109 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

This is basically the problem. This sort of thing right here
http://youtu.be/FoCiXrPXXTQ
RA3 was a terrible comp gamemode because it didn't force fighting. Matches could go on for hours at the competitive level because people who want to win don't care about how tedious it gets
Similarly, Siege does not force enough fights. It does not promote enough map control, because there is no reward that you get for the risk you take
There's no sense in fighting someone when the risk is high and the punishment for failure is as high as the reward
If you watch normal Q3 comp matches, you'll probably notice a lot of shuffling around the map to build a  health/armour stack, this is because competitive players want to minimize risk. The player with the mega and RA has the highest chance of winning in a fight, so both players fight for it, and mitigate the loss as best they can if they lose the fight for one of those powerups

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 12:47 AM.

[DarkPulse]

One other thing you guys have to remember: In CBE2, ships dropped no EU at all when they were blown up.

This quite heavily sinks your strategy, as you have no easy EU collection in your base and you're forced to go out to the EU trees if you want any hope of your ship launching any time this millennium.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 28 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[Beemann]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

One other thing you guys have to remember: In CBE2, ships dropped no EU at all when they were blown up.

This quite heavily sinks your strategy, as you have no easy EU collection in your base and you're forced to go out to the EU trees.

A single team can carry anywhere from 900 to 1800 EU
Building a stockpile of EU isn't that hard even without the ship dropping it, and once you have it the idea is to coordinate ship launches to prevent the enemy from gaining any, while cramming as much of it down your mech gullets as you can

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 01:00 AM.

[z121231211]

Alright, what about my point 2 (quoted below) where EU is finite_ Any EU lost either goes to the trees or gets picked up by the other team. There's still the possibility of stalemate happening where neither team can push hard enough to get EU. But this stops the stockpiling problem by only allowing a maximum stockpile of 300 EU while a ship is out. And once the ship gets destroyed or lands a hit, 600 EU goes out for grabs at the trees.

z121231211, on November 27 2012 - 10:16 PM, said:

2) Make dying cause you to drop 25 EU, have a limit of 900 EU on the map at a time (ie. EU is now a finite resource). So that when It's gone, people have to die or the ship has to explode. (So if a ship is in the air, that leaves 300 EU total that's on the ground, in mechs, loaded, in EU trees,etc. until the ship gets destroyed somehow) Though that means that if both teams have 450 EU loaded up it's essentially a TDM with some kill confirm added. Also means that 2 ships can't be in the air at once. Possibly have EU trees slowly suck up EU that was dropped onto the ground.

I guess the essential flaw of siege can be summed up that it's a "tug-of-war" gamemode. Where equally skilled teams only lengthen the match without making it more interesting.

Edited by z121231211, November 28 2012 - 01:17 AM.

[NotKjell]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

One other thing you guys have to remember: In CBE2, ships dropped no EU at all when they were blown up.

This quite heavily sinks your strategy, as you have no easy EU collection in your base and you're forced to go out to the EU trees if you want any hope of your ship launching any time this millennium.

This does change the strategy, but doesn't change any issues with siege mode. Stockpiling EU will likely let each team launch a battleship after the first one is shot down. Both teams launch ships. Say now both ships meet in the middle. Why shoot down the enemy ship_ Then they'll re-launch and up their battleship level even more. Why try and shoot down ships quickly, all that stands to do is let the enemy level faster. Even if this current strategy is optimal within the current form of siege, nearly all forms of siege reward passivity and has no mechanic to force action.

[DarkPulse]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 12:59 AM, said:

A single team can carry anywhere from 900 to 1800 EU
Building a stockpile of EU isn't that hard even without the ship dropping it, and once you have it the idea is to coordinate ship launches to prevent the enemy from gaining any, while cramming as much of it down your mech gullets as you can

Sure, but that also relies on none of your guys getting killed. (It's also assuming none of you use the EU booster tank stuff, so you could carry more than 1800).

