Maxlives

[SubstandardJones]

Has there been any indication at all yet about whether or not there’ll be a maxlives option in Quake Wars? I haven’t heard anything confirming or denying it, and it’d be really nice to know one way or the other.

Also: CHALLAGE!

[yibble]

I read that as “Max lives!” and thought, “Who’s Max? Why has his status been upgraded to living?”

To answer your question. I don’t know.

[iwound]

Irrelevant quote

a long time ago[/i] ]Xian over at id is a big fan of max lives and runs it on his server all time; it’s proving very popular.
I’d love to see it as an option in Enemy Territory, it’ll just depend on whether we have time to get it in, tested and balanced for the initial release.
Either way, I’m sure it’ll end up in ET eventually. id definitely want us to put it in as an option.
Paul/Locki.

I love max lives, just as a change from time to time.

[NoControl]

Never played with max lives, mainly because servers i play on don’t use it. But i can imagine it being nice change for infinite lives, makes you actually plan your moves, and not just rush in.

[General.Jung]

Hello Forum,

i never played ET: Wolf with maximum lives but it will be a nice idea also for Quake Wars. I abolutly agree with NoControl´s meaning about rushing.

[SCi-Fi]

would prefer it that way myself even though after playin bf series with
infinite lives it would be cool to only have a certain amount. I also play
css which has 1 life, so for me it would be cool to av such an option in
this kind of enviroment and a server option to choose how many u had.

Made me feel a whole lot better hearing that, as like NoControl said it will
stop ppl from rushing and it would also stop ppl thinking they can rush in
and grab as many points as they can thinking they can just respawn.

Nice one SD.

[BrightSoul]

I abolutly agree with NoControl´s meaning about rushing.

oh noes that’s my playstyle! However, I’m inclined to agree, I may want to try something more tactical from time to time.

Other than max lives, I wonder how “death penalty” would be (if you played Guild Wars you know what I mean).
Basically, you have an infinite number of lives but, each time you die, you lose “options”. (ie: part of your speed or damage output or the ability to use deployables). This way, you won’t have to wait endless minutes for the game to finish and the stronger team will still gain an advantage over a period of time. They will really get the feeling of “crippling the enemy”.

[Diecast5]

You guys that think of stuff like this is little to late for that , the game is coming out sooner than you think , so we have to deal with what we get for in the game it self . :evil:

[nUllSkillZ]

Problem with maxlives:
If you have lost all the lives in the middle of the map it’s getting boring.

[SCDS_reyalP]

Problem with maxlives:
If you have lost all the lives in the middle of the map it’s getting boring.

Yes, you really ought to be able to play tetris or pong or something while waiting for the round to end. Preferably over the network with the other people who are waiting

[carnage]

another problem with maxlives is that since a ETQW map is supost to be last about half an hour how do you judge amount of lives needed for this

CCS does this very well. as all players have just one life it could easily be turned in a camping fest but the fact that there are some small objectives to play over means that players are forced out of there tent to actuly win

i think if you tried to implement maxlives to a game built strongly on objective based gameplay then then you would encounter many more problems

there are times when you need to attacking force to be suiciadly agresive and just all storm somethimg in the hope that after a few tried enough men might make it though to get that objective. a great example of this is the bank in goldrush but every time i play half my team is sat up on the bridge unwilling to go and help because there enmy defences are too strong. as a result the player who are actuly attackin dont have enough suport and fail. now image that when with maxlives, how many players would be willing to waste a few precious lives to try break the bank

i gess the point of my argument is that objectives are suicide, if you try build a bridge expect panzers, if your going to plant at a AT gun be prepared to get shot in the back, if your riding the railgun tug get ready to be the first one with bullets flying over there head. having malives decourages players form doing any task that put themself in danger and as a result reduces the focus on objectives. and in an objective based game is that realy what u want?

an option might be to implement sub maxlives sections, as in… in the first stage of the map the GDF must build a bridge and the strog must stop them, for this every player gets 5 maxlives (or many 5 for GDF 3 for strog… wahtever balances) after this objective is compleat all players are given a new set of lives and anyone who was out of the game is then bought back in. i would also recoment that when objecives are compleated players dont bank lives they just get a new set e.g. a player with 1 life go to the next objective with 5 lives and a player with 5 lives go to the next objective with 5 lives instead of banking them and getting 10 lives, otherwise you could end up with players who have insane number of lives making it quite unfair

[Nail]

Max lives has been in ET forever, never had a problem with it, only people it seems to bother are the /kill jockeys and the guys who tap out rather than wait for medic

[EnderWiggin.DA]

cough gib cough

kinda like DM imho.

