65 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

Did you see the RA3 video I posted in the other thread_  Those were the sort of people who will play at the highest level
The sort of players we'll have at the ESports level want to win at all costs. They'll do whatever boring fuzzy bunny they need to in order to secure victory, and they will not take unnecessary risks because you think it's more fun that way.
Siege is very VERY exploitable, and your suggestions do nothing to stop this (if anything, they make it worse)

Also, Esports revolve around small team sizes. 10v10 is too large. It's logistically difficult to accomplish (you have to make sure 10 people's schedules line up, and 10 people have to make it to each event, and it quite frankly doesn't fit Hawken
TBH 6v6 seems a little large, 4 or 5 may be where it;s at for ESports, though I'd like to see some actual comp-quality maps first (IE mirrored and perfectly balanced and such)

[HellRik]

I do understand the fact that a mode can be spooky.
Sooo...Basically play E-sport or GTFO_

Is it too much to ask to be able to voice an idea_ Did I say everything this game has to offer is bullshit_ Its what I would like to see and I didnt brought it otherwise. Lets talk marketing for a second. If the game designers notice a possible new player audience for such a mode why would they reject it_
I could stand 2 type of siege mode.

And btw, in my eyes, playing a fun game =/= winning at all costs. I've played and lost games with more epics fights and more fun then a 20-10 win game.

Edit: to answer your 1st question..no! I just dont have enough time between business, gaming and forums. I've listed them in priority order   ( plus didnt read ALL threads in 7 days...thats alot to be up to date  )

Edited by HellRik, November 28 2012 - 10:38 AM.

[Beemann]

I was just saying that it didn't solve high end play issues, and that if we're not dealing with high end play then your sweeping changes aren't necessary. You disagreed on the high end play thing, and you haven't even bothered to address any of my points to try to explain why you disagree
Just as you're allowed to make a post giving feedback, I'm allowed to give my own, and comment on yours
That's how this whole process works

[Karaipantsu]

Yeah, 10v10 would be bonkers in any capacity.  But what Beeman says is right: competition requires dedication to victory, not fun.  You have to design a game that forces players out of what creates easy victory conditions and makes them compete with each other on the field for resources.  The Base Camp strat detailed in that other tread has EXTREMELY easy victory conditions, so that's obviously the way competition will head.

I thought about the design of my refresh ideas with that in mind.  Force players out of easy victory conditions and into situations where competition will become necessary.  However, this doesn't mean it can't also be fun.  I tried to keep the concept as similar to current Seige as possible while creating new opportunities for strategy that most players would find both fun and challenging.  Had I but known about the Base Camp strat before writing it, I'd certainly have incorportated the ideas I posted later

[Ace4225]

HellRik, on November 28 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

HC seige mode to be played with 20mechs (10 vs 10)..or more

well, not for esports [you want small teams, probably no more than 4v4]. For insanity matches on the other hand, it'd be fine... heck, why not have 16v16_

HellRik, on November 28 2012 - 07:06 AM, said:

All I am asking is more options into ''WHAT TO DO'' in siege mode.
-Dropping EU to base to either build the defenses or to launch the BS
-Stop enemy from collecting EU by doing ambushes on their way back to their base.
-Holding all the EU stations to activate the main AA weapon system.
-Holding the AA platform to trigger the firing mecanism.

I prefer the original post's ideas regarding how energy trees should work; have more of them, but limit the amount of EU available at once so only one team will actually be able to launch their ship initially.

I do like the ideas of changing the ship's purpose to a cannonade assault rather than kamikaze, having optional defenses built with EU, but these were already mentioned in the OP along with some good ways they could be implemented.

Edited by Ace4225, November 28 2012 - 10:57 AM.

[Stealth_303]

+1 OP and the other posters that want to overhall  siege mode and really make it work.

[Karaipantsu]

I'm glad these idea are receiving such praise.  If only we could get some Dev's included in the discussion and lighthearted bickering, it'd be perfect.  

[Maikeru]

In reguards to the energy trees having limited energy, I completely support it. However, instead of going on cooldown when it runs out, it should simply have a constant regeneration rate as if it is mining resources out of the ground.

[Karaipantsu]

Yeah, that's in there.  I like the idea of both, honestly.  Completely draining a tree results in a quicker recharge to 300, but it's completely out of service until its recharge is over.  Allowing it to recharge naturally lets you get in and grab that last 100 you need when it's ready instead of waiting for whatever arbitrary recharge period is used.

[Karaipantsu]

Been thinking about the shooting down the BS idea lately.  I don't think all weapons should be capable of reaching/damaging the Battleship allll the way up there.  The BS seem pretty high in the air, and hitting it for "full" damage with weapons like the Flak and Hellfires (rockets with a short mission life) seems physically untennable.  It's hard to guage muzzle velocities for weapons like the GL and SMC, but I don't believe either should be capable of hitting the BS.  It seems to me that only the longer range weapons (slug,TOW, sabot, HEAT, maybe AR, if you're feeling generous) should be capable of hitting the battleship at altitude.