In CBE2 though, trees weren't limitless and the ships dropped no EU. The trees held, at full charge, about 250 EU, as well as slowing down the gain per-mech and being much, much slower once it's drained the more mechs that are on there, as you obviously remember. Your strategy could thus be rather easily foiled by them all sticking at one point, guarding it, while they have one or two guys doing their runs. You will have to wait for your tree to recharge, because to launch the ship immediately you'll need either:

• Two Cs and at least one other guy (300 * 2 + 100)
  
• Three Bs and at least one other guy (225 * 3 + 25)
  
• Four As and at least one other guy (150 * 4 + 100)

This means you either have to have three guys sitting there at a minimum, or virtually your whole entire team is needed to do the carry, and if you do the latter in the interest of speed over carry capacity, it means you risk getting killed if they send some heavy firepower. They, meanwhile, will have not only someone able to step on immediately when their tree fills back up, they are at less risk since they are going singly, and they will also be able to effectively rotate guys in and out - and obviously, once a ship launches, the trees don't recharge until they're out of the sky. Furthermore, they could simply send the guys, after they have dumped theirs, off to counter you if you likewise stick to one point.

But let's say you let them launch, while waiting to launch yours. You can hang back in the base and pepper it, sure, but they're going to be hanging back at AA and they'll nuke yours - neither ship will drop EU, and the trees, once tapped, do not begin again until they're blown up. If they know you're just going to hang at one point, they may well reduce their presence to the three-man strategy as listed above, meaning that you will have to contend with at least that many enemies - and if they're smart, they will likewise be trying any sort of area denial they can get (think rockets, grenades, anything that explodes) to force you off the point and to take the EU before you do. If anything, they might even coordinate around this, collecting their next 700 from both points, which further denies you EU until eventually you don't have enough to counter their ship when it launches.

So realistically, your strategy would be foiled by that as you would have to execute perfectly, stay on the tree at all times even if they attack, and you would have to not suffer any losses. If they manage to launch first, you will eventually not have nearly enough EU to launch it after they do since some of their EU is likely to come off of killing some of your guys and taking the EU they took, and your team would be forced to split to attack the other tree in order to get the EU they need. This forces you onto offense, which kills the strat.

NotKjell, on November 28 2012 - 01:16 AM, said:

This does change the strategy, but doesn't change any issues with siege mode. Stockpiling EU will likely let each team launch a battleship after the first one is shot down. Both teams launch ships. Say now both ships meet in the middle. Why shoot down the enemy ship_ Then they'll re-launch and up their battleship level even more. Why try and shoot down ships quickly, all that stands to do is let the enemy level faster. Even if this current strategy is optimal within the current form of siege, nearly all forms of siege reward passivity and has no mechanic to force action.

If they're going to keep a skeleton crew holding the AA, launching your ship again won't matter. If your guys hang back and shoot their ship, eventually it reaches a point where you cannot down it without the AA - at least, it did in CBE2. I'm pretty sure ships got two more engines with each launch, which means the HP would be limitlessly upward and would eventually sink the "shoot it down manually" strategy. IIRC I remember a dev saying that eventually, it would get to a point where you could not win it without holding the AA, and the AA always did 25% damage per shot regardless of the ship's HP. So eventually, they take out your ship, but theirs becomes too strong to shoot down even if you begin pecking it the instant it launches - and obviously, if you're sitting back at base peppering it, you're not out collecting EU. This forces you to either decide to shoot the ship or focus on EU, again killing the strat.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 28 2012 - 01:24 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 12:56 AM, said:

One other thing you guys have to remember: In CBE2, ships dropped no EU at all when they were blown up.

This quite heavily sinks your strategy, as you have no easy EU collection in your base and you're forced to go out to the EU trees if you want any hope of your ship launching any time this millennium.

Around 15:45 or so the enemy battleship gets accidentally shot down mid-map. You can see how little that alters the strategy.

And even if the ship doesn't drop EU, that still doesn't encourage fighting for map control. It's much safer and profitable (EU-wise) for both teams to stick to one side or the other and not engage each other during EU gathering.

EDIT:
And now your using flawed arguments.
You're arguing that a tactic developed for CBE3 mechanics doesn't work for CBE2 mechanics.
Obviously, if the mechanics change, so does the strategy.

And none of it address the fact that Siege is flawed in that it encourages a lot of not-fighting as the optimal competitive play style, and the only forced fighting will be the exact same for every match. It will always be a at the AA, and occasionally during the beginning to decide who gets what EU tree.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, November 28 2012 - 01:28 AM.

[Beemann]

Darkpulse, why would they be killed_ Why would you bother sending people to the other side when your side provides infinite power and killing people doesn't directly contribute to winning_
Even if the EU points have to recharge, they still have infinite EU

[DarkPulse]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 28 2012 - 01:21 AM, said:

And even if the ship doesn't drop EU, that still doesn't encourage fighting for map control. It's much safer and profitable (EU-wise) for both teams to stick to one side or the other and not engage each other during EU gathering.

