 30 seconds to respawn certainly doesn't add any realism in my book, nor does it do much to blance the opposing sides. I can understand its use in certain situations (a competitive tournament, for example) but for casual play I don't understand why so many developers employ this method.

[Sherbz]

Well, you were probably playing the 'Elimination' mode, favorite of the unwashed masses. It's a SOCOM-like one round shootout, where you die and that's it for the round. The more popular around here 'Objective' or 'Stopwatch' mode uses nearly immediate spawns (there are 'Reinforcement' times which cycle around 15 seconds).

[Mark E]

Actually I prefer Counter-Strike's method myself, where you have ONE life and if you screw it, you're outta the round. I recognize that in most games that would be intolerable, but since a match of CS can't last more than 5:00 anyway, no big.

 

That way you actually feel the value to your team. I've been on CS teams where I have single-handedly plugged four guys in a round and when you know they aren't coming back this round, that's an awesome feeling. Turns up the tension a ton too. I feel you value your life way more when you aren't coming back from the dead in five seconds .

 

The thing that really works about CS is that once you're dead you can watch the match through other players' eyes or the strategy map and I find that to be an excellent way to pick up some good tips for playing.

 

Each their own though .

[adamsappel]

It sounds like you were playing in an elimination match, which is a "last man standing" type of game. I think the host can set the game to allow respawns or not. Try playing objective or stopwatch matches, which have almost immediate (20 or 35 seconds) respawn. I can go either way on respawns. It's nice to get back in play right away, but I also pick up a bit of strategy from watching the better players. Plus, you get to learn where [certain people] like to camp, so you can later sneak up and cap their ass.

[Graeme]

I think he is referring to the reinforcement time, which IS usually longer than 15 seconds, but normally not 4 minutes.

 

For an objective based team game like Wolf, Battlefield or Day of Defeat (which was the first game I know of that employed this respawn method), I think the reinforcements respawning is best.

 

I think the reinforcement respawing helps to enforce the team play for a number of reasons.

 

Mainly, in most, or many cases you will spawn alongside someone who you could then team up with to help stay alive a little longer. If it was instaspawn, in most cases you'd be alone and have to find your way back to other teammates.

[Camp]

Try playing objective or stopwatch matches, which have almost immediate (20 or 35 seconds) respawn.

 

I would consider a 20-35 second wait a "delayed" spawn. 10 seconds or less is what I'm looking for.

 

Based upon the responses thus far it appears the respawn method used by a game is dictated by the type of game it is. With that in mind, I'll repeat a question from above:

"Would Battlefield 1942 be just as successfull if it used the immediate respawn method? "

 

I think the reinforcement respawing helps to enforce the team play for a number of reasons

 

I see your points but a glaring exception to each of your points would be Tribes & Tribes 2. These games use the "immediate" respawn method yet are built on teamwork. One of the keys to making immediate respawns work in this style is intelligent respawn locations (whether automatic or selected by the player).

 

That way you actually feel the value to your team. I've been on CS teams where I have single-handedly plugged four guys in a round and when you know they aren't coming back this round, that's an awesome feeling. Turns up the tension a ton too. I feel you value your life way more when you aren't coming back from the dead in five seconds .

 

Counter Strike is a perfect example of a game I have no patience for. It looks cool as hell but the wait between respawns is a BIG reason I gave it an hour and never looked back.

That said, your eloquent point is understood. There certainly is somethign to be said for the emotion you must feel knowing you just put some guy's game on hold because you were the better shot.

[Graeme]

I don't think Battlefiled's success has anything to do with the way the game handles respawns, but I do think the delayed resawn is the correct way to go for a game of it's type.

[Camp]

I don't think Battlefiled's success has anything to do with the way the game handles respawns, but I do think the delayed resawn is the correct way to go for a game of it's type.

 

I agree that the respawn method should have little (if anything) to do with the success of 1942. However, the fact that so many similar games use the same respawn method for no good reason indicates a pattern that suggests otherwise. Apparently a lot of people agree with you that the delayed respawn method is fitting for this style of game. It's become an element that differentiates one type of FPS (fast, unrealistic) from another type of FPS (more realistic, objective-based).

 

Certainly there are a few other identifying qualities but I find it very interesting (from a design perspective) that each of these games have opted for this respawn method. If a bunch of game-educated enthusiasts like us cannot think of a significant reason why this similarity exists I am left with the following conclusion: The delayed respawn method is obviously unnecessary...it's almost as if it has become the defacto expectation for this style of game.

 

I must be the only one who finds this interesting...sorry . The choices made in the production of a game are often much more interesting to me than the actual game.

[A CLAN OF ONE]

I think delayed respawns work in games like BF1942 and RTCW because it gives you a "breather" and a chance to change classes. In games like Unreal Championship, since you can't change classes, an instant respawn works much better IMO.

[kelley]

Camp we'll have to set up a night for all us LCVG's to show you Wolf is really played.

[Camp]

Camp we'll have to set up a night for all us LCVG's to show you Wolf is really played.

 

Yea, then I can experience respawning multiple times.

 

While I think the 1-player game totally blows it has potential in multiplayer. I had bad luck with lag yesterday though.