109 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

SamSlade, on November 29 2012 - 08:43 PM, said:

Take energy for spawning a mech when you die out of the pool used to launch the Battleship.

Have Mechs drop a measure of the energy used to create them upon death.

Have one enery spawner and two AA sites... nerf the AA power by 50%.

1. They already do

2. I believe I've seen this happen

3. It's much easier to attack one of two points than it is to hold both. You'd be giving the defenders a bigger advantage, You;d also just swap the issues with the two modes until the AA became necessary, at which point the attackers would have to massively outplay the defenders

[Karaipantsu]

The problem isn't enough resources, it's not enough options.  One AA tower is perfectly fine if there's some other way to down a Battleship, of which there is currently one, but a lot of scrubs don't understand "shoot the engines, not the enemies."  That is annoying.

The way to refresh and make siege relevant isn't "add more stuff to the map."  It's " make the stuff on the map better."

[SamSlade]

Karaipantsu, on November 29 2012 - 09:32 PM, said:

The way to refresh and make siege relevant isn't "add more stuff to the map."  It's " make the stuff on the map better."

That's what I was getting at.  Respawning a mech should cost a significant(significant is a relative term here) volume of the energy needed to launch a battleship.  This could lead to teams being beaten through a total lack on energy ergo no ability to spawn mechs once they are destroyed.

Mechs do drop energy... it'd be better for the idea above if they dropped more however.

If this was done you could probably keep two energy spawners.

[MK501]

Just an idea :

• Battleships have tougher hardpoints, you can shoot down their turrets and engines, however taking out the engines only slows the ships down ( relative percentage of # engine hardpoints that are destroyed ). When all engine hardpoints are destroyed, the ships travel at a minimum speed ( imagine a few thrusters still working ).
  
  
• The energy dispensers only shut down if at least one mech ( from either team ) hold the AA. The AA dome can be captured as soon as a team launches their battleship, like it is now.
  
  
• No EU drops from a destroyed ship.

Edited by MK501, November 30 2012 - 08:58 AM.

[Beemann]

MK501, on November 30 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Just an idea :

• Battleships have tougher hardpoints, you can shoot down their turrets and engines, however taking out the engines only slows the ships down ( relative percentage of # engine hardpoints that are destroyed ). When all engine hardpoints are destroyed, the ships travel at a minimum speed ( imagine a few thrusters still working ).
  
  
• The energy dispensers only shut down if at least one mech ( from either team ) hold the AA. The AA dome can be captured as soon as a team launches their battleship, like it is now.
  
  
• No EU drops from a destroyed ship.

1. The problem is that ultimately making shooting the ship down pointless is that there`s no other way to get rid of it that isn`t a teamfight on AA, which ultimately favours the defending team so any initial shift in the balance means you have to outplay people with an advantage or it`s GG for you

2. If this is implemented on its own, what happens when both teams use this strategy (IE the one shown in the video)_ If it's implemented with 1, then it's effectively the same as it is now, only you're kinda making a bigger snowball effect than there needs to be (control of AA = control of the map

3. This ultimately doesn't make a difference if used on its own. If used in conjunction with 1 or 2, it only gives the team with a slight upper hand more advantages. Winning your first teamfight = other team have to dig themselves out of a very deep pit

[MK501]

Beemann, on November 30 2012 - 02:16 PM, said:

MK501, on November 30 2012 - 08:56 AM, said:

Just an idea :

• Battleships have tougher hardpoints, you can shoot down their turrets and engines, however taking out the engines only slows the ships down ( relative percentage of # engine hardpoints that are destroyed ). When all engine hardpoints are destroyed, the ships travel at a minimum speed ( imagine a few thrusters still working ).
  
  
• The energy dispensers only shut down if at least one mech ( from either team ) hold the AA. The AA dome can be captured as soon as a team launches their battleship, like it is now.
  
  
• No EU drops from a destroyed ship.

1. The problem is that ultimately making shooting the ship down pointless is that there`s no other way to get rid of it that isn`t a teamfight on AA, which ultimately favours the defending team so any initial shift in the balance means you have to outplay people with an advantage or it`s GG for you

2. If this is implemented on its own, what happens when both teams use this strategy (IE the one shown in the video)_ If it's implemented with 1, then it's effectively the same as it is now, only you're kinda making a bigger snowball effect than there needs to be (control of AA = control of the map

3. This ultimately doesn't make a difference if used on its own. If used in conjunction with 1 or 2, it only gives the team with a slight upper hand more advantages. Winning your first teamfight = other team have to dig themselves out of a very deep pit

These three points would have to be implemented together of course.
I don't think it's useless to try and take out the engines to slow down the enemy battle ship, as you could buy time to get your team back in place to launch a counter assault on the AA for example.
As for the second point : yes, launching ship + holding AA = map control, this is the game mode, right _
Third point isn't that important indeed.

PS : I'm hoping we can find a solution for this, because already I see players stacking up in base trying to reproduce the initial problem.

[Beemann]

The problem with making only one static objective to fight over is that it removes a lot of strategy and creativity from the mix.

[RipperT]

Curiosity question: What if the energy points were relay switches that routed the energy to the battleship instead of collection points_ Similar in function to the AA point.

Would scrapping the energy carry portion of the game  and forcing a constant battle over an energy relay make a difference_

[AsianJoyKiller]

RipperT, on November 30 2012 - 05:11 PM, said:

Curiosity question: What if the energy points were relay switches that routed the energy to the battleship instead of collection points_ Similar in function to the AA point.

Would scrapping the energy carry portion of the game  and forcing a constant battle over an energy relay make a difference_

I think at that point you've basically got the same thing happening, just without the running back to base carrying valuable energy part.
So still no conflict.

And if you made them deplete, then I think it would be too similar to Missile Assault.

[MK501]

Beemann, on November 30 2012 - 04:24 PM, said:

The problem with making only one static objective to fight over is that it removes a lot of strategy and creativity from the mix.

I get your point, especially with ESL in mind.
In my opinion, the main problem is that you can completely destroy the battleship with mechs. The ability to only cripple the battleship would be fine though. Perrhaps if every hardpoint is taken out, the impact of the ship on the enemy base would do only half the damage ( more base points would be needed of course, an intact ship would cause two points of damage, a crippled ship only one point ).