Sure, but your strategy pretty much relies on being left alone this way so that you can execute with zero risk. You're not going to go harass them, so we can safely assume all six of your guys are going to be at or near your tree. If they're just going to stand around, there is absolutely nothing preventing three sharpshooters from coming and pecking you far outside of your retaliation distance, or three rocketeers from keeping you in a virtual swarm of Seekers and Hellfire. You may have the numbers advantage, but all they literally have to do is keep peppering you to force you away from your point - and they can likely set themselves up for near perfect triangulation to ensure your side never has a spot to hide behind.

Simply put, they will achieve their goal either by chasing you off, or especially by killing one of you, as even if one of the extras swoops in to collect the EU form the downed guy, they can only replace everyone "perfectly" once, and if a fourth guy goes down before one returns, it effectively breaks your stranglehold on the EU tree. You will have to spend time eliminating or chasing off the guy, and meanwhile his buddies could be sucking EU away from your tree, which hampers and eventually foils your strat.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 01:26 AM, said:

Darkpulse, why would they be killed_ Why would you bother sending people to the other side when your side provides infinite power and killing people doesn't directly contribute to winning_
Even if the EU points have to recharge, they still have infinite EU

I'm not assuming CB3 Siege. We all know that's busted. I'm sure it will eventually go back to something like CB2, as most of the veteran testers have expressed their pretty solid dislike of CB3 Siege, so I'm not going to assume it's going to stick around, and if it does, I won't be playing it much, that's for sure.

Thus, I'm making my arguments based on CB2 Siege, with limited trees, and no battleships dropping EU. Right now, it's like Oprah: "You get an EU, and YOU get an EU, EVERYONE GETS AN EU!"

Edited by DarkPulse, November 28 2012 - 01:34 AM.

[Beemann]

You can just cycle people off the point as the defending team, and there's very few lines of fire to either of the points on Titan, especially when you consider the ease with which 6 people can retaliate with 2... or do you not expect me to be able to coordinate 'nade and TOW cycles on your sniping spot_
In a comp game, you only fight when necessary. If you send 2 in, we kill those 2, then we push on your EU point and kill you, and get both points
If you send 4 in, we kill those 4 and maybe lose 1 or 2 guys, then we push on your EU point and kill you, and get both points
If you go all in, we could potentially take both points from one fight
You don't want to risk that, so you stay on your end, because having to say GG after the first teamfight is embarrassing
So you're forced to either play the same boring game as us, or get bored and play sub-optimally and lose
This is Siege's greatest design flaw during the EU collection stage, and it was still present in CB2
During AA, you fight over a single point, ignore most of the map, and spam a tiny circle

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 01:37 AM.

[ReachH]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 27 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Using a competitive strategy developed by NotKjell, we play Siege, Hawken's game mode put forward as it's premier competitive gametype.

This lasted 59 minutes, with the real fighting not occurring till 30 minutes in, and only because we grew bored.

Yep, sounds like football. The future is bright ^^

[Nukerock]

how about removing one of the trees_ Still don't think the whole ship moving towards ur base thing is very exciting for viewers as a win condition but whatever.

[ReachH]

You know... I  might be crazy, and correct me if I'm wrong, but wouldn't the easy solution be to install jump pads in the bases for more cross-map mobility and to increase the respawn timer - so that engagements feel something closer to round based play_

Also while we're on the topic of crazy ideas, how about EU gathering actually do something for the teams combat ability, like affect mobility, or maybe they should charge other things not only the battleship, but also like a shield buff for the team. That way the first part of the match will be a back and forth melee while teams try and gain control of the kill zone.

Then again, I could be insane.

Edited by ReachH, November 28 2012 - 02:05 AM.

[Beemann]

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

how about EU gathering actually do something for the teams combat ability, like affect mobility, or maybe they should charge other things not only the battleship, but also like a shield buff for the team. That way the first part of the match will be a back and forth melee while teams try and gain control of the kill zone.

Doesn't fix the issue. If both teams take 1 point, they have the same buffs
If both teams accidentally rush the same point, neither has any EU

Also, spawn timers won't make that much of a difference when it comes to playing the mode optimally... and if anything it'll just make things more boring to watch, and you don't need to be more mobile when there's only 3 important spots on the map for your team

@Nuke
If there's only one static point, battleship launching and EU collection is determined by one teamfight
If collection is more dynamic, while still being limited enough that a team can come back from a loss, then we're doing better... but that's only part of the issue with Siege

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 02:10 AM.

