116 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

Kmaleon73, on April 30 2013 - 12:50 PM, said:

Look, for my point of view is fine like this, because both sides have the same options, is as attacking or defending, there are high points in bunches, to place any type of wick, just not very used to in my view the time of readmission to the field is well five seconds are fine, the power system is well established, and have cases q Given the fact a team after the destruction of the ship decican to fight in the area of EU , what happens is q and is the designer's idea is to take the AA, and the enemy trying to take over, is sensiño, everything is in team settings as to the selection of fuses, for me is good as this.

Your opinion on Siege does not change the number of exploits or the huge lulls in fighting that occur when two organized teams play it. Nobody wants to play a gamemode where the only way either team loses is by willfully ignoring mechanics or by getting bored with abusing them. I can assure you that the system is not well established, and that if you'd like I can provide video evidence of this strategy from a prior patch (we test it every so often to make sure it's still valid)
Additionally, the lack of forced combat in the EU stage means that you can force either teamfights or no fights in that section of the match. If you'll note, the suggestion I made forces fights instead of allowing teams to survive through more passive means, or through spamming ships

[Dinre]

Personally, I don't think it matters if Siege is broken or not.  That's not really the issue.  The question is "can it be improved_"  The answer to that will always be "yes."  I vote that the devs continue to tinker with it for a good long time, even after 1.0 launch.

[Beemann]

Dinre, on April 30 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think it matters if Siege is broken or not.  That's not really the issue.  The question is "can it be improved_"  The answer to that will always be "yes."  I vote that the devs continue to tinker with it for a good long time, even after 1.0 launch.

Gamemodes generally dont get changed past release outside of them basically not being played at all. Especially when you're dealing with a flagship gamemode (which ADH appears to want Siege to be), second guessing yourself and constantly changing variables does not inspire confidence in the mode, and more advanced strats and precise manoeuvres can't really occur with any efficacy

[Kmaleon73]

Beemen Sorry, but for me is pretty good as this, and it's like Dinre says can be improved while maintaining the same format will not be my idea but for my taste is very good, for me not to seek much back to damage a style that is quite simple

[Beemann]

Kmaleon73, on April 30 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Beemen Sorry, but for me is pretty good as this, and it's like Dinre says can be improved while maintaining the same format will not be my idea but for my taste is very good, for me not to seek much back to damage a style that is quite simple

Again, your personal opinion doesn't change how broken Siege is in its current state. Siege only exists in any decent capacity because people aren't doing everything they can to win. They either aren't aware of the issues or explicitly choose to abandon those strategies. If it remains in the same format it will continue to be broken and tremendously exploitable

[Leonhardt]

Dinre, on April 30 2013 - 01:30 PM, said:

Personally, I don't think it matters if Siege is broken or not.  That's not really the issue.  The question is "can it be improved_"  The answer to that will always be "yes."  I vote that the devs continue to tinker with it for a good long time, even after 1.0 launch.

If siege can be improved then why is Beemann's proposed changes to the gametype not just an improvement_ All his changes do is add some desperately needed depth to the game. If Hawken is going to become a competitive level game it needs a flagship tactical gametype with depth of gameplay strategy.

So regardless of it being broken or not (I think it is, but there is a reason why you rarely see a 2100> siege game) keeping it at its current state is just not going to cut it for what is supposed to be a competitive level game.

[Dinre]

@Leonhardt
I'm not disagreeing with Beemann.  Instead, I'm side-stepping the semantic debate about whether or not Siege mode is broken in an attempt to get to the heart of the matter: how can we improve Siege mode_


@Beemann
If TF2 has taught us anything, it's that constantly evolving the game can be a huge money-maker in a F2P title.  I think even post 1.0 will present room and opportunity for improvement.  The old days of leaving something alone are gone, since there will constantly be a new game trying to peel off players from the old games.  It's constant improvement or death nowadays, and I really want Hawken to succeed.

Regardless, let's get back to the interesting stuff... what specific changes could we make to Siege (broken or no) that would be interesting_

I think it would be interesting to see an endurance mode where only one team is launching battleships, and the other team is supposed to survive for a given amount of time.  Non-symmetrical maps and modes often remove the ability to have a stalemate.