[SubstandardJones]

another problem with maxlives is that since a ETQW map is supost to be last about half an hour how do you judge amount of lives needed for this

Many servers change it based on each map. A 40 minute map might be 18 lives while a 30 minute map would be 15. Personally I’ve always enjoyed 7 lives. Back in the RTCW days Marketgarden with 7 lives was possibly the greatest, most strategic gameplay I’ve ever experienced.

CCS does this very well. as all players have just one life it could easily be turned in a camping fest but the fact that there are some small objectives to play over means that players are forced out of there tent to actuly win

i think if you tried to implement maxlives to a game built strongly on objective based gameplay then then you would encounter many more problems

Uh, RTCW and Wolf:ET both had maxlives implemented, and they did nothing but make the game based more on strategy and teamwork and less on mindless rushing in.

there are times when you need to attacking force to be suiciadly agresive and just all storm somethimg in the hope that after a few tried enough men might make it though to get that objective. a great example of this is the bank in goldrush but every time i play half my team is sat up on the bridge unwilling to go and help because there enmy defences are too strong. as a result the player who are actuly attackin dont have enough suport and fail. now image that when with maxlives, how many players would be willing to waste a few precious lives to try break the bank

You always get some people who won’t attack. The defenders don’t win all the time in a maxlives server. They don’t even win a great majority of the time. Remember, the defenders lose lives too. If you kill enough of them, you’ll have an easier time getting to the objective.

i gess the point of my argument is that objectives are suicide, if you try build a bridge expect panzers, if your going to plant at a AT gun be prepared to get shot in the back, if your riding the railgun tug get ready to be the first one with bullets flying over there head. having malives decourages players form doing any task that put themself in danger and as a result reduces the focus on objectives. and in an objective based game is that realy what u want?

If you play the objectives the way many people on unlimited lives servers, then yeah, I bet they are suicide. On a maxlives server you need your teammates to provide covering fire, take out the panzerfaust before it can fire, time your movements around artillery and have snipers taking out field ops before they can lay it down.

I’ve honestly never been able to understand why people can enjoy the unlimited lives style of gameplay, but hey, that’s no problem. Everyone likes different style gameplay. I’d just like the option of maxlives in Quake Wars too. It makes the game ten times more interesting.

I won’t bother quoting the rest of your post since it seems like you’re unaware that ET had maxlives and that it was perfectly playable with them. So far I haven’t heard anything about QW that would suggest maxlives would somehow ruin the gameplay. I’m not asking if it will be ONLY maxlives, jut if there will be an option for maxlives.

[carnage]

im just trying to make the point that max lives would be better in a game designed from the start to be a game that was based around maxlives rather than taking an arcade objective based game and slap maxlives on it

i can symapatise with the fact that there doesn’t seem to be this middle ground as you either have arcaded style like ET with infinite lives or the realistic tactical shooter with one life

Many servers change it based on each map. A 40 minute map might be 18 lives while a 30 minute map would be 15. Personally I’ve always enjoyed 7 lives. Back in the RTCW days Marketgarden with 7 lives was possibly the greatest, most strategic gameplay I’ve ever experienced.

i would agree that market garden was much better with max lives enabled because of the location of the spawn points and objectives it was virtually impossible to get them without killing most of the other team but still quite fun

i have to disagree with you on the fact that max lives makes game play more strategic. your play strategy should be based on your abilities and restraints. you can make some moves that are very strategic and tactical towards the final objective that are almost certain to get you killed. like putting yourself between 3 axis and you engineer planting dynamite. you have a lot of strategic options there and just because there is no lives limit it doesn’t make it a no brain shooter game

[MuffinMan]

at least it forces the team to cooperate - never go outside without at least one medic and a field ops for example…

[AKA_Sneaky]

RTCW and Wolf:ET both had maxlives implemented, and they did nothing but make the game based more on strategy and teamwork and less on mindless rushing in.

Maxlives, stopwatch and etpro with the classic map rotation was the best.

[me666]

u will hardly find maxlives on europeans servers and thats for a good reason…

[grizzlybear]

[quote=nUllSkillZ]Problem with maxlives:
If you have lost all the lives in the middle of the map it’s getting boring.

Yes, you really ought to be able to play tetris or pong or something while waiting for the round to end. Preferably over the network with the other people who are waiting :D[/quote]

stick silent death online into the limbo menu
sdo had 64 slot multiplayer support (creating some intense dogfighting )
instant respawn in a quiet part of the map and never more than 5 secconds from the action oh and unlimited lives (born to spawn)

Featured Content on Myspace

fly fast
fly free
die quick

a classic that needs cloneing (mmmmmmm et mario hack may work mmmmmmm)

[BR1GAND]

I always found it amusing when ppl went to a LMS server and bellyached about the number of lives.

On the other-hand I personally don’t enjoy LMS because its to CSish for me, but that doesn’t stop me from agreeing it would be a good play mode option.