[NotKjell]

Please don't get the impression that this thread is here to promote some ultimate strategy. This is made as a demonstration because siege is not suitable to sustain hawken as an E-sport. I have not played competitive FPS's in a long time, BS within my old team and the scene turned me off on it. But hawken has grabbed my attention and I would love to see it have a healthy competitive scene, and it appears the developers and many others would too.

To ignore the discussion of particular strategies for a second, there are two questions to ask.

• Would siege, in any form be highly watchable as a spectator sport_
  
  
• Would games of siege have a high level of variety on individual maps_

If the answer to either of those questions is, "no", then siege cannot sustain hawken as an E-sport. Boring, turtle heavy strategies being as dominant as I feel they would be would make the answer for the first one an easy NO. However, for number two I feel the core aspects of siege assure that it's a "no" as well. With action being toggled between, "get EU" and "Shoot down ship" and there being 3 relevant places on the entire map for any action to happen at there's little room for creativity or variety.

For an example of variety within a map, look recently at SC2, BWC. Map is Tal-darim altar, matchup protoss vs. protoss. Everyone hates that map paired with this matchup. Why_ Because the most common way this plays out is 4gate vs. 4gate. Yet at BWC there were a ton of Tal-darim PvP's - but NONE of them were 4gate vs. 4gate. It broke everyone's expectations and that alone was awesome. The creativity possible within the game meant that even this fuzzy bunny matchup on this map could go in any number of directions.

After even a month of competitive hawken though, I feel like I know what I'm going to see when pros are loading up titan/origin. Or sahara/bazaar. This will not be good for hawken's longevity, and is largely why I feel hawken needs a different mode from siege.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Nukerock, on November 28 2012 - 01:52 AM, said:

how about removing one of the trees_ Still don't think the whole ship moving towards ur base thing is very exciting for viewers as a win condition but whatever.

If you make it only one tree, you mind as well move it to where the AA is.
At that point, you've essentially turned Siege into Missile Assault that only has one control point, which boils down to TDM located in one tiny spot.

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 02:01 AM, said:

increase the respawn timer - so that engagements feel something closer to round based play_

Increasing the respawn timer makes the incentive for avoiding fights even bigger, which slows the game down more, and makes it even more boring.

[DarkPulse]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

You can just cycle people off the point as the defending team, and there's very few lines of fire to either of the points on Titan, especially when you consider the ease with which 6 people can retaliate with 2... or do you not expect me to be able to coordinate 'nade and TOW cycles on your sniping spot_

Sure they'd expect it, but the simple fact is that the TOW and Nade would have to take time to get there, or pull men off the point. This renders the third strategy of All-As untenable, so it actually allows the enemy team, in a way, to force what mechs you use, or to keep your guys pinned, or to simply have you run into a wall at your base. Especially since, for all intents and purposes, Titan only has three ways into the base,and the guy who plays in the middle can easily watch and alert his buddies if you try to take either of the side routes (and probably soften you up a little, too). Send two guys_ No problem, he goes to help. Send three_ They'll bring their whole defender side there. And obviously, you have to fight your way through them, which is kind of hard to do considering that three Sabots put in you will kill any A-Class outright, bring the B-Class down to roughly 130, and the C-Class would be very hampered by the superior speed of the enemy as well as the fact that his weapons just aren't made for kiting.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

In a comp game, you only fight when necessary. If you send 2 in, we kill those 2, then we push on your EU point and kill you, and get both points
If you send 4 in, we kill those 4 and maybe lose 1 or 2 guys, then we push on your EU point and kill you, and get both points
If you go all in, we could potentially take both points from one fight
You don't want to risk that, so you stay on your end, because having to say GG after the first teamfight is embarrassing
So you're forced to either play the same boring game as us, or get bored and play sub-optimally and lose

But you assume you're going to come out on top of every engagement. Simply put, that's not always going to be the case; even the best teams or players sometimes make flubs or errors in execution. Splitting your team can indeed bring greater reward, but again, it relies on killing the defenders there, and it's hard to stay alive in a 3v3 fight even if you're coordinated - there's no doubt plenty of fire flying around to make survival a tough order.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 01:37 AM, said:

This is Siege's greatest design flaw during the EU collection stage, and it was still present in CB2
During AA, you fight over a single point, ignore most of the map, and spam a tiny circle

Actually, in CBE2, most of the matches I got to play in with people who knew what they were doing (Spiderz and the guys at the Drop Bears), we purposely attacked and harassed the other point, and if we could, we sucked their EU away. Relying on one point means that you resign yourself to the slowed energy gain and the fact the tree runs out (again, I'm not counting CB3's infinite EU trees or christmaslike EU drops from exploded ships). This means that whoever actually manages to make the first inroads into the other EU tree gets the advantage, as even sucking up 20-30 from the tree is denying you some EU - unless you manage to kill them before they get away, of course, and chasing them is risking your own EU and compromising your team to an extent at your point.