[WarProtocol]

Beemann, on April 30 2013 - 09:31 AM, said:

I think BS damage needs to be more of a sure thing. Lowering the damage dealt is fine but there ought to be a min damage value of some sort on most Battleships
I think making the AA less "slightly pointless defensive zone" and more "special potential tide turner" would help greatly in fixing the BS/AA portion, and the EU portion could be beefed up in terms of forced conflict

So how about this
There's 3 or more EU points distributed as evenly as possible. EU points activate randomly and dish out either a set amount of energy, or dish out energy for a set period of time. Either way, both teams must fight for the EU in order to launch the ship

The ship itself has one main gun and a series of smaller ones. These are for damaging the enemy base. Players can destroy the smaller guns but the ship will always have a minimum damage value. Players either cannot shoot the ship from their base, or their base is not perfectly defended (turrets could be destroyed). Players can either continue to spawn in the base or spawn on their end of the map. a spawn-furthest system (tied to their end of the map or base of course) is recommended
Upon reaching the opposing base, the BS pulls an alpha and finishes its job

The AA is re-purposed. Instead of being up all the time, it activates after a fixed amount of time, and reactivates after that same time has passed following its activation. The AA requires EU to activate, and requires a short period of time to activate (interruptable)
The AA does damage to enemy mechs and destroys the battleship when activated

Thus we have changed the flow of the gamemode. EU fights are short and mobile, AA fights are absolutely brutal because of the change in momentum they can provide if capitalized on, if bases are assault-able they become important and there's a minimum amount of time that the round can go on for by virtue of having the ships not be completely destructible, and by not allowing that destruction to come from a handful of long range mechs standing in base spamming shots at it

I can see what You are getting at, but such things would involve some major redo of the whole mode.
Couple of flaws noticed instantly in your idea:
1. Suppose the ship launched, but the enemy team is in full control of the AA which turned off right after the launch, what happens then_ Does the ship slows down or comes to a full stop_
2. Suppose the ship is in mid air, but AA gets turned off, and ship's team takes over, what happens then_ Does the ship comes to a full stop, or is it slowly moving even without full beam of the AA control_
3. Suppose 2 ships meet in the middle and AA os turned off, what happens then_
4. Suppose the ship has reached base at 1/2 of its hp, and then defending team takes over the AA in order to bring it down faster, but AA gets turned off.

I would see it as really annoying for a random or scheduled activations and deactivations of EU points and AA.

The way I see it resolved and enjoyable, is to make a super siege mode, meaning even bigger maps than now, double the distance for the ship to travel and bring up base hp to 4-4.5 k. Those matches ofcourse would take 24 players to resolve them in a reasonable matter of time, otherwise you're talking about 2 hour matches that would be really draining us.

Edited by WarProtocol, April 30 2013 - 05:10 PM.

[Leonhardt]

Dinre, on April 30 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

@Leonhardt
I'm not disagreeing with Beemann.  Instead, I'm side-stepping the semantic debate about whether or not Siege mode is broken in an attempt to get to the heart of the matter: how can we improve Siege mode_

Sorry I think I hit the wrong quote button. My comment was more directed towards Kmaleon73. I was agreeing with you in a way. lol

[Beemann]

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

I can see what You are getting at, but such things would involve some major redo of the whole mode.
Couple of flaws noticed instantly in your idea:
1. Suppose the ship launched, but the enemy team is in full control of the AA which turned off right after the launch, what happens then_ Does the ship slows down or comes to a full stop_

No, it acts as it normally would. If the AA isn't on, it doesn't do anything. It's not a consistent counter but rather a time centric potential tide-turner

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

2. Suppose the ship is in mid air, but AA gets turned off, and ship's team takes over, what happens then_ Does the ship comes to a full stop, or is it slowly moving even without full beam of the AA control_

This is the same as the above. If the AA isn't active, then it doesn't do anything

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

3. Suppose 2 ships meet in the middle and AA os turned off, what happens then_

We could use one of multiple methods
1. The ships go past each other and damage the enemy base
2. The ships destroy each other
3. The ship with more guns destroys the other and either comes out without a scratch or with a reasonable number of guns destroyed

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

4. Suppose the ship has reached base at 1/2 of its hp, and then defending team takes over the AA in order to bring it down faster, but AA gets turned off.