(before anyone says anything, I have no idea if the GL can actually hit the BS or not.  Never tried it, but you can get some serious range on it by charging it up some)

[Beemann]

You can actually hit the ship with the GL if you aim high enough
In any case though, the weapons you're saying should be able to hit the ship are the ones that are causing ship-destroying issues in the first place
They're so easy to hit it with that it doesn't matter how far away it is. It's slow, big and you have what might as well be an infinite range weapon in comparison

[Karaipantsu]

I thought it was flak and HEAT being the major contributors to damaging the BS_  I know I can't do much of anything to it with my Bruiser, so Vulc and Hellfires ain't it, and the sniper does decent damage, but too damn slow.  

Can't really exclude HEAT cannons, tho... they're decidedly long range friendly.

[Beemann]

Karaipantsu, on November 29 2012 - 11:44 AM, said:

I thought it was flak and HEAT being the major contributors to damaging the BS_  I know I can't do much of anything to it with my Bruiser, so Vulc and Hellfires ain't it, and the sniper does decent damage, but too damn slow.  

Can't really exclude HEAT cannons, tho... they're decidedly long range friendly.

Not Flak, HEAT and TOW
Hellfires also work, though there's a delay so they're slightly inferior for the whole controlled ship demolition strat

[Ace4225]

seeker + hellfires on 3 Rocketeers = downed battleship every time [unless you start camping on the enemy's base]

[Karaipantsu]

Well, you could exclude TOW's from the list if you wanted to make a fuel argument.  Takes more fuel to launch a rocket upward than forward, so they wouldn't have the mission life to make it there.  

[Noin]

Topic TLDR;  I read first post.

My Summary:

• Needs to be contention for energy.
  
• Needs to be more than one way to damage the BS, but all need to be under contention, self assualting is bogus as you can be competley safe while doing it.
  
• EU needs involvement in the second phase of the BS launching/assualting
  
• In low number game(2v2, 3v3) the battleship is OP.

My Solutions:

1.  Progressive energy trees that move towards the center of the battlefield.  .Take this as a view of the battlefield from above. (et = energy tree)
                  Base                    et1   et2    et3   et2   et1              Base
Make the outside(safe) ones really low fueling rate or something.  Limit the amount of available energy at the et1 and et2 energy trees somehow, by BS launch or something, make them regen, I don't know.

2.  Make multiple BS assualting stations, mini AA's, with less power, etc.

3.  Make EU required to be delivered to the mini AA or whatever BS assualting units you make, make the delivering mech stay engaged and vulnerable, the team needing to protect them.  These should be in a center contendable area, not safe.  Can also do something like in soultion 1 that controls the damage produced by that station based on the risk you are willing to take, how far forward you are.

4.  Scale the damage the BS does, or it's aim or something based on the number of players or something

[SunshineSloth]

I've said this before but the problem with siege right now as both a spectator and competitive mode is that it doesn't incentivise killing.

I would suggest we do away with collecting energy.

- You could gain energy from kills
- Battleships could launch automatically thereby making the AA invaluable
- The only energy tree your team can collect from could be in enemy territory
- You could continuously gain energy slowly but loose energy from deaths

[Karaipantsu]

It doesn't make incentives for killing because that's what TDM is for.  And you already gain energy from kills (always a minimum of 10).

What you're proposing is basically a combination of TDM and CTF.  Obtain resources in Enemy Territory, transport back to base, attempt to live under a hail of gunfire.  Seige is meant to be about strategy, and currently, it is not.  Making killing the focus of the game would defeat the purpose.

[SunshineSloth]

Siege is basically a combination of TDM and CTF. Strategy should be found organically through game-play. Killing would not be the focus. When to kill would be. Is holding the AA more important than denying a launch_ Is hunting down a player more important than maintain team cohesion. Kills should be a objective which allows you to achieve other objectives the way champion kills allow you to get strong enough to destroy towers in league of legends.

Killing and dying is inherent to the game. These need to be incorporated into siege in a way that makes them cohesive to the meta-strategy.

Edited by SunshineSloth, November 29 2012 - 07:38 PM.

[Beemann]

Karaipantsu, on November 29 2012 - 07:30 PM, said:

It doesn't make incentives for killing because that's what TDM is for.  And you already gain energy from kills (always a minimum of 10).

There needs to be a reason to engage. If there isn't one, then there's no reason not to camp
TDM ALSO has this problem but thankfully it's not being exploited/played in comp

My issue right now is that while there are multiple ways to tackle Missile. Siege is a rigid 2 step process once you get rid of things like shooting down the ship from spawn
Step 1: Grab EU -> actually promotes passive play since there's no real advantage gained by pulling people away from EU nodes
Step 2: Hold the AA -> if you can't win a straight teamfight, or bust up a decent defence then it's GG for you and the rest of the match is just wasted time