[ReachH]

Perhaps there is nothing wrong with the game concept, and that the gameplay can be fixed with better map design. For instance the middle ground has no relevance when the bases are superior vantage points. So... elevate the middle :/ This will allow teams who have launched their ship to put pressure on the other team if they camp inside their base.

I'll be honest and say I don't play Siege on TS or whatever, but this thread caught my attention. It sounds like, from what Beeman said, that there are an even number of 'points' to control - why not make it an odd number_ The way its set up, its just encourages boring stagnant play from what I could gather from the video and discussion.

[Beemann]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Sure they'd expect it, but the simple fact is that the TOW and Nade would have to take time to get there, or pull men off the point. This renders the third strategy of All-As untenable, so it actually allows the enemy team, in a way, to force what mechs you use, or to keep your guys pinned, or to simply have you run into a wall at your base. Especially since, for all intents and purposes, Titan only has three ways into the base,and the guy who plays in the middle can easily watch and alert his buddies if you try to take either of the side routes (and probably soften you up a little, too). Send two guys_ No problem, he goes to help. Send three_ They'll bring their whole defender side there. And obviously, you have to fight your way through them, which is kind of hard to do considering that three Sabots put in you will kill any A-Class outright, bring the B-Class down to roughly 130, and the C-Class would be very hampered by the superior speed of the enemy as well as the fact that his weapons just aren't made for kiting.

Cycling TOW and Nade = no travel time from the Sharpshooter's perspective. It's basically organized spam that I can pull off because your firing position is fairly small
I don't even need all of my members to do it, just 2 or 3
You don't need all A's, and you also don't need to pull people off the point (not that that would hurt the idea of an all A mech comp)
Nobody is pinned because you can't down any of the mechs in the time it takes for them to hop out the other exit and jump-pad to safety, especially with enemies firing on you at pretty much any moment
Try to block a team from their own base_ They'll stomp you, and any lost members spawn a short distance from the fight anyway

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

But you assume you're going to come out on top of every engagement. Simply put, that's not always going to be the case; even the best teams or players sometimes make flubs or errors in execution. Splitting your team can indeed bring greater reward, but again, it relies on killing the defenders there, and it's hard to stay alive in a 3v3 fight even if you're coordinated - there's no doubt plenty of fire flying around to make survival a tough order.

Superior numbers will win in most cases. A competitive team isn't going to bank on being the exception to the rule, they'll see the risk and avoid it. There IS no 3v3, because there is no time in which the passive team isn't in a group. If you try to harass you have to do it with your full team or not at all, in which case it could go either way... also too much of a risk for a comp team

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 02:11 AM, said:

Actually, in CBE2, most of the matches I got to play in with people who knew what they were doing (Spiderz and the guys at the Drop Bears), we purposely attacked and harassed the other point, and if we could, we sucked their EU away. Relying on one point means that you resign yourself to the slowed energy gain and the fact the tree runs out (again, I'm not counting CB3's infinite EU trees or christmaslike EU drops from exploded ships). This means that whoever actually manages to make the first inroads into the other EU tree gets the advantage, as even sucking up 20-30 from the tree is denying you some EU - unless you manage to kill them before they get away, of course, and chasing them is risking your own EU and compromising your team to an extent at your point.

Repeat after me
"Anecdotal evidence involving pub matches does not override evidence of conservative comp play over a large timespan and sample size"
This sort of thing occurs in plenty of games once you move up to srsbsns tourney games and the like. I even provided an example of it in this thread
and both teams have the same mobility options. It's not really sensible to expect one to get there faster than the other, and with the limited EU trees you only need 1-2 there before the waiting game begins.

[Karaipantsu]

Read my thread about update ideas here: http://community.pla...ige-mode-ideas/

Lemme know what you think.  I believe it could fix most of the broken mechanics and bring Seige back into the limelight, especially the comments about ships not passing each other.  It ain't perfect, but it'd certainly be a start.