139 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

The battleship is not a hard enemy to avoid if your goal is simply to shoot it down from wherever. Have you seen the "so long both teams got bored and turned it into a deathmatch" siege video_
You can peg a ship from all the way across the map with TOW and HEAT, and deal more than the max health a ship can have with a scout or two
While you'd solve the AA issue, you wouldn't do anything to stop people from shooting ships down

[Conquistador]

Beemann, on November 27 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:

The battleship is not a hard enemy to avoid if your goal is simply to shoot it down from wherever. Have you seen the "so long both teams got bored and turned it into a deathmatch" siege video_
You can peg a ship from all the way across the map with TOW and HEAT, and deal more than the max health a ship can have with a scout or two
While you'd solve the AA issue, you wouldn't do anything to stop people from shooting ships down

My thoughts apply to weapons that extend the ships' extended range to blanket the entire map, not just cover a certain circumference underneath the ship. This would mean you can't just sit static half a map away and spam weapons at it until it dies.

And by "bristling with weapons", I mean effectively giving the ship an unlimited supply of homing cruise missiles that actively seek out identified threats that have fired on the ship. Similar to hellfires but with smarter tracking, faster flight speed, and more damage output. Ship weapons would also need to be smart enough to ignore cover entirely, meaning you couldn't just take burst weapons and duck in and out of cover trying to kill the ship.

The whole mechanic behind the idea is to PUNISH players who fire on the ship, and give them little to no chance to avoid punishment. High risk, high reward. You'd risk shooting the ship down if you knew beyond the shadow of a doubt that even if you died, you'd kill it before it reached your base.

Edited by Conquistador, November 28 2012 - 12:05 AM.

[Ace4225]

Oh my gosh, Asian. At it again, I see.

if we spent less time arguing over wording/emotional bias and more time studying the issue, we could give the devs what they actually need [solution suggestions for unfair balancing] instead of what they don't need [wasted space on the forums] and everyone's job would be easier.

[Beemann]

Why bother having ship damage at that point_ Why not just make them invincible_ If you're going to give it cover-ignoring missile-based deathbeams then it feels like you're clinging a little too hard to the idea of it having weapons and a health bar players can lower individually

@Ace
That's a little bit condescending and hypocritical don't you think_

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 12:12 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ace4225, on November 28 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:

Oh my gosh, Asian. At it again, I see.

if we spent less time arguing over wording/emotional bias and more time studying the issue, we could give the devs what they actually need [solution suggestions for unfair balancing] instead of what they don't need [wasted space on the forums] and everyone's job would be easier.

And by passing judgement on me without actually adding anything constructive to this conversation, like you literally just suggested people should do, you are, as you just stated, wasting space on the forums.

Nice job there.
Accuse me of wasting space on the forums for not posting constructive content relative to the topic, while doing the exact same thing.

[Conquistador]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Why bother having ship damage at that point_ Why not just make them invincible_ If you're going to give it cover-ignoring missile-based deathbeams then it feels like you're clinging a little too hard to the idea of it having weapons and a health bar players can lower individually

Actually, now that you mention it, would removing guns from the battleships and then making them invincible to small arms (player) fire achieve the same effect for approximately less headache_

The only problem with this scenario means that if you lose the AA, you've lost the game, pretty much. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing at the moment, because it reduces possible tactical choices in the game and transforms siege into a variant of Missile with only one missile silo and no other alternative.

*shrugs* Normally I think reduced player choice is bad, but hey. I'm not against the idea of invincible battleships and AA capture being super-critical.

P.S. Off topic, but Beemann, can you please do me a favour and quote my posts when replying to them_ I tend to track stuff by the quotations mechanism in the forums and not check specific threads neurotically. I'd greatly appreciate it if you'd kindly oblige. C:

Edited by Conquistador, November 28 2012 - 12:19 AM.

[Beemann]

Conquistador, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:

Why bother having ship damage at that point_ Why not just make them invincible_ If you're going to give it cover-ignoring missile-based deathbeams then it feels like you're clinging a little too hard to the idea of it having weapons and a health bar players can lower individually

Actually, now that you mention it, would removing guns from the battleships and then making them invincible to small arms (player) fire achieve the same effect for approximately less headache_

The only problem with this scenario means that if you lose the AA, you've lost the game, pretty much. I'm not sure if that's a good or bad thing at the moment, because it reduces possible tactical choices in the game and transforms siege into a variant of Missile with only one missile silo and no other alternative.

*shrugs* Normally I think reduced player choice is bad, but hey. I'm not against the idea of invincible battleships and AA capture being super-critical.

It's always possible to try to introduce depth in a different way. If we're ultimately accepting that Siege is a pub mode, there's plenty of suggestions that can be made to increase the number of viable strategies (because we no longer have to worry about spectate, just the mode itself). As well, map design is hugely important, and Titan is not a map in which there are a lot of viable AA approach points. Jump pads make you a floating, GL consuming duck and the bridge is predictable and thus heavily spammable

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 12:21 AM.

[Ace4225]

This kind of stuff is what I mean. Yes, I got into it before, but I never wanted to and I've tried not to since.

AsianJoyKiller, on November 28 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:

without adding anything constructive to this conversation, like you literally just suggested people should do, you are, as you just stated, wasting space on the forums.

I already posted my thoughts/feelings on the topic. Why should I state them again_ Secondly, of course I need to add a short comment on the forum... where else would I put it_ At least I'm not arguing with walls of text that don't go anywhere except to prove how long-winded and wordy I may be..

Lastly, I'm sorry if you're so offended by someone calling you out on something, but don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I wash my hands of this weirdness.

