116 replies to this topic

[Dinre]

--0-/
---\_>====
----_\_
  
~~~/\~~~~~

I think it's time to call this topic quits.  Consider shark jumped.

Edited by Dinre, May 01 2013 - 07:22 AM.

[BurnsHot]

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

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_

I might have misread Dinre's OP and assumed he meant that both teams are launching their ships at the same time.

Still my experience is to ask other teammates if we have control over the AA before launch.  Nine out of Ten times your BS will reach their base and do damage.  IMO, the prolonged battles make for Epic games but I have not experienced a true stalemate.

Edited by BurnsHot, May 01 2013 - 07:35 AM.

[Kmaleon73]

Unfortunately with so people can not reason, you have the right, the format is useless siege according to you, now I ask some of you are designers of video games or something, if they are so experts do their game apart, in my opinion and insist the game is fine as is

[BurnsHot]

Beemann, on April 30 2013 - 12:55 PM, said:

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)

I would like to see the video if you would be kind enough to post it.

Thank you.

[Beemann]

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Because mine isn't a personal opinion. It's a fact

http://youtu.be/UOHlMP0JoEg

We've confirmed every patch that shooting down the ship at max health is possible. Raising the max health only really promotes ship-spam, and creates a large unnecessary gap between the start of the match and when things actually start happening. Siege is about grabbing the large EU stack while having your team defend your EU node if you're absolutely playing to win, and I can guarantee that in an equally matched game, on a balanced map, with enough chances, that you'll eventually take the AA. And the only way the other team can stop you is by resorting to the same strategy

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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_

There are two EU locations. There is no feasible way for a team in an equally matched game to control both, and there's no need to hold the AA. High end Siege wont result in fights until a team feels comfortable with fighting, and Quake Rocket Arena has already shown why that can be an issue, especially from any sort of spectator standpoint

http://youtu.be/FoCiXrPXXTQ

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Sorry, but  you're not really factoring balance in here. Two evenly matched high end teams on Bazaar = high spawn wins. We tested this back when they first made the change to the large and very problematic high spawn wall. Low spawn team can even win with a single man advantage
Again, your opinions don't make something not broken, especially when you're dealing with something that has been tested and proven.

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.  

That's not true, sorry

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Maybe because your team doesn't have to lose if they're willing to shoot the ship for a bit_ In a match where our team didn't have a good foothold on the AA, Umbre and I launched our battleship, grabbed one other person on our team, and consistently shot their ship down until we could actually grab the AA properly

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:51 AM, said:

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.  

Here's the thing
You're ignoring the usefulness of an allied battleship as a preventative measure. If points are about to be scored on you, you can just block the opposing ship with yours and use that extra time to shoot it down if you somehow weren't able to do it already

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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_

Except you've never been referring to even teams in the past. Remember that your stated concept of being fine is that one team has enough of a skill advantage to overcome it and beat the other team

Kmaleon73, on May 01 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Unfortunately with so people can not reason, you have the right, the format is useless siege according to you, now I ask some of you are designers of video games or something, if they are so experts do their game apart, in my opinion and insist the game is fine as is

I honestly don't understand what you've posted here. Could you try to explain that a little clearer_ I feel as though you're still missing the point but I'm not entirely sure

[BurnsHot]

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Because mine isn't a personal opinion. It's a fact

http://youtu.be/UOHlMP0JoEg

We've confirmed every patch that shooting down the ship at max health is possible. Raising the max health only really promotes ship-spam, and creates a large unnecessary gap between the start of the match and when things actually start happening. Siege is about grabbing the large EU stack while having your team defend your EU node if you're absolutely playing to win, and I can guarantee that in an equally matched game, on a balanced map, with enough chances, that you'll eventually take the AA. And the only way the other team can stop you is by resorting to the same strategy

This information is old.  The video was posted Nov 27, 2012

Open Beta Patch Notes as of Jan 24, 2013 state:Siege Mode Battleships now become more difficult to kill as the match progresses, which should prevent excessively long matches. {end patch notes}

Teams playing Hawken today do not sit on the AA allowing the enemy to snipe the ship.  The weaker teams usually gets pushed inside their base while the BS damages the base.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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_

There are two EU locations. There is no feasible way for a team in an equally matched game to control both, and there's no need to hold the AA. High end Siege wont result in fights until a team feels comfortable with fighting, and Quake Rocket Arena has already shown why that can be an issue, especially from any sort of spectator standpoint

Based off of outdated information and your comment "equally matched" should be taken loosely.
I stand behind my statement that the Strongest Team Wins!  Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Sorry, but  you're not really factoring balance in here. Two evenly matched high end teams on Bazaar = high spawn wins. We tested this back when they first made the change to the large and very problematic high spawn wall. Low spawn team can even win with a single man advantage
Again, your opinions don't make something not broken, especially when you're dealing with something that has been tested and proven.