The AA doesn't randomly turn off. It only turns off after its used. If the attacking team got to the AA, then it simply damages the opposing players and denies them AA use

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

I would see it as really annoying for a random or scheduled activations and deactivations of EU points and AA.

SMNC has a similar mechanic with the Annihilator, which actually does more than the AA would because SMNC has lanes and creeps and the anni destroys them (whereas here it simply destroys the BS, which isn't quite so omnipresent and has a fixed cost). The anni comes up after a fixed amount of time in the match, deactivates only when someone uses it, and then takes the same amount of time to re-activate.

WarProtocol, on April 30 2013 - 05:08 PM, said:

The way I see it resolved and enjoyable, is to make a super siege mode, meaning even bigger maps than now, double the distance for the ship to travel and bring up base hp to 4-4.5 k. Those matches ofcourse would take 24 players to resolve them in a reasonable matter of time, otherwise you're talking about 2 hour matches that would be really draining us.

That's not really sensible. As it stands, mayhem servers are more of a gimmick than anything else (no current map support, just squashing larger numbers into small maps) and simply ramping up the scale doesn't actually solve any of Siege's problems

Dinre, on April 30 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

@Beemann
If TF2 has taught us anything, it's that constantly evolving the game can be a huge money-maker in a F2P title.  I think even post 1.0 will present room and opportunity for improvement.  The old days of leaving something alone are gone, since there will constantly be a new game trying to peel off players from the old games.  It's constant improvement or death nowadays, and I really want Hawken to succeed.

I'm not sure which TF2 you played, but the one I've been checking out intermittently since right around launch hasn't revamped its gamemodes. Outside of server settings (player decided) I can hop on TF2 and play the same game type on the same map with the same rules
Additionally, this concept of games having to constantly add things isn't exactly... true... at least from a dev standpoint
Making a game mod friendly will do more for it than any amount of content injection. Games from the late 90s and early 00's are still played today and people are still tinkering with them and modding the fuzzy bunny out of them. Games with dev-created content tend to slow down as time goes on and as the devs try other projects or hit a wall with their creative process... but in any case this still isn't related to trying to experiment with a game type after launch. Again, the primary reason for that is that the gamemode itself is broken or imbalanced. If we can hit a spot with Siege where it is, in fact, balanced, then it should stay there. Change for the sake of change isn't really something to be admired

Dinre, on April 30 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

I think it would be interesting to see an endurance mode where only one team is launching battleships, and the other team is supposed to survive for a given amount of time.  Non-symmetrical maps and modes often remove the ability to have a stalemate.

Non-symmetrical maps and modes turn into a time trial, and max health battleships are still easily destroyed by a semi organized 5 or 6 person team

Edited by Beemann, April 30 2013 - 06:40 PM.

[Evolwar]

Some of the ideas from this topic are quite interesting. I know there are some that don't want siege to change but didn't the devs say they were going to change this mode from what it is today_ I'm kinda surprised that most people enjoyed the longer matches when that is what I mainly hear in complaints. I know I had some really fun games that did last longer amount of time but those moment were few and far between. It really depends on how well each team works together. The main problem that I see with siege is you can negate the damage of battleship without ever going to aa. Also with the mech swapper in the back of the base you can always switch to a SS and rocket teer what ever you choose to shoot it down from within your base. I only provided a starting point of ideas that may or may not help siege. I would like to see others ideas too.

Edited by Evolwar, April 30 2013 - 07:31 PM.

[Leonhardt]

I strongly feel that any ranked gametype will have to have a system similar to the LoL ban and pick model. Reason being it adds strategy and forethought to any gametype while also forcing teams to think about their composition relative to the map, mode, and strategy. It also allows for teams to plan out things ahead of time and be reactive in picks (it just adds so much strategy before the game even starts).

The banning part of the system is controversial, but it could be good to have a certain amount of mechs being banned once there are enough of them to do so. This way if there are problems with a meta centered around a mech like the SS from the raider patch these things can be played around in competition. It also adds strategy against opponents and team comps.