[Conquistador]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:21 AM, said:

It's always possible to try to introduce depth in a different way. If we're ultimately accepting that Siege is a pub mode, there's plenty of suggestions that can be made to increase the number of viable strategies (because we no longer have to worry about spectate, just the mode itself). As well, map design is hugely important, and Titan is not a map in which there are a lot of viable AA approach points. Jump pads make you a floating, GL consuming duck and the bridge is predictable and thus heavily spammable

Titan is especially bad at the midpoint, with the AA choking up an incredibly narrow bridge choke point with even more clutter. We're in agreement here.

I suppose I need to play devil's advocate and ask if it is at all possible to salvage Siege for competitive play. Are there any avenues we can take to increase good player strategy without creating broken imbalance_ I feel uncomfortable writing off the mode as a pub game type, because it's one of the more unique Hawken game modes and chiselling it into a competitive-friendly mode would be much more interesting than standard capture point or team deathmatch play.

What sort of things would you recommend for increased depth_

(P.s. Thank you kindly. I appreciate the quote.)

[Ace4225]

I feel like some of the ideas expressed here are pretty darn good:

http://community.pla...ige-mode-ideas/

[Beemann]

Conquistador, on November 28 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:

Titan is especially bad at the midpoint, with the AA choking up an incredibly narrow bridge choke point with even more clutter. We're in agreement here.

I suppose I need to play devil's advocate and ask if it is at all possible to salvage Siege for competitive play. Are there any avenues we can take to increase good player strategy without creating broken imbalance_ I feel uncomfortable writing off the mode as a pub game type, because it's one of the more unique Hawken game modes and chiselling it into a competitive-friendly mode would be much more interesting than standard capture point or team deathmatch play.

What sort of things would you recommend for increased depth_

Honestly the best way to save it is to move it away from what would normally be spectator friendly options. The centralized AA point homogenizes strategy if you can't shoot down the ship, and if you CAN shoot down the ship it becomes Duck Hunt at 1fps

As well, the EU points don't promote fighting, and they never really did. The problem is that there's two of them, and they're easily defended.. as well, there's no point in NOT travelling with a full team. EU collecting needs to take up more of the map, and sub-objectives when the AA is active would go a long way in mixing up strategies... but would unfortunately make the game hard to watch (because you don't always know where the "best" plays are being made and have to swap from one objective to another)

As well, on a comp play end, your clutch plays and strong pushes don't really directly translate into winning. In Dota-style games, they let you out-level the other team, in Quake, Starcraft and CS they can/will win you the match directly (because victory conditions are/include killing the fuzzy bunny out of the opponent)
There's no real way to translate that over to Siege without forcing the players to basically ignore the EU points/AA and deathmatch... at least nothing that I can come up with quite works out that way
A stalemate currently works just as well as a kill... and that's not fun to watch

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ace4225, on November 28 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:

Secondly, of course I need to add a short comment on the forum... where else would I put it_

You know, there's this handy little thing called a Private Message.
If you are so very concerned, you could use those.

Quote

At least I'm not arguing with walls of text that don't go anywhere except to prove how long-winded and wordy I may be...

Another fine example of the sort of provocative, condescending and unconstructive remarks you like to make all the time. Not to mention it's false and impossible to prove.

It's not wrong to thoroughly explain one's position as to try and avoid as much confusion as possible.
Whether you like that or not, and whether you think that makes me arrogant/egotistical or whatever else is a problem on your end.
That is the result of whatever biases you have.

Quote

Lastly, I'm sorry if you're so offended by someone calling you out on something, but don't dish it out if you can't take it.

I wash my hands of this weirdness.

I can take it, and with ease.
I'm not upset that you tried to call me out, but rather amused that you did so while actively proving yourself a hypocrite.

And go, wash your hands if you feel like it makes you morally superior. You did come and dirty them yourself in the first place.

[Ace4225]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 28 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:

proving yourself a hypocrite.

We're all hypocrites. We all make mistakes, and we all learn from them.

Quote

I wash my hands of this weirdness.

was just quoting Pirates of the Caribbean. lol

Edit: I'm sorry if my statements sometimes seem "condescending." I don't intend for them to come across that way; I simply try to communicate ideas by simplifying them into the easiest description I can think of.. despite the fact it doesn't always work, I've gotten into the habit of communicating that way.

Edited by Ace4225, November 28 2012 - 12:53 AM.

[Necro]

Just going to leave this here, a poll for everyones delight!
VOTE or be a scaly bunny.

http://community.pla...hips-yes-or-no/

Edited by Necro, November 28 2012 - 12:51 AM.

[DarkPulse]

Necro, on November 28 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:

Just going to leave this here, a poll for everyones delight!
VOTE or be a scaly bunny.

http://community.pla...hips-yes-or-no/

Answer my question in said thread, and I'll vote.

[Necro]

Added flexibility in the form of another yes answer but with tweaks.
Also added asking for ideas to the flexible yes/no answers.

Try to keep the discussion here if you could for an easier conversation.
(quote the idea and critique it here basically, The poll is mainly for the devs/players to estimate what player mostly want)
Link again

Edited by Necro, November 28 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[DarkPulse]

Voted accordingly.

[Stealth_303]

At #20 I agree and I would say, that as the ship approaches the base, the base turrets hit the enemy.

I wonder, would the OP want to get rid of the base turrets too_

Edited by Stealth_303, November 28 2012 - 04:33 AM.

[Stealth_303]

What about, make the ship guns more powerful, and then supply a place for mechs to take cover, with huge guns to fire back at the ship, which can be destroyed, but also rebuilt with Energy collected from the towers.

[HellRik]

I just had a crazy idea. Since its off-topic I've transfered it here: http://community.pla...ige-mode-ideas/

Edited by HellRik, November 28 2012 - 07:09 AM.