HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Now that we've had time to play it, your thoughts on siege mode!


  • Please log in to reply
73 replies to this topic

Poll: Siegemode? (56 member(s) have cast votes)

Do you think siegemode is bad now?

  1. Yes (41 votes [73.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 73.21%

  2. No (9 votes [16.07%])

    Percentage of vote: 16.07%

  3. 50/50 (reply to explain) (6 votes [10.71%])

    Percentage of vote: 10.71%

Do you think siege mode is esport worthy?

  1. As it is, yes. (4 votes [7.14%])

    Percentage of vote: 7.14%

  2. As it is, no. (13 votes [23.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.21%

  3. As it was in beta 2, yes (23 votes [41.07%])

    Percentage of vote: 41.07%

  4. Never thought it was esport worthy. (13 votes [23.21%])

    Percentage of vote: 23.21%

  5. Not siege, but MA is most definitely. (3 votes [5.36%])

    Percentage of vote: 5.36%

Vote Guests cannot vote

#1 CaliberMengsk

CaliberMengsk

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 809 posts
  • LocationNear St. Louis

Posted November 26 2012 - 10:09 AM

Ok, so we've finally had some time to let siege mode changes settle in, new mechs and such settle in, everything has been settled in. So, I know that everyone liked siege mode, and in a poll I did of which game mode was best for Esport, siege mode won out considerably (75% or so of over 80 people voting agreed that siege mode was the best, with MA coming in fairly close behind). Then beta 3 started.

While I don't mind the balance changes for the most part, I do take annoyance toward the extreme changes made to siege. While I can understand less points needed to win, I do NOT want the energy nodes as they stand. This is the most game breaking part as a full team of 6 has no issues getting full on just one energy node without hardly any competition. The way siege mode worked before is a few people would stay at a node, then the rest would fight for position and to stop the enemy from getting energy.

So now, it's currently a rush to the opposite energy node from the enemy (typically everyone heads right on their sides of the map) and a rush to get back to base, then a rush to hold the AA. The idea (I think) of this change of everyone gets fast energy, is probably a way to make the game mode faster. Personally, I liked the duration of the matches from closed beta 2. Most were ending in 45 minutes to an hour. That's not that bad, and gives a lot of chance for a back and forth battle. When playing with my guild, we've had matches that were neck and neck all the way to the end, as well as some where the opposing team got two points rather quick, and we scratched our way back to victory through rough fights.

The current version of siege seems to be a "who can run away the best" rather then a "Who is more skilled" game. Anyone else agree?

I say put the energy nodes back how they were. Heck, put the points back how they were, but leave the map changes. Out of everything I read on the forums, the only major issue was that the ships were to weak to start with, and that the map layout for sahara was horrible. The layout now is great, and I think ships were tweaked. So put the gamemode back to it's earlier glory PLEASE. I'd like to see hawken survive, but the 15 minute or less siege mode for a "long" game is a bad idea and takes away the tug of war battles and replaces it will a ton of class a mech boosting from energy node to base and that's it without any fighting.

Perhaps I'm rambling, but I do not like siege mode as it is, and I know that my guild feels the same way. In beta 2 we pretty much only played siege mode, and now we practically avoid it because it feels wrong.

That's all for this post. Please vote and leave your comments here as well. If you want it changed back, then PLEASE say something or the dev team will just leave it as is. They can't know what's wrong if you don't talk about it.

Stream: http://www.twitch.tv/calibermengsk

Co-Owner of the BSB.


Join the Brotherhood.
Posted Image

http://bsb-gaming.com


#2 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted November 26 2012 - 11:01 AM

I'll leave my usual comments about Siege.
  • EU gathering needs to encourage fighting
  • AA needs to be required to take down all levels of battleships
  • Remove weapons from battleships so one team does not have an arbitrary advantage
  • Matches shouldn't regularly being going 40+ minutes

There's currently a running discussion going among some of the comp players on what's right/wrong with Siege and whether it's esports worthy. It's yielding some interesting results, but I'll let others explain their personal thoughts on the matter as they see fit.

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#3 G4M5T3R

G4M5T3R

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,207 posts
  • LocationUSA

Posted November 26 2012 - 11:13 AM

I like the changes made from CB2 to CB3, matches are shorter, and it seems a lot harder to simplly shoot the battleship down yourself. But I do agree with AsianJoyKiller. EU needs to encourage fighting not camping. And the guns should be removed from the battleship, or their dmg ratio's need to be lessened. Most matches I play only last up to 30min now. Which is good.

Oh one more note, I personally think the base's need to be reversed back to 3hp blocks, not 2.
Posted Image
                                                                                                 Gamester (n.) : One who plays games, especially a gambler.
                                                                                                                     BSB - http://bsb-gaming.com/

#4 LunaticCalm

LunaticCalm

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 250 posts

Posted November 26 2012 - 11:15 AM

Not a fan of the energy collection changes. It encourages the whole team to go to one point and sit there, then drop off. It discourages interaction with the other team.

