 4
 4
 
Now that we've had time to play it, your thoughts on siege mode!
#1
Posted November 26 2012 - 10:09 AM
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.
#2
Posted November 26 2012 - 11:01 AM
- 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:
The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'
#3
Posted November 26 2012 - 11:13 AM
Oh one more note, I personally think the base's need to be reversed back to 3hp blocks, not 2.
#4
Posted November 26 2012 - 11:15 AM
#5
Posted November 26 2012 - 11:17 AM
*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
Posted November 26 2012 - 11:29 AM
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.
#7
Posted November 26 2012 - 12:25 PM
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.
#8
Posted November 26 2012 - 01:40 PM
#9
Posted November 26 2012 - 02:05 PM

#10
Posted November 27 2012 - 04:55 AM
#11
Posted November 27 2012 - 06:31 AM
 
#12
Posted November 27 2012 - 08:00 AM
 BernardWiseman, on November 26 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:
BernardWiseman, on November 26 2012 - 01:40 PM, said:
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
Posted November 27 2012 - 08:09 AM
 
#14
Posted November 27 2012 - 08:26 AM
#15
Posted November 27 2012 - 08:30 AM
 Karaipantsu, on November 27 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:
Karaipantsu, on November 27 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:
 Necro, on November 26 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:
Necro, on November 26 2012 - 11:37 PM, said:
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
Posted November 27 2012 - 08:39 AM
 
#17
Posted November 27 2012 - 09:05 AM
#18
Posted November 27 2012 - 09:34 AM
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.
#19
Posted November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM
However it also makes siege very boring
You have been warned
Edited by Beemann, November 27 2012 - 03:30 PM.
#20
Posted November 27 2012 - 03:36 PM

Seriously suicidal scrapheap operator
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

 



 
				
				
			 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			









 
								




