116 replies to this topic

[M4st0d0n]

I'm sure there's simple ways the devs tought about for siege to be fixed. I've got the feeling every ingredients are there for it to be a tasty mode. The recipe needs just some other proportions. Right now the problem is nots even exploits or farming. I'm pretty sure most of the players think they are playing siege correctly and inconsciently making it a long and boring game due the the fact that every xp rewards are oriented to play a static passive game.

EU is a good idea but it's not exploited and too abundant to make it a truly strategic ressources. Maybe they could make missiles from the silo or turrets from the base or the ship to cost some. Or even spawn or items use could cost EU, I dunno.

[Garx]

nain

[Beemann]

M4st0d0n, on June 15 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

. Right now the problem is nots even exploits or farming. I'm pretty sure most of the players think they are playing siege correctly and inconsciently making it a long and boring game due the the fact that every xp rewards are oriented to play a static passive game.

You kinda contradicted yourself there didn't you_
If players are playing in a manner that is exploitative, it doesn't matter if they think it's intended or okay, what matters is that they're being exploitative. You appear to agree that they are acting in this manner when you talk about the XP rewards and players drawing out the match length

M4st0d0n, on June 15 2013 - 01:43 PM, said:

EU is a good idea but it's not exploited and too abundant to make it a truly strategic ressources. Maybe they could make missiles from the silo or turrets from the base or the ship to cost some. Or even spawn or items use could cost EU, I dunno.

EU needs to be fought over. It shouldn't be an abundant resource that makes launching ships a joke

[ecaflip]

Beemann, on June 15 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

EU needs to be fought over. It shouldn't be an abundant resource that makes launching ships a joke

Then make it so that each EU station switches on and off randomly after each ship launch, making it so that only one EU station is open at all times

[M4st0d0n]

Beemann, I already read your arguments on past topics about siege and I'm ok with what you say. It's a nuance, surely weirdly translated, but not a contradiction.

Being not able to play anything else than PUB games, it's hard for me to qualify the true strategic potential this game could have. Maybe you get other experiences in scrim. I believe most guys on the PUBs didn't read past the intro screen and are not even aware of ship leveling, console to change the mechs or other undocumented subtleties. You'll be amazed at how many times I jump in an advanced siege game to see all the staff in pack sucking the EU tree like if they were able to launch two at the time. So there's farmers for sure, but there's some kind of bad habits too, maybe generated by the fact that devs found the explosion animation so cool that they wanted us to see it for every single match. And again, if shooting ship for an hour is fun for people, who am I to say they're playing it wrong_

As for EU, post 87. I'm totally ok that it should be something else than sitting at the campfire singins songs or gardening the green shiny flowers. So what's the plan_ How to make them fight for it_ Is it even interesting to collect it_ Do you even bother_

Maybe they could make missiles from the silo or turrets from the base or the ship to cost some. Or even spawn or items use could cost EU, I dunno.

[Dinre]

M4st0d0n, on June 15 2013 - 05:51 PM, said:

Beemann, I already read your arguments on past topics about siege and I'm ok with what you say. It's a nuance, surely weirdly translated, but not a contradiction.

Being not able to play anything else than PUB games, it's hard for me to qualify the true strategic potential this game could have. Maybe you get other experiences in scrim. I believe most guys on the PUBs didn't read past the intro screen and are not even aware of ship leveling, console to change the mechs or other undocumented subtleties. You'll be amazed at how many times I jump in an advanced siege game to see all the staff in pack sucking the EU tree like if they were able to launch two at the time. So there's farmers for sure, but there's some kind of bad habits too, maybe generated by the fact that devs found the explosion animation so cool that they wanted us to see it for every single match. And again, if shooting ship for an hour is fun for people, who am I to say they're playing it wrong_

As for EU, post 87. I'm totally ok that it should be something else than sitting at the campfire singins songs or gardening the green shiny flowers. So what's the plan_ How to make them fight for it_ Is it even interesting to collect it_ Do you even bother_

Maybe they could make missiles from the silo or turrets from the base or the ship to cost some. Or even spawn or items use could cost EU, I dunno.

Part of the problem is also the voiceover giving the team instructions like "all team members, go collect energy!  Rough edges like that are sure-fire signs that the devs plan to do some work on the Siege mode.  Although, there was one dev that informed me during play that all of the Siege problems were just because people don't understand the game mode... I hope that sentiment doesn't win out during the dev team's discussions.