I know this sounds like its getting OT, but being able to change your mech whenever you want just shouldn't fly in ranked play. It waters down the strategy element and opens up holes in game design to a degree.

[Dinre]

Leonhardt brings up an interesting idea.  The Hawken devs have made reference to League of Legends before, so it would not be surprising if we saw them take a cue from the pre-game character selection.  I think the banning won't be necessary in Hawken as it is in LoL, but I would like to see some interesting restrictions on mech selection.

For instance, if we were locked into a mech permanently for a battle, we would need to know the rest of our teammates' mech selections in order to make a good choice.  It would also provide a time for the team to talk tactics and assign roles before the match.  I don't think this would work for pub play, but I think it might be very interesting for ranked play.

It might also be interesting if only one or two of each model could be on the field at once, depending on team size.  That would naturally filter out the 5 Berzerker team we had going last night... it wasn't on purpose and some of us ended up switching models to balance the team.  It would have been better, though, if we hadn't started like that.

I would personally be VERY interested in a Highlander mode, where exactly one of each mech is on each team.  This is really a competitive mode, since you have to recruit for it and plan when to have the match.

I am still in favor of some asymmetrical modes, since those tend to be my favorite in other multiplayer games.  Asymmetry has the benefit of allowing more diverse strategies, since as in real life, two opposing forces often don't have the same objective in mind.

[Leonhardt]

Dinre, on May 01 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

It might also be interesting if only one or two of each model could be on the field at once, depending on team size.  That would naturally filter out the 5 Berzerker team we had going last night... it wasn't on purpose and some of us ended up switching models to balance the team.  It would have been better, though, if we hadn't started like that.

I would be hesitant to do this because it restricts potential strategy and if a certain team comp is extremely effective it speaks a lot about the balance of the game and shows where things need to be fixed. In League optimal champ picks for teams come up all the time and they either get banned out or picked which is a large center of strategy in the game. Riot Games then sees this imbalance in the champs and corrects it going into the next few patches (they have done a relatively good job with this).

There could be strategies based around having all the same type of mech, but if that becomes an issue its a glaring problem for mech balance and should be addressed. I do think though that a limit on how many of a certain type of mech should be implemented. So maybe only 1 or 2 of each specific mech type per team. This keeps optimal strategies like 5 SS's and a tech out of the game (just an example).

[FussyBadger]

Dinre, on May 01 2013 - 04:52 AM, said:

It might also be interesting if only one or two of each model could be on the field at once, depending on team size.  That would naturally filter out the 5 Berzerker team we had going last night... it wasn't on purpose and some of us ended up switching models to balance the team.  It would have been better, though, if we hadn't started like that.

That's the risk right now. A delayed launch puts you at a disadvantage on whatever your objective is, so there's pressure to just pick and go as quickly as possible. Last night, I launched about five seconds late, so that I could ensure the best mech fit to my team, and found myself pursued by an enemy who fired on me before my weapons came online.

Implementing a brief "team selection" phase to allow discussions and display of selected mechs/loadouts would alleviate that quirk.

[BurnsHot]

Beemann, on April 30 2013 - 02:29 PM, said:

Kmaleon73, on April 30 2013 - 02:27 PM, said:

Beemen Sorry, but for me is pretty good as this, and it's like Dinre says can be improved while maintaining the same format will not be my idea but for my taste is very good, for me not to seek much back to damage a style that is quite simple

Again, your personal opinion doesn't change how broken Siege is in its current state. Siege only exists in any decent capacity because people aren't doing everything they can to win. They either aren't aware of the issues or explicitly choose to abandon those strategies. If it remains in the same format it will continue to be broken and tremendously exploitable

How is Beemen's "Personal Opinion" anymore true than Kmaleon73's "Personal Opinion".  Stop throwing around Personal Opinion to invalidate someone else's Personal Opinion.

Here is my Personal Opinion:  This game is like an art form.  The Dev's created a great game and Many Love it.  Just because you think you can do it better doesn't mean it's Broken.  Actually, If you can do it better then make your own game.  I would love to play it one day.  Lets temper our comments a little and not forget the fact that we do not own this game.  By all means make constructive criticism, but do not invalidate someone's opinion or experience with your own.