#5 Sylhiri

Sylhiri

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,135 posts

Posted November 26 2012 - 11:17 AM

*removes pillar under AA with a EU tower, the only EU tower*

*watches the complete chaos*

[13:14] <nonsiccus_work> uh oh

there's gravy in my keyboard

----------------------------------------------------------------------

[11:18] <+shosca> if you wanna play ar, go play zerker
[11:18] <Hyginos> and if you want to play zerker, go smc
[11:19] <someone> if you want to play sustain, please go and die in hell


#6 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted November 26 2012 - 11:29 AM

Siege mode would be boring as fuzzy bunny to watch
First 5/10/20 minutes would revolve around collecting EU with  no incentive to fight (next to no incentive to fight if we're dealing with the previous iteration) and then shooting down the battleship from as far away as possible (ideally your spawn if you can wing it) until you hit the ship that doesn't allow you to shoot it down anymore
Pretty sure NotKJell ran the numbers on hitting the ship with HEAT+TOW and it came out to something absurd. I'll let him explain that if need be
Point is, comp players don't fight unless they think they'll win and have something to gain from it
In Siege they really don't until the AA becomes necessary, which is way too far into the game to make things interesting

I mean... imagine if creeps were the driving force in LoL and the players were just there to walk over to "gold wells" to buy more creeps that would become steadily immune to towers and instagib them. Oh and the jungle is empty
Would you watch that? I have enough trouble watching LoL as-is, but I think that would be pants

Honestly I don't get why people want the Esport mode to be the one in which the player uses an automated gun to remove an automated ship, which is the only method of point scoring. The players feel like assets that get leveraged rather than the match deciders they actually SHOULD be in any decent ESport

Edited by Beemann, November 26 2012 - 11:30 AM.

Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#7 NotKjell

NotKjell

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 436 posts

Posted November 26 2012 - 12:25 PM

I like the game to play as a pub, but I don't think it's ever been suitable for e-sports play. It's not a question of stats either, there's no variety or strategy within a map. A game of siege might be different on sahara/bazaar than on titan/origin, but every game on sahara will look the same. Ever game on titan will look the same. The gametype doesn't leave room for players to do their own thing. It's not, "It's a good idea to be on the AA right now" it's "There's nothing else for you to possibly do right now. Get on the AA. Look I even shut down the EU points so you won't have any distractions." The AA is another issue with how easy it is to shoot down the battleship yourself but that's an issue of stats. The core issue of siege is how little there is to do in that mode. Collect energy, return it, move to AA.

And btw, the numbers for HEAT + Tow on a scout. Assuming you have perfect aim and line-of-sight from start to finish you should be able to deal about 18-20,000 damage to the battleship by yourself. Only by the 7th or 8th battleship would you then need either more than 1 person shooting at it or the AA.

Posted Image


High-level Hawken discussion and play wednesdays at 7:00 PST http://www.twitch.tv/thecockpit

#8 BernardWiseman

BernardWiseman

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 42 posts

Posted November 26 2012 - 01:40 PM

I feel like a launched battleship ought to hover in front of the enemy base and whittle its health down with heavy weapons instead of suicide charging it. When two battleships launch at once, they would engage each other instead of the enemy base. It seems to me that this would make a battleship behave more like one and change the shape of the fighting, instead of it being a "point-scoring chance".

#9 Necro

Necro

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1,262 posts

Posted November 26 2012 - 02:05 PM

I Feel like there almost need to be a 3rd EU tower to fight over or something.

#10 defekt

defekt

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 04:55 AM

Siege is a good enough concept: contested resource collection race coupled with a King of the Hill phase.  I just don’t think it’s implemented at all well in the game, in any of the CBs.  (Granted, the CB3 version is the least well implemented.)  For one, suicidal warships makes no sense both from a Lore standpoint and as a viable modus operandi.  The game mode needs an overhaul.

#11 Etan

Etan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • LocationMInnesota

Posted November 27 2012 - 06:31 AM

Random idea remove EU trees and increase EU dropped by mechs this would require you to fight and make some people leave the fight to deposit their EU. Might make it more exciting?
Posted Image

#12 Karaipantsu

Karaipantsu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:00 AM

View PostBernardWiseman, on November 26 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:

I feel like a launched battleship ought to hover in front of the enemy base and whittle its health down with heavy weapons instead of suicide charging it. When two battleships launch at once, they would engage each other instead of the enemy base. It seems to me that this would make a battleship behave more like one and change the shape of the fighting, instead of it being a "point-scoring chance".

Not a bad idea, but that basically turns it into Missile Assault 2.0.  I think a better implementation of this would be the following:

Game starts, trees are on.  However, trees stay on for the entire game.  Each team races to launch their BS.  Prosk gets theirs launched, and then controls the AA tower.  Sentium retreats to the trees and gathers energy to launch their BS as the Prosk BS gets in range of the base.

