109 replies to this topic

[DarkPulse]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

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

Now you assume that they'll just stand in one position. Good sharpshooters can still hit while moving, and while you're moving, too.

The simple fact is, you're pretty much forced to C-Class or B-Class since the risk of one of you dying and dropping the EU is too great as an A-Class. This gives them a theoretical advantage by forcing you to slower classes, and obviously, eventually you do have to leave to deposit the energy. They could do a heck of a lot to deny you getting close to your base - like a wall of turrets, since obviously if you try to blow them up, that means stopping, and stopping could get you killed. The only way you'd be able to slide past them scot-free is to use the Infiltrator's ability, which, again, puts you at the risk of being killed.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

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

Not all comp teams "play it safe" as you seem to think they do. Some of them do take risks, and realistically, they risk less by attacking you than they do by not. The strategy also relies on this, because if some (or most) of their team crashed, it could well wear yours down or even pick off some of your guys.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

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.

You do, but the smarter game, ironically, is to actually use a 5-man A-Chain. The reason_ As I said, the trees generally hold 250 at a time. An A-Class holds 150 normally, and it takes, I dunno, 20 seconds or so to fully recharge up from the bottom. On the other hand, using C-Classes mean you'll hold 300, but that last 50 will get to you much slower, and when you finally do leave, your buddy will need to wait almost half a minute or so before he could suck up another 250. They could probably do their 300 run slightly slower than you'd do your 300 run, but their third guy would be able to step back in and collect his EU before yours really can... which means that over time they'd eventually nip you here.

[Crimson_Corsair]

hmm, how about getting rid of EU trees and replacing them with big piles of EU that appear randomly on the map_ When the EU is gone another pile randomly appears and players need to race to find it and gather.

[Karaipantsu]

Eh, that just seems to leave it up to random chance.  No one likes losing because an RNG decided to drop all the resources near the enemy.

[Sylhiri]

Has anyone suggested replacing the one AA base with one EU tower and the two EU towers replaced with AA bases while upgrading the ships defenses_

So basically you have one EU tower to fight over (with map modifications) and then try to get both the two AA boxes ( like from Missile).

[Beemann]

Darkpulse, come up with an example of a team or player taking unnecessary risk to win a tournament match instead of just implying it happens when I have proof to the contrary

As well, you insistence that two sharpshooters are just going to defeat or shut down an ENTIRE TEAM is just dumb. I don't understand why you aren't actually looking at the maps, the limited LOS on the point when being used by a defensive player, and considering the skill levels of both teams. You continually do this in just about every discussion of high level play. At the highest level fights aren't going to be won via harassing 6 people with 2.

@Sylhiri
You're just giving the defenders the advantage at that point. It's much harder to consistently hold 2 points than it is to roll back and forth with a full team, stomping everyone and getting a 10 second breather

Edited by Beemann, November 28 2012 - 09:29 AM.

[DarkPulse]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Darkpulse, come up with an example of a team or player taking unnecessary risk to win a tournament match instead of just implying it happens when I have proof to the contrary

Daigo Umehara vs. Justin Wong, Evolution 2004. The famous full-parry of a Hyoukusen to win a match. He couldn't block as the chip damage would've killed him, and while he could have avoided the thing by backing off, it would've let Justin keep up a pressure game... so he risked timing the first hit of the parry, and then parried each successive hit - 15 in all.

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

As well, you insistence that two sharpshooters are just going to defeat or shut down an ENTIRE TEAM is just dumb. I don't understand why you aren't actually looking at the maps, the limited LOS on the point when being used by a defensive player, and considering the skill levels of both teams. You continually do this in just about every discussion of high level play. At the highest level fights aren't going to be won via harassing 6 people with 2.

It was three, not two. Three is a fair bit harder to counter than two. Also, your strategy basically relies on perfect execution, no goof-ups, and doesn't even begin to address what will happen in the event of a failure - it literally relies on being able to just run an EU train constantly and flawlessly. Simply put, you can still the match as long as none of your guys ever get killed or drop EU. If they do drop EU, though, and the other side recovers it, it can put a serious dent in your strategy, if not outright sink it.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 28 2012 - 10:08 AM.

[Beemann]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Daigo Umehara vs. Justin Wong, Evolution 2004. The famous full-parry of a Hyoukusen to win a match. He couldn't block as the chip damage would've killed him, and while he could have avoided the thing by backing off, it would've let Justin keep up a pressure game... so he risked timing the first hit of the parry, and then parried each successive hit - 15 in all.