IMO, Siege boils down to the Strongest Team wins. Period!  What does it matter if you force fights at the EU or the AA_  You are just choosing one battle location over another.  The stronger team will take the objective regardless if it is at the EU or the AA.  How is a stronger team dominating the EU location any different then the same team dominating the AA_

As for maps giving an unfair advantage, and someone mentioned Bazaar as the worst offender, again I say the stronger team will prevail.  I've been on both sides of the map in Bazaar.  I can't blame the "Map Advantage" for my win or loss.  All the blame goes to the Team play.  Aggressive play is usually rewarded with the victory.  Teams who hang back and do not backup their teammates who rush in for the AA usually lose the match.

IMO, I like Siege how it is now.  If you play anything long enough sure you will get board so i'm not against change, but its far from being "Broken".

As for stalemates resulting from any team sitting back at their base shooting the ship.  I have yet to play any match where that has happened. I have played HUNDREDS of Siege matches.  I doubt that a team could successfully pull this off.  From the inside of your base, you can not get a good shot at the ship until its at least half way across the map.  By then the ship will reach the base and deal out some damage even if its a small amount.  

Even if you could do this, what does it matter_  Players don't join matches just to camp in the base.  Usually if the losing team is pinned down in their base and feels hopelessly out gunned they just quit.  This brings us back to the Strongest team will always win.

Edited by BurnsHot, May 01 2013 - 06:31 AM.

[Dinre]

Actually, my complaint usually isn't with teams sitting back at base and shooting down the ship.  My complaint is when we have two good teams (very rare), and then we end up in a stalemate with both sides launching ships and fighting over AA.  If no one controls AA for long enough, we end up with both ships being destroyed around the same time, and neither team makes progress.  I really want to have more games with good teams on both sides, which makes me think Siege needs to be tweaked a bit to remove the stalemate from possibility.

Perhaps if the battleships started damaging the enemy base as soon as they are in the air, we'd never have a stalemate.  I don't know exactly how I feel about that option, but it would at least keep the game moving.

In Missile Assault, we have three control points, so it's very hard to reach a stalemate.  In Siege, we effectively only have one control point.  Perhaps if the EU stations converted into lesser AA silos after launch...

I don't know what the answer is.

[BurnsHot]

Dinre, on May 01 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

Actually, my complaint usually isn't with teams sitting back at base and shooting down the ship.  My complaint is when we have two good teams (very rare), and then we end up in a stalemate with both sides launching ships and fighting over AA.  If no one controls AA for long enough, we end up with both ships being destroyed around the same time, and neither team makes progress.  I really want to have more games with good teams on both sides, which makes me think Siege needs to be tweaked a bit to remove the stalemate from possibility.

I don't know what the answer is.

I don't see this as a Stalemate.  IMO its just poor strategy.  If the other team is close to launch its usually a bad idea to launch your own ship.  Experienced players know not to do this unless they have already made of their mind that they are strong enough to walk right in and help themselves to the AA.  

If the teams are even then as soon as the enemy BS is destroyed, your team is in the position to launch immediately.  So many variables to consider to change the course of the battle and pull off a win.  Where is the Stalemate_

Edited by BurnsHot, May 01 2013 - 06:55 AM.

[FussyBadger]

Dinre, on May 01 2013 - 06:43 AM, said:

In Missile Assault, we have three control points, so it's very hard to reach a stalemate.  In Siege, we effectively only have one control point.  Perhaps if the EU stations converted into lesser AA silos after launch...

I don't know what the answer is.

For many people, I think the answer is to play Missile Assault. I've got a long ways to go to get any mech to Level 25 - I jump around between 3+ mechs way too often - and Siege is generally the best route. I'm not sure how much I'll play it once I've hit 25 on a few of my faves.

[BurnsHot]

It is Great that the Dev's have given us these different modes of play.  I play all the modes because they are fun and I have my favorites.  Choosing one over the other has nothing to do with Dinre's statement, "I don't know what the answer is."

To each his own as the saying goes.....