The Battleship now fires on the enemy base from its position until Sentium gets their BS launched, whereupon it fires on the Prosk Battleship.  Prosk continues to hold the AA and it pounds the Sentium BS while Sentium gathers more energy instead.  Sentium gets another 600 energy, and their BS fires a superweapon at the Prosk BS, destroying it.  The Sentium BS is then destroyed by the AA tower.  Overall result: moderate damage to Sentium Base, and two downed BS.  Then the game continues.

tl;dr - Energy can be dispensed throughout the entire match, and used to launch battleships or power the battleship's superweapon when it is already deployed.  Battleships can engage each other, base now has a pool of HP that the BS will whittle down, or take huge chunks out of with a superweapon.  AA tower's purpose remains the same.

#13 Etan

Etan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • LocationMInnesota

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:09 AM

That would take away from the fighting for AA it would just be get energy all day.
Posted Image

#14 Karaipantsu

Karaipantsu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:26 AM

The AA is still a good way to take down Battleships.  It only takes 10-20 seconds of control to down a BS.  Plus, it still takes 1200 energy to launch and fire the BS's superweapon.  The only downside is in smaller team games (3 or less on each side), it could get very stalemate-y pretty quick.  I'll cross post and idea I had from another thread in a sec that may make it a little more viable.

#15 Karaipantsu

Karaipantsu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:30 AM

Crosspost from another thread about increasing competition duing the energy gather phase:

View PostKaraipantsu, on November 27 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

View PostNecro, on November 26 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:

I think there should be a 3rd EU station actually. Everyone just goes to one side and there isn't much combat. till AA

Expansion on the idea, each station only has a limited amount of energy to give, and when it runs out, it needs, say, 1 minute to recharge.  That'd force teams to compete for the stations, or to kill each other for energy gains.

Example:  Game starts, 3 energy stations.  Each station has 300 energy to dole out at the start, meaning there's 900 total energy available at the start of the game.  It takes 600 to launch the Battleship.  Obviously, there's only enough energy from the get go to launch one BS, so there'll be competition for each station to make sure you can control at least 2 of them for long enough to get all of their energy back to base.  If you cannot, you must destroy enemies before they get back to their base and steal their energy to power your BS.

With this idea and the new BS design I posted earlier, it forces a lot more competition on the map for energy.  If Prosk controls the AA when their BS is en route to the Sentium base, but all the Energy stations are live and full, there's an option for prevention for Sentium, rather than just take the loss of life.  That option also makes Prosk think about abandoning the AA to prevent Sentium from powering their superweapon.

If anything, it'd certainly extend the life of the games and prevent the constant rolling that happens in this game type now.

Edited by Karaipantsu, November 27 2012 - 08:33 AM.


#16 Etan

Etan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 367 posts
  • LocationMInnesota

Posted November 27 2012 - 08:39 AM

I could see this working. It would allow for some teams to do a few different strat's to win.
Posted Image

#17 Karaipantsu

Karaipantsu

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 571 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 09:05 AM

Exactly.  Currently, it's pretty much an "all or nothing" sprint for the AA after someone launches their BS.  Whomever controls the AA wins, basically.  Creating other options would open up the game play a lot.

#18 techno_destructo

techno_destructo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 118 posts

Posted November 27 2012 - 09:34 AM

Sadly the matchmaker has yet to put me in a full server, so my impressions of the mode leave me feeling that it doesn't feel very well balanced with low player population. Good strategy for the mode I see would be dedicating a few teammates to harassment of the enemy EU collectors while the heavier friendly mechs collect energy at your own protected collection tree. Add maybe a floater or two for the AA throughout the match to keep the lights on for your teammates when you hit your battleship launch goal.

While removing the third destruction goal does make matches shorter, it also changes the play dynamics into to a more campy AA protection strategy. I think they had the right idea to buff battleship HP to make AA not as important, but it also created a situation where an entire team could too easily focus fire an incoming battleship. The only way to punish that strategy is for the other team to try and hunt them down while they're shooting at the sky. That sort of worked, but I feel that there should be more discouragement to doing this: enter battleship doing damage to players.

Battleship should really be targeting players who are attacking, not just random willy-nilly shooting at everything that moves. Battleships feel a little too interactive with the match. I like the superweapon idea. Maybe the AA should be modified to also collect energy from one or two mechs who then would help charge the battleship's main guns? That would introduce a vulnerability on the AA defense side by taking a couple players temporarily out of the fight and keep everyone's main focus on a single objective.
Delete Yourself.

#19 Beemann

Beemann

    Sentient Wall-of-Text

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,974 posts
  • LocationVancouver, BC

Posted November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM

Protip: If you can convince your team to shoot the battleship from your end of the map, you don't need the AA for a very long time
However it also makes siege very boring
You have been warned

Edited by Beemann, November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM.

Posted Image

C-Class Swagger
Ballin' and Brawlin'
Cloakin' and Smokin'

#20 Aelieth

Aelieth

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 201 posts
  • LocationShawnee, Oklahoma or Nagoya, Japan

Posted November 27 2012 - 03:36 PM

Looking forward to see what changes siege mode will have for Open Beta. Seems to be the mode the devs were primarily focused on to start with since it has internals and optimizations for energy capacity.
Posted Image
Seriously suicidal scrapheap operator




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

y of their respective owners.

Privacy Policy | Cross Domain Policy | End User License Agreement | Rules of Conduct | Naming Policy | Press Enquiries