"High spwan wall and Low spawn team"  are you talking about which side has the High and low Ground_  If so_  I've won and lost playing them both.  It wasn't the terrain it was the weaker/stronger team.  This has been tested and proven EVERY match of Siege I play regardless of the map.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.  

That's not true, sorry

Again your answer is based off of old information.  Remember the  BS is harder to kill.  I'm in the trenches and i'm sharing my experiences.  That is all the proof I need.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Maybe because your team doesn't have to lose if they're willing to shoot the ship for a bit_ In a match where our team didn't have a good foothold on the AA, Umbre and I launched our battleship, grabbed one other person on our team, and consistently shot their ship down until we could actually grab the AA properly

Sorry but again your answer is base off of old information.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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_

Except you've never been referring to even teams in the past. Remember that your stated concept of being fine is that one team has enough of a skill advantage to overcome it and beat the other team

The Term "even teams" should always be taken loosely.  I was addressing the OP's scenario of a stalemate brought about by two "even teams" and making the point that the stronger team will win.  Again where is the stalemate_  You don't try and answer that question.  You are too busy Trolling which is a pattern I am starting to see.

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

Kmaleon73, on May 01 2013 - 07:33 AM, said:

Unfortunately with so people can not reason, you have the right, the format is useless siege according to you, now I ask some of you are designers of video games or something, if they are so experts do their game apart, in my opinion and insist the game is fine as is

I honestly don't understand what you've posted here. Could you try to explain that a little clearer_ I feel as though you're still missing the point but I'm not entirely sure

If I were to guess he is using some kind of translating software so I wonder how much of the original meaning of our post he is understanding before he even types up his response.

I interpret his post to mean that: Unfortunately so many player can not agree.  You have the right to your opinion that Siege mode format is useless, according to you.  If you are a game designer and an expert then make your own game.   In my opinion, I insist that the game is fine.

I think that is what he was trying to say.

@Beemann  You are entitled to your opinion but I've noticed you like to steam roll over someone's post and turn it into an e-peen contest.  Again, something I've noticed from reading a lot of your post.

[Dinre]

@Beemann and BurnsHot
Can we stop with the monologue vs. monologue posts_  It's starting to get out of hand and isn't constructive to the community.

[AsianJoyKiller]

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 04:24 PM, said:

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 10:16 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 06:27 AM, said:

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.

Because mine isn't a personal opinion. It's a fact

http://youtu.be/UOHlMP0JoEg

We've confirmed every patch that shooting down the ship at max health is possible. Raising the max health only really promotes ship-spam, and creates a large unnecessary gap between the start of the match and when things actually start happening. Siege is about grabbing the large EU stack while having your team defend your EU node if you're absolutely playing to win, and I can guarantee that in an equally matched game, on a balanced map, with enough chances, that you'll eventually take the AA. And the only way the other team can stop you is by resorting to the same strategy

This information is old.  The video was posted Nov 27, 2012

Open Beta Patch Notes as of Jan 24, 2013 state:Siege Mode Battleships now become more difficult to kill as the match progresses, which should prevent excessively long matches. {end patch notes}

Teams playing Hawken today do not sit on the AA allowing the enemy to snipe the ship.  The weaker teams usually gets pushed inside their base while the BS damages the base.

Do you understand how to read_

Because either you don't, or you're willfully ignoring the part were Beemann stated, "We've confirmed every patch that shooting down the ship at max health is possible."

And it doesn't matter if you get pushed inside your base, because you can shoot down the battleship from inside. This is a fact, not an opinion. It is something that we have tested.

Quote

Based off of outdated information and your comment "equally matched" should be taken loosely.
I stand behind my statement that the Strongest Team Wins!  Just because you have an opinion doesn't mean you are right.

Again, we tested it, and the information is not out of date.

And stop with this "Strongest Team Wins" nonsense.
Discuss what happens when the teams are evenly matched, because then you are actually discussing proper balance.

Quote

"High spwan wall and Low spawn team"  are you talking about which side has the High and low Ground_  If so_  I've won and lost playing them both.  It wasn't the terrain it was the weaker/stronger team.  This has been tested and proven EVERY match of Siege I play regardless of the map.

Just playing the game isn't a test and doesn't provide viable proof.
Public matches are public matches, and it's extremely rare that you'll get a perfectly balanced match, and even then you still have pub teams, and it's a gamble whether or not they will work together and communicate.

The matchmaker and autobalance are far from ideal and often create unbalanced teams. In order to properly test the maps balance, you need to have done what we did. That means finding 12 people and distributing them on 2 premade teams with as ideally matched skill as possible.

Quote

Again your answer is based off of old information.  Remember the  BS is harder to kill.  I'm in the trenches and i'm sharing my experiences.  That is all the proof I need.

Again, going "LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU" when Beemann's stated that we've tested this each patch they alter Siege doesn't make the information any less valid.

Quote

Sorry but again your answer is base off of old information.

"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU AND I'M IGNORING IMPORTANT INFORMATION JUST SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE WRONG AND CAN KEEP ASSERTING PROVEN FACTS ARE INVALID!"

