139 replies to this topic

[HellRik]

Everytime I see a BS coming at the 50% map mark. I shoot down both his turrets and then move on to help my teamates.
Imo, they are and serve the same purpose as any other item ( portable turrets ) from enemy mechs.

By taking them down, you also help other teamates survive the heat of the battle covering/taking the AA.

Edited by HellRik, November 26 2012 - 06:18 AM.

[Ace4225]

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 03:04 AM, said:

Shooting the battleship itself should be nerfed or removed. As it stands it's much too viable a strategy and it breaks the gamemode at high-end play, particularly from a spectator standpoint
So basically the only alternative to fighting for the AA involves making the match boring as fuzzy bunny for everyone involved

The strategies work off of each other.

-If the opposing team launches their battleship and has gained a solid hold of the AA, shoot the BS from your base.
-When the opposing team pushes forward to try to stop you, you break wide and circle around to the AA.

A good team should be able to take down the ship, turrets or no. A good offense should be able to stop the defending team with the same amount of effort.

What I think needs to change is the base having 3 life bars again instead of two. And the changes to EU collection and transportation... Now it's way too easy to just fill up 'n go, rinse and repeat.

Edit: Although I do like the idea of having more than one anti-air emplacement, or perhaps alternate defensive options for the defending team, like the ideas mentioned earlier. Stripping the battleship of any sort of defenses would make it rather superfluous and disconnected from the battlefield imo.

Edited by Ace4225, November 26 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Sylhiri]

Ace4225, on November 26 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Edit: Although I do like the idea of having more than one anti-air emplacement, or perhaps alternate defensive options for the defending team, like the ideas mentioned earlier. Stripping the battleship of any sort of defenses would make it rather superfluous and disconnected from the battlefield imo.

That actually sounds like it would balance things out in both high and low player situations. To keep both the AA bases you'd have to stretch your forces apart. You would have to nerf the damage of the AA's though so you don't have an hour long game.

Edited by Sylhiri, November 26 2012 - 10:18 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

DarkPulse, on November 26 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

You're making similar wild ones of mine.

What wild exaggerations of your position have I made_ I can't find them.
On the other hand, I have seen you say things like, " 'It's automatic and it can kill me, so it's unfair' ", " 'Remove them, it's OP!' ", and "game-breaking."

Quote

I made my position clear: I don't think they're too strong, I don't think they need to be removed, in a "real" game they're not going to be much more than a minor nuisance and if the ability for them to shoot is removed, removing the ability to shoot it down without even having to bother with the AA is a reasonable balance. The only tweaking I feel it needs is a strength nerf proportional to the number of players on the server: Full strength for 9+, 2/3 as strong for 5-8, 1/3 as strong for 4 or less. How is this strawmanning and arguing ad nominem_ I made my positions clear and succinct; you're the one who is insisting "But you can't shoot missiles at enemies in Missile Assault and no other game mode gives you an advantage!"

Scaling is somewhat acceptable, but far from ideal.
Also, asking for a decent explanation of why Siege is the only mode that gives an advantage to teams for completing normal objectives is completely within reason. Hardly illogical.
I'll address the rest below.

Quote

First, let's define strawmanning: "To create the illusion of having refuted a proposition by replacing it with a superficially similar yet unequivalent proposition (the "straw man"), and to refute it, without ever having actually refuted the original position."

You proposed getting rid of the weapons, I said it was fine as long as players can't blow the ship up without the AA either. You countered with ships doing kamikaze collisions making no sense; I proposed changing it from ships to something like a computer hack. And I'd be arguing against anyone who suggested similar ideas without some kind of reasonable balance against it, because as I said above, I don't feel it's as game-breaking as you do, and I explained why, as well as how to balance out the removal of weapons - which is something that you did not mention, implying that you would still be fine with players being able to shoot down a ship that can no longer shoot them back. (If, on the other hand, you also supported removing that, I'd be considerably more in support of your argument.) Therefore, I feel that my argument cannot be strawmanning, because I'm considering alternatives and other solutions which would, indeed, get you what you want, as well as remove the potential imbalance of players being able to hang back in their spawn rooms and snipe the ship for at least its first few spawns.

