139 replies to this topic

[defekt]

My issue with the Siege battleship is more fundamental: In a world starved of resources why the billyo are we fuelling up an enormous warship for the express purpose of ramming it into the enemy spine-base thingy_  Doesn’t make any sense.  If instead we were struggling to neuter serious enemy AA (base-mounted AA, not the contested mid-map AA site) long enough so that our warship could fly in and make a safer attack run on the enemy spine-base thingy, then I might buy into the idea a little more.

[AsianJoyKiller]

For those of you who think that having the battleships do damage, let me ask this:
Why do you think teams should be rewarded for playing the objective_
Why is Siege the only mode that rewards completing the objectives_
Should getting a kill in Deathmatch give you a 10% damage buff_
Should capturing a Silo in Missile Assault have missiles strike your opponents_
Should playing the objective give you an advantage that requires no skill to utilize_

tasnitoken, on November 23 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

I disagree with the OP, the battleship turrets are no different from the base turrets other than their motion.

That's right.
You know, except for the part where you are completely wrong.
Last time I checked, base turrets were static and didn't fly over the battlefield shooting you as you try to fight other players while completing objectives.

[defekt]

Let's not overstate the effectiveness of these warship turrets; they're an annoyance at best and are far from being unavoidable as almost any vertical cover will protect you from the guns as long as the ship is not directly overhead (and when it is overhead you only need find vertical cover a little way off to the 'left' or 'right' of its current position).

I'm not bothered either way whether the warships shoot back or not.  For the sake of variety, I'd like to keep them in the game.

[Beemann]

How many bits of vertical cover are there on Sahara_ How many of those are easy-spam chokepoints or deathtraps_

[defekt]

Beemann, on November 23 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

How many bits of vertical cover are there on Sahara_ How many of those are easy-spam chokepoints or deathtraps_

Granted, less than on any other map but I've never yet been killed, or even worried, by an enemy battleship on that map.  Bazzar is a better map for getting your warship out sooner, if benefitting from its guns is important to you.  If you don't like being shot at from the skies, get your sh_t together faster than the enemy team; after all, the game mode is essentially an energy collection race, so play the game and race them.

[Beemann]

defekt, on November 23 2012 - 04:30 PM, said:

Beemann, on November 23 2012 - 04:10 PM, said:

How many bits of vertical cover are there on Sahara_ How many of those are easy-spam chokepoints or deathtraps_

Granted, less than on any other map but I've never yet been killed, or even worried, by an enemy battleship on that map.  Bazzar is a better map for getting your warship out sooner, if benefitting from its guns is important to you.  If you don't like being shot at from the skies, get your sh_t together faster than the enemy team; after all, the game mode is essentially an energy collection race, so play the game and race them.

It's basically just the AA, and not only that but even the deathtrap bits of cover are weighted towards one side (they're easier to get to from the high spawn)
It doesn't matter how much of an advantage it is. The winning team doesn't need any more help.
Also I don't know why you guys keep talking about sending out battleships like it requires any sort of effort. It's the easiest objective to accomplish given the way EU collection works in CB3

[Etan]

Siege as it is now is everyone stand on EU send ship fight for AA. Its literally only a AA skirmish now and the ship does affect this. So why should the team sending a ship get a bonus of turrets on their ship_ Well its aerial support to help keep it in the fuzzy bunny sky. Do you know a battleship that wont help defend its ground troops_ Yes i hate dying to battleship turrets but i feel like they should be there. Make them shoot the enemy ship first and make blowing them up do damage to the ship as well. Because at the moment spending time to actually blow them up is wasting resources (unless you do it on the way to AA but i typically cant get a clear shot while doing this)

[defekt]

Beemann, on November 23 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

It doesn't matter how much of an advantage it is. The winning team doesn't need any more help.

It's a race and the advantage for being in the lead is having your warship in the sky.  If you don't like it, get yours up sooner.  That's the name of the game.

[Titzilla]

No, that is not the name of the game unless you accept it. There is a reason this is a beta test; it is to weed out issues and ideas that aren't the best. Momentum is already on the side of the team who can control the AA. They do not need an uneven push forward when they are already in a leading position. Having an aimbot in the sky is not something that should be condoned.

Edited by Titzilla, November 23 2012 - 05:36 PM.

[NBShoot_me]

defekt, on November 23 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

Beemann, on November 23 2012 - 04:43 PM, said:

It doesn't matter how much of an advantage it is. The winning team doesn't need any more help.

It's a race and the advantage for being in the lead is having your warship in the sky.  If you don't like it, get yours up sooner.  That's the name of the game.

Depends on the team, it's really easy to get a battleship in the air only to be shot down by the AA because the other team is already camping there.  Add in two or three non-performing players that camp just outside the base or flat out don't know what they're doing, it's a fail gaming in the making.