[Call_Me_Ishmael]

I'm kind of liking Beeman's suggestions, to wit:

• make EU a resource to be fought over (an odd number of EU trees, and when one is active, move which one it is randomly)
  
• Make the AA require EU  - or possibly missiles.  EU from a tree that has to be fought over, and missles from your base.  Missles could be scavenged by a killer on the route from base to AA.
  
• make the ships' turrets shoot each other, make the bases and all turrets destructible by mech aimed fire.

If there's an actual portal gun/teleportation system in the future, it'd make EU collection or missle/AA-running very interesting.  I'd like that If it were cheaper to run A-classes through a teleporter - and/or the EU required were tied to the distance of the transit (and came from the mech's onboard EU tanks).

I'd still like to see a 'dump EU' button in case you knew you were going to go into a firefight, try to deny the enemy your EU in case of your early demise.

Make the EU do more - and be fought over harder.  If you had enough things that needed EU, scaling the maps and teamsizes could create some epic teamwork needed for the win.

A lot to think about.

[EliteShooter]

I think siege is made to take long time !!

[RedVan]

Beemann, on June 13 2013 - 08:07 PM, said:

How crazy is that DOT_ Additionally, how large is the bubble_ Can I still camp out in Frontline_ Is the bridge now blocked in Origin_

DOT would be substantial enough to make people leave the bubble.  It would be large enough to prevent people from camping on the AA.

Quote

Lets not be hasty. We haven't really established that it fixes anything yet

Well, we won't be sure if anything fixes siege until they try ;P  Simply talking about things in the forums never fixed anything, so of course we haven't established that it fixes anything.

Quote

But it isn't what it takes, because it'll still be boring, because you've still got the defensive bonus and a lot of camping to contend with

So fighting off the enemy to control a point is just as boring as sitting in your base shooting a BS_

Quote

Right but you've already suggested like 5 changes (dot on AA, can't shoot the BS, TDM with EU, remove base turrets, moving kill-bonus zone) . If none of these are going to fix it aren't you over complicating things_ I mean... we still havent really touched either problem in a way that promotes strategy

"If".

If players cant camp the AA, that means teams will always have to fight for the AA, rather than one team gaining a foothold from the get go.  That will require both teams to strategically try to take it, rather than one team simply camping it while the other team tries to use strategy.

If players cannot shoot the BS, it puts emphasis on the AA, PVP, and naturally, more strategy, as sitting in your base behind a bunch of turrets shooting a BS is as little strategy as necessary.

If EU collection is more dependent on killing, you drastically reduce team splits between trees, with no combat.  If you simply rotate which tree is active, that does help a little, but keeps combat in a preset location, thus reducing strategic options.  By giving players an item to boost EU gain from kills, now you've implemented even more opportunity for good strategy.

Quote

So there's nothing hypocritical about criticizing all gamemodes for being TDM and then literally suggesting TDM as a replacement for a mechanic_ That's interesting
And there's very little depth to Hawken's TDM. There's no reason to actually strive for map control currently, and thus you leave yourself open to creating a campfest in organized play

I wasn't criticizing anything.  I was merely pointing out that all game modes at their core are TDM with different objectives.
TDM is players killing players everywhere
MA is players killing players by 3 specific points
Siege is players killing players by... well... one point really, if that.  Hence making it the worst game mode as there is the least PVP interaction of all game modes.

So yes, Siege should become more like TDM in that it needs more PVP interaction, because the lack of PVP interaction is what makes it boring.  It would be hypocritical if I suggested Siege incorporate more TDM aspects, if I didn't like TDM, but I do like TDM.

As for TDM having little depth... well, MA and Siege have just as little depth.  You cant honestly tell me you think they have depth simply because there are a couple of objectives.  Striving for missile silo control isn't depth.  Striving to launch a BS isn't depth.

Quote

Camping one spot = strategy_ Because that's the optimal way to play TDM with no incentive for movement or map dominance

Strategy:  the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions

Yes, camping one advantageous spot is a strategy.  If team A is camping an advantageous spot, team B needs to come up with some tactics to take that spot.  But I guess if you don't think camping one spot is strategy, we could extend it to 3 spots (MA) and call it strategy because it's a bigger number.

Nice thing about TDM:  The teams can decide what their advantageous spot is.  You cant do that in MA or Siege, you're given 3 specific spots and no other options.  In TDM the whole map is your playground.