Except my counter of ships being suicidal wasn't a counter to the your "defenseless battleship" point, and I in fact quoted what I was addressing so you would know what I was countering. You then went on to argue for alternatives, which I suppose is a sticking point because I don't think there needs to be alternatives. Why don't I think there needs to be alternatives_ Because there's an entire team of people who are available to defend it themselves. The battleship doesn't need to be able to defend itself because the onus of defending the battleship should fall on the team.

My counter of kamikaze collisions not making sense was in regard to you arguing that, thematically, removing weapons from battleships didn't make any sense. That's silly, because the whole of Siege mode makes little sense from any logical standpoint, so removing weapons is no less logical than any other thematic concept in it.

And why do I accuse you of strawmanning_
If you want, I'll point out several cases where you never actually address questions I ask or points I make and then act like you've properly refuted them.
In fact, I'll even throw in all the examples where you completely ignore questions or arguments I made for free.

Quote

As for argumentum ad hominem_ You're the one making the argument for the case, and I'm arguing reasons against it; arguing ad hominem would be if I disagreed with your position solely because it's you. Nobody else is leaping to defend your position like you are, so really, who else do I have to argue against_ You can't call essentially a two-person argument an "argumentum ad hominem" unless I disagreed with you based on some superficial reason, like "you don't play enough Siege to know it" or something like that. I'm arguing your points here and why I think they're bad - therefore, the accusation of argumentum ad hominem is also false.

Before you make such ridiculous accusations, think a little more clearly. I'm against the changes because I think the changes you're proposing would stink, not because you're arguing in favor of change, and I even offered alternatives, balancing suggestions if it is removed, and even balance suggestions if it remains in.

So this, "Stop playing A-Class all the time, that's half the answer. You sacrifice speed for armor and you know that." and this, "That said, I can't ever remember really being shot by the thing to 1/2-1/3rd health. And yes, that includes playing as an A-Class, so really, how the heck are you moving so that it instant-targets you_" aren't comments on me personally and rather my position_
I hardly think so.

Not to mention, "Because to be honest, this is almost like the turret argument you made which I also found ridiculous." hardly helps the idea that you're entirely neutral.

Quote

In short, I feel that you don't know what arguing ad hominem means, and your interpretation of strawmanning is very, very, very loose. Tu quoque.

In short, I am very careful to try and avoid logical fallacies and such debate tactics so they don't bite me in the ass.
You can accuse me of hypocrisy, but I doubt you can prove it conclusively.



EDIT: For the record, since defekt already accused me of being a hypocrite, I did ask him if he would care to prove it, and so far all he's come up with is this:

defekt Sent Today, 04:03 AM said:

Not really no because I doubt very much that it would sink in.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, November 26 2012 - 10:24 AM.

[HellRik]

Yesterday after taking AA back to offensive enemy releasing their BS, we took down their ship before it reached our base, thus saving it. As I was coming back with the energy I've taken from fallen enemy mechs around AA, I found several, and by several I mean more then 6 energy spots around our base entry. ( pretty much under the enemy ship where it was destroyed. ( no fight was taken up to our base entry and even if theres was one, there is no way for 6+ spread energy spots in a 3v3 fight )

Am I dreaming or the BS carries energy that can be drop on the battlefield_

[fwip]

Y'all remember that the devs were planning on significantly reworking siege for Open Beta, right_

[AsianJoyKiller]

fwip, on November 26 2012 - 11:05 AM, said:

Y'all remember that the devs were planning on significantly reworking siege for Open Beta, right_

Y'all remember we're not psychic and don't actually know how they plan to change it, so we must voice our concerns (which is the purpose of beta testing) with what knowledge we are given, right_

[Ace4225]

[Pardon the redundancy of repeated vernacular]

Y'all remember, if your team participates and uses good tactics, you can just shoot the ship from cover until it dies without having to take the AA_

(just played yet another match today where this was successfully done by the other team.)

Edited by Ace4225, November 26 2012 - 11:53 AM.

[fwip]

Yes, I just think that the two sides of the issue have probably been covered pretty well by now. It seems a little silly to get so passionate about these specifics when odds are there are much more sweeping changes in the pipeline.