So your example is a single instance of a game in which fighting is absolutely forced, as there's literally nothing else to do
Do you not see how there's literally no parallel in this instance_ Conflict is FORCED in the example you gave, but there's NO REASON to fight during the EU stage because it does NOT help you accomplish your goal (EU collection) and will likely not hinder the enemy's collection

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

It was three, not two. Three is a fair bit harder to counter than two. Also, your strategy basically relies on perfect execution, no goof-ups, and doesn't even begin to address what will happen in the event of a failure - it literally relies on being able to just run an EU train constantly and flawlessly. Simply put, you can still the match as long as none of your guys ever get killed or drop EU. If they do drop EU, though, and the other side recovers it, it can put a serious dent in your strategy, if not outright sink it.

You don't seem to understand. Everything I suggest is piss easy
Holding one highly defensible point with an entire team_ Piss easy
Running EU back as a full team_ Piss easy
Someone dies_ Who gives a fuzzy bunny_ As long as we have more EU than the other team, we're good to go. The goal is to launch ships faster and level them up, while retaining as much control of the EU supply as possible without actually working for it. It is the purest exploitation of the gamemode's flaws
You need to address the exploitation at the mechanics level. Fighting people who don;t even need to win the fight is the surest way to fuzzy bunny yourself over, and forcing 3 of your teammates to potentially die in a hail of explosives is probably the worst way you could attempt to counter it

The best way is honestly to hit the same EU point as the other team, win the teamfight, and use the same strategy against them (stockpile EU, launch first if the ship doesn't drop EU, launch second if it does)

[AsianJoyKiller]

DarkPulse, on November 28 2012 - 10:02 AM, said:

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

Darkpulse, come up with an example of a team or player taking unnecessary risk to win a tournament match instead of just implying it happens when I have proof to the contrary

Daigo Umehara vs. Justin Wong, Evolution 2004. The famous full-parry of a Hyoukusen to win a match. He couldn't block as the chip damage would've killed him, and while he could have avoided the thing by backing off, it would've let Justin keep up a pressure game... so he risked timing the first hit of the parry, and then parried each successive hit - 15 in all.

Your example is extremely flawed.
Not only did you pick a game where the only option is to fight, in close quarters, in a 1v1, meaning at some point they are forced to take a risk, but then you also only pick out on single moment of that entire match.
When you look at all 3 fights involved in that match, you see both players play cautiously.

Context matters.

Quote

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 09:27 AM, said:

As well, you insistence that two sharpshooters are just going to defeat or shut down an ENTIRE TEAM is just dumb. I don't understand why you aren't actually looking at the maps, the limited LOS on the point when being used by a defensive player, and considering the skill levels of both teams. You continually do this in just about every discussion of high level play. At the highest level fights aren't going to be won via harassing 6 people with 2.

It was three, not two. Three is a fair bit harder to counter than two. Also, your strategy basically relies on perfect execution, no goof-ups, and doesn't even begin to address what will happen in the event of a failure - it literally relies on being able to just run an EU train constantly and flawlessly. Simply put, you can still the match as long as none of your guys ever get killed or drop EU. If they do drop EU, though, and the other side recovers it, it can put a serious dent in your strategy, if not outright sink it.

This strategy isn't hard, it's easy.
Performing it "flawlessly" doesn't require some sort of insane precision. It requires moving as a group, spamming cover fire, and not much else.

Also 3v6, where the 3s goal is to harass_
Hardly threatening.

EDIT: F U Beemann. What are you, my personal spell checker_

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, November 28 2012 - 10:56 AM.

[ReachH]

While I'm all for fixing this game mode, you guys do realize that Hawken has a trivially shallow mechanical skill ceiling, and that it will never be worthy of being an eSports title right_

It's sole ace-in-the-hole *for this release* lies in the diversity of unrevealed Alpha mechs. Unless those combinations make the class-interaction incredibly deep - so that choosing team compositions and switching mechs mid-battle is a game of incredible strategic orchestration and cunning in itself - there is nothing more to do than making sure the game is balanced and fun.

So you guys don't need to be so serious, the future of eSports is not riding on Hawken's shoulders, relax.