Quote

Except you're trying to do the same thing while turning it into TDM and allowing for an excessive amount of edge cases

I'm trying to keep gameplay from revolving around a couple preset locations.  Believe it or not, the map is larger than those locations.  The entire game doesn't need to be kept to those locations, unless they force it to.

Quote

Protip: you don't need base turrets to camp. They managed to camp in Q3 rocket arena as well.Additionally, if anything you'd still want to camp in your own base because A: You have virtually no travel time to dump EU and B: You have constant reinforcements
Why would you rush an enemy camped position_ Basically only because you're bored, because your optimal strategy is to camp and poke as well

Teams need to kill to collect EU, meaning they cannot start the game camping, or no BS would get launched.
Teams cannot simply camp even if they have the lead in EU collection, as having the lead in EU still isn't a launched ship.
If team A launches a ship, they wouldn't camp because they'd just be leaving the AA open for the other team.
If team A gains a point lead, they could camp, but having no turrets means they have no advantage to camping other than a quick EU turn and quicker support after deaths.  So create something to prevent that, like making team B's base HP regen if team A is camping their own base.

Quote

So the best thing to do is to never enter that area. How is this going to force conflict_

This isn't meant to force conflict, this is meant to provide an additional aspect of strategy.

Remember that definition of strategy_  Something like this allows teams to decide when it would be advantageous to use it.  Since both teams players would drop 2xEU in death, teams would need to keep an eye out for the most opportune time to use it, and not use it when they're getting over run.

[Dinre]

TL:DR_

[RedVan]

Dinre, on June 19 2013 - 05:00 AM, said:

TL:DR_

TLDTLDR
(Too lazy didn't tldr)

[Beemann]

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Well, we won't be sure if anything fixes siege until they try ;P  Simply talking about things in the forums never fixed anything, so of course we haven't established that it fixes anything.

Except there's no reason to expect this to work

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

So fighting off the enemy to control a point is just as boring as sitting in your base shooting a BS_

A completely one-sided fight isn't boring_
Additionally, why try to improve Siege by a degree or two_ Where's the sense in trying to make it a little less broken rather than fixing it outright_

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

"If".

If players cant camp the AA, that means teams will always have to fight for the AA, rather than one team gaining a foothold from the get go.  That will require both teams to strategically try to take it, rather than one team simply camping it while the other team tries to use strategy.

Nothing stops them from camping the AA, not even adding a DoT to the AA itself, or some other unintuitive and arbitrary mechanic

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

If players cannot shoot the BS, it puts emphasis on the AA, PVP, and naturally, more strategy, as sitting in your base behind a bunch of turrets shooting a BS is as little strategy as necessary.

The AA isn't balanced, so you're dropping the amount of potential strategy by leaps and bounds by making it the lynchpin

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

If EU collection is more dependent on killing, you drastically reduce team splits between trees, with no combat.  If you simply rotate which tree is active, that does help a little, but keeps combat in a preset location, thus reducing strategic options.  By giving players an item to boost EU gain from kills, now you've implemented even more opportunity for good strategy.

If EU collection is more dependent on killing, you make it such that camping is the new optimal strat. No movement is forced, and thus the best strategy is to find a strong defensive position and stay there. Your opponents best strat is to do the same thing
This is why games like Quake had powerups and weapon drops. If you camped, you'd lose due to not having as high a health or armour stack, or due to having given up a certain amount of weapons or ammo that you could need in a given fight

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

I wasn't criticizing anything.  I was merely pointing out that all game modes at their core are TDM with different objectives.

You also failed to prove that

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

MA is players killing players by 3 specific points

Incorrect. No players have to be killed to accomplish the objective

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Siege is players killing players by... well... one point really, if that.  Hence making it the worst game mode as there is the least PVP interaction of all game modes.

Wrong again, even less killing is necessary to defend or attack than it is in MA

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

So yes, Siege should become more like TDM in that it needs more PVP interaction, because the lack of PVP interaction is what makes it boring.  It would be hypocritical if I suggested Siege incorporate more TDM aspects, if I didn't like TDM, but I do like TDM.

Except for the bit where you called for gamemodes that weren't TDM, and are now suggesting TDM. Not only are you wrong in your assessment of other gamemodes,  but you also fail to realize that your statement was a critical one

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

As for TDM having little depth... well, MA and Siege have just as little depth.  You cant honestly tell me you think they have depth simply because there are a couple of objectives.  Striving for missile silo control isn't depth.  Striving to launch a BS isn't depth.

