Remove Weapons from Battleships
#121
Posted November 27 2012 - 11:57 PM
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
#122
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:04 AM
Beemann, on November 27 2012 - 11:57 PM, said:
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.
#123
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:05 AM
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.
#124
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:11 AM
@Ace
That's a little bit condescending and hypocritical don't you think_
Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 12:12 AM.
#125
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:12 AM
Ace4225, on November 28 2012 - 12:05 AM, said:
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.
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.
[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'
#126
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:17 AM
Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:
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.
#127
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:21 AM
Conquistador, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:
Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:11 AM, said:
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.
Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 12:21 AM.
#128
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:22 AM
AsianJoyKiller, on November 28 2012 - 12:12 AM, said:
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.
#129
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:27 AM
Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:21 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_
(P.s. Thank you kindly. I appreciate the quote.)
#130
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:32 AM
http://community.pla...ige-mode-ideas/
#131
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:39 AM
Conquistador, on November 28 2012 - 12:27 AM, said:
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_
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
#132
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:40 AM
Ace4225, on November 28 2012 - 12:22 AM, said:
If you are so very concerned, you could use those.
Quote
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
I wash my hands of this weirdness.
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.
[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'
#133
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:47 AM
AsianJoyKiller, on November 28 2012 - 12:40 AM, said:
We're all hypocrites. We all make mistakes, and we all learn from them.
Quote
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.
#134
Posted November 28 2012 - 12:48 AM
VOTE or be a scaly bunny.
http://community.pla...hips-yes-or-no/
Edited by Necro, November 28 2012 - 12:51 AM.
#135
Posted November 28 2012 - 01:48 AM
Necro, on November 28 2012 - 12:48 AM, said:
VOTE or be a scaly bunny.
http://community.pla...hips-yes-or-no/
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."
#136
Posted November 28 2012 - 02:23 AM
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.
#137
Posted November 28 2012 - 02:35 AM
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."
#140
Posted November 28 2012 - 06:24 AM
Edited by HellRik, November 28 2012 - 07:09 AM.
1 user(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users