*edit* That being said, I think Hawken is the first game in the line of mech-sim games that has real potential of ever reaching that level. But it will take far more time than is being awarded this initial offering. So siege mode is not the must-succeed idea. There will hopefully be lots more in the future. Flying mechs, crazy game modes, more items, more mechs, bigger maps, the accompanying balance buffs, pickup boost items. Who knows_

Boost pads to increase map mobility would be a nice start
*hint*hint*wink*wink*nudge*nudge*

Edited by ReachH, November 28 2012 - 11:51 AM.

[Beemann]

>defends seeker
>complains that hawken has a low mechanical skill curve

On a more serious note, the level of micro and mobility are really the primary things that need tweaking, in addition to having a gamemode that supports Esport level play. C class mechs should lean towards the micro end of things and A mechs should lean towards skilled movement, with B classes being somewhere in the middle. The game is already mostly on the right track to this, and it wouldn't take much to make those more fleshed out
You already know my opinion on the weapons

[Karaipantsu]

Boost pads for horizontal travel would be contrary to the game's core themes.  Can't have big heavy machinery flying around like paper airplanes and still maintain that sense of gravity.  Combat is nerve-wracking BECAUSE you know it'll take a while to get back into play if you get dropped.

[ReachH]

Beemann, on November 28 2012 - 11:40 AM, said:

>defends seeker
>complains that hawken has a low mechanical skill curve

On a more serious note, the level of micro and mobility are really the primary things that need tweaking, in addition to having a gamemode that supports Esport level play. C class mechs should lean towards the micro end of things and A mechs should lean towards skilled movement, with B classes being somewhere in the middle. The game is already mostly on the right track to this, and it wouldn't take much to make those more fleshed out
You already know my opinion on the weapons

Why you always picking a fight with everyone Beeman_ Not only do you loose them all with your wall-o-text garbage, but you don't even address the points raised in a coherent and understandable manner. What do you ever contribute to any discussion except a manhandling of the English language and being a colossal prick to everyone who disagrees with you on solid grounds_

Are you a pro-gamer_ No. Were you ever a balance designer_ No. You literally have no more insight than the next guy who is good at a game, but consistently act like you are the only guy who sees it for what it is. This is the only time I will bother calling you out, and if I were you I would have a think about it, because you are quickly becoming irrelevent - just some TurboScrub who plagues the forums arguing in every damn topic.

And just for the record, no mech has a respectable mechanical skill ceiling, and changing seeker will not affect that. However, the way in which Hawken does encourage competition is teamwork, and to this end the Rocketeer is becoming an integral part of opening the game up so its not just Class-As who are viable competitively. A knee-jerk removal of the homing mechanism kills any development of this, which is why I advocated tweaking it, but keeping the weapon concept intact. Of course you would realize this is a good point, if you read OPs calmly and considered other peoples points, instead of brushing them aside and reverting to your own, limited vision of how weapon balance should be.

Common Beeman, I know you watch Quake matches like I do, and you know that Hawken cannot be competetive on a mechanical level. So why make that the focus_

*edit* Back to discussion

and yes boost pads impede on the games immersion, but you can't have realism and perfect competition, somethings gotta give for the sake of Bazaar. How many times does a team get rolled just because they loose the initial engagement_ It's impossible to regroup when 1 or 2 of your members spawn in the enemy teams' warpath.

Edited by ReachH, November 28 2012 - 12:49 PM.

[Karaipantsu]

Point there isn't that they got rolled, its that they fully committed to a single opening battle when it should have been more of a skirmish.  That's Battlefield 101: never put all your eggs in one basket.

And in Seige and MA, you never spawn in the enemy's warpath.  That's an aggravating problem only TDM has.  

[ReachH]

True, they were pub games. As for siege, I'd say a congratulations for Steel Killers is in order because they have successfully broken the game :/

Either new siege map design philosophy or back to the drawing board with the game mode's rules it seems.

[techno_destructo]

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

True, they were pub games. As for siege, I'd say a congratulations for Steel Killers is in order because they have successfully broken the game :/

Either new siege map design philosophy or back to the drawing board with the game mode's rules it seems.

Nailed it.

[AsianJoyKiller]

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:47 PM, said:

True, they were pub games. As for siege, I'd say a congratulations for Steel Killers is in order because they have successfully broken the game :/

Either new siege map design philosophy or back to the drawing board with the game mode's rules it seems.