Except they don't. The optimal strat in TDM in any game without some other objective (powerups, bomb planting, etc) is to find a defensible position or set of positions, and exploit those to maximum effect. In objective-based modes, you are forced into conflict, and must find a number of paths with which to counter the opposing team. Siege has the lowest amount of depth at high end in that it's static and ridiculously easy to pull off. MA isn't balanced particularly well, but is still ahead of Siege due to the added layer of non-combat options one has to contribute to victory

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Strategy:  the science and art of military command exercised to meet the enemy in combat under advantageous conditions

Except you needn't exercise anything to accomplish it, save for following instructions (which don't even need to come from your own team)
Say Player X is a pr0 esports player, he makes a list of top camping spots on every TDM map, your team picks 2
You now travel to one point, and if it's occupied, you travel to another
It's colour-by-numbers

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

Yes, camping one advantageous spot is a strategy.  If team A is camping an advantageous spot, team B needs to come up with some tactics to take that spot.  But I guess if you don't think camping one spot is strategy, we could extend it to 3 spots (MA) and call it strategy because it's a bigger number.

Why does team B need to take that position_ In MA it's because they lose if they don't. but if both teams are at 0/0 and one team camps, why should i give them combat advantage_

Why would I not, instead, pick another spot, camp that, and take potshots_

Additionally, you're still falsely equating kill counts with winning in objective-based gamemodes. Kills can certainly be the cause of a victory, but aren't the necessary cause of all victories. Our team in the post-apoc tourney did exceedingly well not only because they could hold S2 reliably and fight off opposing teams, but also because we had a designated player whose job was to back-cap, even if that meant sacrificing kill-count

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

I'm trying to keep gameplay from revolving around a couple preset locations.  Believe it or not, the map is larger than those locations.  The entire game doesn't need to be kept to those locations, unless they force it to.

Except a lack of forcing movement leads to camping being the best strategy. Starcraft, Quake, Dota/League/What-have-you and Counter Strike all force movement
In Starcraft, you have the issue of resources. If you don't take them, your opponent will, and maps are limited in this regard. In Quake, you need powerups and weapons. In Counter-Strike, you have to plant a bomb in one of several pre-determined areas as the terrorists, and as the counter-terrorists you must stop them and defuse the bomb if it is planted. In Dota and its offspring, staying out of the fight means being out-leveled

@not being able to camp at the start
Except they can, and absolutely would
Teams need to kill in TDM to win, but they still start the game camping

@not being able to camp if in the lead
Except they can, because the other team needs to kill them to gather EU

@Having already launched the ship
But they could just camp the AA

RedVan, on June 18 2013 - 07:02 PM, said:

If team A gains a point lead, they could camp, but having no turrets means they have no advantage to camping other than a quick EU turn and quicker support after deaths.  So create something to prevent that, like making team B's base HP regen if team A is camping their own base.

How do you determine base camping_ Could I lock a team in their own base to regain EU_ This sounds like it would be exploited to gain more XP from the match overall, which is something that is already slightly problematic in Siege

@improving "strategy" instead of forcing conflict

Except it fails to do that. You fail to see how making combat the only method of interaction lowers the amount of strategy involved. Additionally, you dont see how this absolutely plays into the camping problem, nor do you seem to accept that camping is an inevitable part of serious competitive deatmatch gamemodes unless incentive for map control is provided

[nepacaka]

Quote

Battleships can not be attacked by mechs

really good idea

other suggestions - delirium

Edited by nepacaka, October 19 2013 - 09:30 AM.

[Starrphy]

Hoe about making the the AA into 3 AA's. >_> because face it if you can't take the AA the game is over.. Hm, might look too much like MA though.

Bluh, just give us Mayhem siege! O_O *drewl* Mayehm everything

[ropefish]

so this thread is still living >->

*staps thread multiple times*

.0-0

[M4st0d0n]

Noooooo. Slapping it will awaken it!

[KoblerMan]

Siege is just such a fun game mode. Personally, I say it's fine the way it is. I always like looking at the scoreboard after a long match of Siege (whether I win or lose) and watching my pilot rankings skyrocket. The only thing that I really don't like in a Siege match is actually when it's shorter than about 20 minutes. I like having a game mode where I can just sit down and obliterate mechs and work towards an objective for an hour without having to keep switching matches.