I'm generally not bothered by the turrets, though, if anything they should only really fire for effect (i.e. extremely low accuracy, maybe w/ a little splash damage).  If in Hawken, you can't build a huge battleship that can SHOOT down the enemy tower thingy that has to resort to flying into it like a bad driver, why have accurate weapons on it in the first place_  Better yet, allow for some friendly fire from the battleship.  That way, if you launch your battleship, and you take the AA, you REALLY want to keep the other team from getting in close as you’ll risk getting pummeled by your own defenses in the sky.  Of course, this would be an incentive for the apposing team to get to that AA control circle ASAP, even if a bunch of enemy players are already there.

[SirCannonFodder]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 22 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

And again, why should the team that launched the battleship get an automatic advantage over the defenders_
Why shouldn't they fight for the AA on even terms_

Not only that, but if the defenders are already in the AA when the battleship's launched, it won't even help the attackers take it, since the defenders have a roof over their heads. The only situation where the battleship grants an advantage is when the team that launched it is already ahead.

That said, I wouldn't really mind battleship weapons if the battleship worked kind of like the Titans in Battlefield 2142:

1) The battleship is moved by a player in a Commander role.
2) The range of the turrets is limited to a not-overly-large radius around the battleship (I think it already does this_)
3) The turrets are player-controlled too.

[NBShoot_me]

SirCannonFodder, on November 23 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on November 22 2012 - 02:22 PM, said:

And again, why should the team that launched the battleship get an automatic advantage over the defenders_
Why shouldn't they fight for the AA on even terms_

Not only that, but if the defenders are already in the AA when the battleship's launched, it won't even help the attackers take it, since the defenders have a roof over their heads. The only situation where the battleship grants an advantage is when the team that launched it is already ahead.

That said, I wouldn't really mind battleship weapons if the battleship worked kind of like the Titans in Battlefield 2142:

1) The battleship is moved by a player in a Commander role.
2) The range of the turrets is limited to a not-overly-large radius around the battleship (I think it already does this_)
3) The turrets are player-controlled too.

Now there's an idea, how about also forcing whoever is controlling the battleship to actually attack the opposing team's tower thingy instead of ramming the whole battleship into it.  If the devs wanted to get fancy, they could also add in either a timer or allow for a finite amount of energy use before the battleship has to back up and refuel.

[Etan]

as long as they dont allow you to use extra energy to keep it up longer. Or you could do this and make EU really hard to farm

On a previous note when you are about to launch the enemy team is already at the AA waiting because they KNOW your ship is going to launch. This gives the attackers a bonus of going through the as of right now so minimal effort of launching a ship to take the AA.

Edited by Etan, November 23 2012 - 08:49 PM.

[NBShoot_me]

Etan, on November 23 2012 - 08:46 PM, said:

as long as they dont allow you to use extra energy to keep it up longer. Or you could do this and make EU really hard to farm

On a previous note when you are about to launch the enemy team is already at the AA waiting because they KNOW your ship is going to launch. This gives the attackers a bonus of going through the as of right now so minimal effort of launching a ship to take the AA.

Hopefully not, as long as the battleship has to dock back at base to refuel, that shouldn't be a problem.

[Zorvaz]

SirCannonFodder, on November 23 2012 - 08:05 PM, said:

That said, I wouldn't really mind battleship weapons if the battleship worked kind of like the Titans in Battlefield 2142:

1) The battleship is moved by a player in a Commander role.
2) The range of the turrets is limited to a not-overly-large radius around the battleship (I think it already does this_)
3) The turrets are player-controlled too.

Honestly, if they made the turrets player controlled or limited the turrets in some way I would have no problem with them. As long as the thing is not auto-locking onto people with amazing accuracy they would be fine. As is, the team winning the race does not need a free boost in damage. Making the turrets less effective or making the other team have to limit AA presence in order to use the turrets would be a great change.

Edited by Zorvaz, November 24 2012 - 01:40 AM.

[DarkPulse]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 23 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

For those of you who think that having the battleships do damage, let me ask this:
Why do you think teams should be rewarded for playing the objective_
Why is Siege the only mode that rewards completing the objectives_
Should getting a kill in Deathmatch give you a 10% damage buff_
Should capturing a Silo in Missile Assault have missiles strike your opponents_
Should playing the objective give you an advantage that requires no skill to utilize_

It's not that, it's suppose to be incentive for you to get your butt to the objective.

Simply put, a battleship without actual weapons is pointless. The ship should be able to defend itself if it can be shot, so the only way I would agree with removing weapons is if players can't damage the ship by shooting at it, either, as if it can't do weapons there is theoretically nothing stopping a team from just dedicating two guys to sniping the ship until it blows up, while the rest of their team focuses on the AA.

Though if the devs will go that far, they should just change it so it's not a giant ship, but instead some kind of charging laser, and instead of it being an AA field, it's some kind of console that will hack the firing team's laser generator, with enough successes disabling the turret and forcing a reset of the system.