[Beemann]

Ace4225, on November 26 2012 - 11:53 AM, said:

[Pardon the redundancy of repeated vernacular]

Y'all remember, if your team participates and uses good tactics, you can just shoot the ship from cover until it dies without having to take the AA_

(just played yet another match today where this was successfully done by the other team.)

Except that's bad and needs to be fixed. It creates even LESS incentive to fight in Siege
Gamemode needs more fighting not less

[Ace4225]

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Except that's bad and needs to be fixed. It creates even LESS incentive to fight in Siege
Gamemode needs more fighting not less

perhaps, but your team still needs to be able to hold off the attackers at the same time or they'll just be base-camped.. which requires plenty of effort.

[Beemann]

Ace4225, on November 26 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Except that's bad and needs to be fixed. It creates even LESS incentive to fight in Siege
Gamemode needs more fighting not less

perhaps, but your team still needs to be able to hold off the attackers at the same time or they'll just be base-camped.. which requires plenty of effort.

Or they can just stand in base when the enemy team pushes forward

[HellRik]

Ace4225, on November 26 2012 - 12:00 PM, said:

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Except that's bad and needs to be fixed. It creates even LESS incentive to fight in Siege
Gamemode needs more fighting not less

perhaps, but your team still needs to be able to hold off the attackers at the same time or they'll just be base-camped.. which requires plenty of effort.

I just wish to play theses modes in 10vs10+ ...the actual settings are a joke. 2v2 / 3v3 in theses mode sucks.
One exemple I can remember from a game having such mode where Port Scion in RIFT ( yeah I know not the same type of game ) with the basic idea of holding a bridge while 1/3 of the team was gathering ressources and/or preventing enemy team to do so. Now its a run for ressources, then for the AA, rince and repeat. It needs to be much more complexe then that and sorry for the noobs they gonna have to learn the hard way.

Can't tell more then that since I am in this beta since the 20th.

Edited by HellRik, November 26 2012 - 12:06 PM.

[Ace4225]

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 12:02 PM, said:

Or they can just stand in base when the enemy team pushes forward

...and die from base-camping.

All that said, it is kind of a silly way to offset having turrets on the battleship.

I like defekt's idea of having the battleships be able to attack each other and the idea of the battleship having weapons intended for being used strictly on the enemy base rather than on the mechs on the ground.

Edited by Ace4225, November 26 2012 - 12:10 PM.

[Beemann]

2v2/3v3 means everyone has to pull their own weight. It's also more ESports viable because it's much easier to get a smaller team to a tournament, and you can draw more competition out from a small pool of skilled players when it really comes down to it
Honestly I think Hawken could easily pull off 4v4 instead of the 6v6 it's using now

@Ace
If you've killed someone in their own base, it's probably because they're AFK or braindead, or because they honestly don't care enough and are confident that they'll destroy the Battleship anyway
We're talking about equally skilled teams after all, aren't we_
You're not going to roflstomp a team in their own spawn after getting hit with base turrets unless there's a huge skill discrepancy after all, and it's much easier for them to return to their positions than it is for you to return to yours

Edited by Beemann, November 26 2012 - 12:15 PM.

[Astrolis]

I would prefer lazers on my battleships.

Hold a poll on it.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Astrolis, on November 26 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I would prefer lazers on my battleships.

Hold a poll on it.

Have you been talking to NotKjell_

[Ace4225]

Beemann, on November 26 2012 - 12:12 PM, said:

If you've killed someone in their own base, it's probably because they're AFK or braindead, or because they honestly don't care enough and are confident that they'll destroy the Battleship anyway
We're talking about equally skilled teams after all, aren't we_
You're not going to roflstomp a team in their own spawn after getting hit with base turrets unless there's a huge skill discrepancy after all, and it's much easier for them to return to their positions than it is for you to return to yours

lol. fair enough.

[Astrolis]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 26 2012 - 12:14 PM, said:

Astrolis, on November 26 2012 - 12:13 PM, said:

I would prefer lazers on my battleships.

Hold a poll on it.

Have you been talking to NotKjell_

lazers need no discussion.

[Necro]

I think my picture still holds a very valid point here.