Credit where credit is due, NotKjell came up with the strategy.

[Immie]

Siege mode for pubs, CTF/round-based no respawn for comp.

Done.

[PlagueDoctor]

No respawn forces passivity. CTF could work, but again, you don't really need to kill someone for it, and if the flag was on your base, then you would just respawn back on top of your flag to defend it.

Also, for something or another, you could boost respawn timers to make kills mean more. Right now you kill someone then 2 seconds later they're leaving base. Works for pub games, but not so much for comp play.


E: also if you don't read personal attacks in the replies of this thread, most people have decent points

Edited by PlagueDoctor, November 28 2012 - 02:39 PM.

[Immie]

I meant a no respawn mode with a short time limit and simple objective, like a bomb, ala counter-strike. It's a mouthful so I shortened it.


Also, you absolutely have to kill enemies to play CTF. A smart team won't leave their flag undefended... enemies moving in for the flag must either kill the defenders to take the flag, or be killed and try again. Once one team has its flag taken, it could even pull back its offense to intercept/chase down the enemy with their flag and kill them. Offense players from both teams may engage before even reaching the flag to lessen the task of their defenders. CTF is strategic, and action packed, perfect for esports.

[Beemann]

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Why you always picking a fight with everyone Beeman_ Not only do you loose them all with your wall-o-text garbage, but you don't even address the points raised in a coherent and understandable manner. What do you ever contribute to any discussion except a manhandling of the English language and being a colossal prick to everyone who disagrees with you on solid grounds_

Pro-tip: Spell things correctly if you're going to accuse someone else of manhandling the English language
Also it's funny that you think that I fight with everyone, especially since I've ultimately been pretty straightforward about my positions on gameplay mechanics/balance/etc. I've also had some fairly friendly talks with people I honestly disagree with

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Are you a pro-gamer_ No. Were you ever a balance designer_ No. You literally have no more insight than the next guy who is good at a game, but consistently act like you are the only guy who sees it for what it is. This is the only time I will bother calling you out, and if I were you I would have a think about it, because you are quickly becoming irrelevent - just some TurboScrub who plagues the forums arguing in every damn topic.

See... here's the thing
I assume that you've had roughly the same level of access when it comes to the English language. I am neither an English teacher nor an acclaimed writer, and I have taken no advanced courses in literature
Yet I was able to figure out the difference between the word "common", and the slang term "c'mon"
Hilariously enough, you've explained in your own post why I can be absolutely right despite having no "special" knowledge of competitive gaming that you don't have access too
Oh and I'm not the only one who sees Hawken the way I do, I'm just one of the few who is willing to openly post about it

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

And just for the record, no mech has a respectable mechanical skill ceiling, and changing seeker will not affect that. However, the way in which Hawken does encourage competition is teamwork, and to this end the Rocketeer is becoming an integral part of opening the game up so its not just Class-As who are viable competitively. A knee-jerk removal of the homing mechanism kills any development of this, which is why I advocated tweaking it, but keeping the weapon concept intact. Of course you would realize this is a good point, if you read OPs calmly and considered other peoples points, instead of brushing them aside and reverting to your own, limited vision of how weapon balance should be.

1. Come up with a new manoeuvre to flank/surround opponents
2. Try it with two mechs equipped with high-skill weapons
3. Try it with two mechs with autoaim weapons
Which is easier to pull off_
Now, this in itself is important, because not only is the manoeuvre itself important, but the frequency with which a group can pull it off is too. If you can always pull it off because you will never miss and the actual movement itself is too simple, then you've lost an entire consideration. The only thing that matters at that point is the exposure time
As for opening up the game to B and C mechs, it can and has already been opened up to them without bringing in a stupid autoaim weapon. The ability on C mechs needs to get fixed, and they need to stop giving B/C mech weapons to A mechs as a level 20 variant, and then all will be well
Asian and I can both attest to the Brawler's former viability, and I don't think you can safely say that the Sharpshooter won't get used in competitive play

ReachH, on November 28 2012 - 12:17 PM, said:

Common Beeman, I know you watch Quake matches like I do, and you know that Hawken cannot be competetive on a mechanical level. So why make that the focus_

Did you know that Shootmania is making its way into the ESports scene_
That right there pretty much guarantees that Hawken can be mechanically complex/difficult enough to figure out