[defekt]

NBShoot_me, on November 23 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

defekt, on November 23 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

It's a race and the advantage for being in the lead is having your warship in the sky.  If you don't like it, get yours up sooner.  That's the name of the game.

Depends on the team, it's really easy to get a battleship in the air only to be shot down by the AA because the other team is already camping there.  Add in two or three non-performing players that camp just outside the base or flat out don't know what they're doing, it's a fail gaming in the making.

Indeed it does, but none of that is the fault of warships being armed.

I do agree -- it would be a challenge to defend CB3 Siege, if I'm honest -- that the current Siege game mode trivialises the collection of EU and the subsequent launching of a warship, which in turn takes a bit of credence away from the warships being armed at all, but that is also a different issue that is not the fault of warships being armed per sé.  It's all well and good expressing an opinion that armed warships are a good or a bad thing but it's quite another to try and conflate separate (arguably now broken) dynamics in an attempt to strengthen an argument for or against any one specific dynamic (armed warships in this instance).

As I've said before, the whole notion of fuelling up a massive ship for the express purpose of ramming it into the enemy base makes no sense whatsoever when set in the context of a resource depleted world.  If, as DarkPulse echoed above, the core design aspects of the game mode remained, i.e., tactical resource collection race, but the silly warship suicide element was ditched* we might end up with a game mode that not only satisfies competitive play but also doesn't threaten the suspension of disbelief.

* Consider replacing it with an attack run mechanic whereby the enemy can still try to throw up enough AA to force the warship to abandon its run rather than blow up. Also consider occasions when both warships are in the sky at the same time; how cool would it be to see those brutes broadsiding one another overhead whilst the mech battle rages on the ground below them.  That would be something hewn from an enormous block of pure Epic.

Edit: Insertion of recaptured slippery asterisk.

Edited by defekt, November 24 2012 - 06:52 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

DarkPulse, on November 24 2012 - 03:49 AM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on November 23 2012 - 02:05 PM, said:

For those of you who think that having the battleships do damage, let me ask this:
Why do you think teams should be rewarded for playing the objective_
Why is Siege the only mode that rewards completing the objectives_
Should getting a kill in Deathmatch give you a 10% damage buff_
Should capturing a Silo in Missile Assault have missiles strike your opponents_
Should playing the objective give you an advantage that requires no skill to utilize_

It's not that, it's suppose to be incentive for you to get your butt to the objective.

Then why don't deathmatchers need an incentive to kill each other_
Why don't people in MA need an incentive to capture silos_

Oh right.
Because WINNING THE GAME is the incentive to get their butt to the objective.

So obviously there doesn't need to be any extra incentive.
Which brings us back to, "Why should playing the objective give you an advantage_"

Quote

Simply put, a battleship without actual weapons is pointless. The ship should be able to defend itself if it can be shot, so the only way I would agree with removing weapons is if players can't damage the ship by shooting at it, either, as if it can't do weapons there is theoretically nothing stopping a team from just dedicating two guys to sniping the ship until it blows up, while the rest of their team focuses on the AA.

Though if the devs will go that far, they should just change it so it's not a giant ship, but instead some kind of charging laser, and instead of it being an AA field, it's some kind of console that will hack the firing team's laser generator, with enough successes disabling the turret and forcing a reset of the system.

Both you and defekt seem to be hung up on theatrics.
This is a very poor argument, because GOOD GAMEPLAY should always trump aesthetics.
And if the battleship never shot at players in the first place, can you honestly tell me that you'd have questioned why it didn't shoot_

[Etan]

The game mode is siege. I fee like the siege is over the AA more then a base. You as a team that launched your ship is clearly not at the AA yet and the enemies . This is to help you keep your ship in the air so you can win. And if the other team is better they still hold the AA and watch your ship go poof.

[NBShoot_me]

defekt, on November 24 2012 - 06:49 AM, said:

NBShoot_me, on November 23 2012 - 06:21 PM, said:

defekt, on November 23 2012 - 05:19 PM, said:

It's a race and the advantage for being in the lead is having your warship in the sky.  If you don't like it, get yours up sooner.  That's the name of the game.

Depends on the team, it's really easy to get a battleship in the air only to be shot down by the AA because the other team is already camping there.  Add in two or three non-performing players that camp just outside the base or flat out don't know what they're doing, it's a fail gaming in the making.

Indeed it does, but none of that is the fault of warships being armed.

Wasn't the main part of my post. More of an observation as to how quickly the battleship is shot down by one AA gun which the two only weapons it appears to have don't even try to attack.

With the current system, you could have people refueling a ridiculously big and ridiculously slow firing GUN instead of a battleship and turn the AA point into a force field control point.  It would have nearly the same gameplay mechanics.