Quote

The Term "even teams" should always be taken loosely.  I was addressing the OP's scenario of a stalemate brought about by two "even teams" and making the point that the stronger team will win.  Again where is the stalemate_  You don't try and answer that question.  You are too busy Trolling which is a pattern I am starting to see.

Then you are ignoring balance if you are taking "even teams" to mean "roughly equal".

What happens if the two teams are equal_
You seem to be very reluctant to address that. Probably because if you factor that in, all your assertions get blown out of the water.

And the stalemate happens because two EQUAL teams playing defensively can shoot each others battleships down INFINITELY (that means "forever"), without ever stepping on the AA.

[BurnsHot]

The e-peen meter grows bigger and bigger by the minute.

Each team can shoot the BS down.... Big deal....It only happened because the other team allowed it.  The exception not the rule.  The Devs are monitoring this and its an easy fix.  Far from being Broken.

@Asianjoykiller  you like to use a lot of what ifs.  What if you can pull two even teams out of a HAT_  Very Rare as one poster described.  But even if you could make two "even" teams magically appear. I don't see it as a Stalemate.  Players are not Robots.  They are human and humans make mistakes ALL the TIME!

Edited by BurnsHot, May 01 2013 - 05:03 PM.

[Beemann]

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

The e-peen meter grows bigger and bigger by the minute.

Each team can shoot the BS down.... Big deal....It only happened because the other team allowed it.  The exception not the rule.  The Devs are monitoring this and its an easy fix.  Far from being Broken.

@Asianjoykiller  you like to use a lot of what ifs.  What if you can pull two even teams out of a HAT_  Very Rare as one poster described.  But even if you could make two "even" teams magically appear. I don't see it as a Stalemate.  Players are not Robots.  They are human and humans make mistakes ALL the TIME!

Here's why you balance off of theoretically even teams
You're controlling for as many variables as possible
You want to control for one team having more players than the other, you want to control for players having highly fluctuating pings or computers that can't adequately run Hawken, and you want to control for skill

Lets use your method though, and lets imagine that one team is worse than the other
If they're on Bazaar, and get low spawn then they'll be evenly matched. This has been proven through testing
How is it fair that they get an advantage from the map and don't have to be as good as the high spawn team_

And shooting down the ship has nothing to do with the other team allowing it, unless you think you can do a concentrated attack on the base of an equally skilled team

It has nothing to do with epeen and everything to do with what has been proven through testing, and it's testing we've repeated consistently since then

Also several members of the dev team didn't believe it was still possible to do until we proved it was. It's far from an easy fix, and I invite you to prove your claim

Edited by Beemann, May 01 2013 - 05:17 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

The e-peen meter grows bigger and bigger by the minute.

Keep debating like a child. Random unfounded ad hominem attacks don't actually do anything to support your argument. They only serve to make you look silly.

Quote

Each team can shoot the BS down.... Big deal....It only happened because the other team allowed it.  The exception not the rule.  The Devs are monitoring this and its an easy fix.  Far from being Broken.

Except you can shoot the battleship down from inside your base whether the other team allows it or not.

Tell me, if the team sits inside their base and shoots the ship down, how do you stop them from doing that_

Quote

@Asianjoykiller  you like to use a lot of what ifs.  What if you can pull two even teams out of a HAT_  Very Rare as one poster described.  But even if you could make two "even" teams magically appear. I don't see it as a Stalemate.  Players are not Robots.  They are human and humans make mistakes ALL the TIME!

Except the "sit in base" strategy is extremely lenient and allows for the team using it to make plenty of mistakes without negatively affecting their performance.

When gathering EU, you travel as a team, so in order to counter you, the enemy has to use their whole team. If the enemy has less than a full team at an EU tree, that puts them at a disadvantage and they're likely to lose that tree. If they do have a full tree, you just take your team and go to the other without fighting. And attacking your team to stop you from gathering EU means the enemy would have to divert equal or superior forces, which diverts and slows their own EU collection process.

During the enemy battleship phase, you can make plenty of mistakes. It really only takes 2 or 3 people dedicated to shooting down the battleship to do a majority of the damage, and with 5 or 6 people shooting it, the ship goes down well before it reaches the base. Dying doesn't matter because you don't have to travel anywhere after you spawn.

During your battleship phase, it's not a big deal whether or not it gets shot down, especially in the rounds before your ship is at maximum health. In fact, the best strategy is to purposefully allow your pre-maxed battleships to be shot down as fast as possible. Either way, if your ship gets shot down, it's not a big deal. You just go back to gathering EU and shooting down ships from inside your base, processes that allow you to make dozens of mistakes without penalty.

You merely have to wait for an offensively minded team (one that tries to capture the AA during your battleship phase) to make a mistake and that's when their base starts taking damage, because they were reliant on the AA. Once a team is pushed off the AA, it's hard to regain it, and it's not guaranteed that a team can recapture it in a timely manner either.

Stalemates occur when both teams use the defensive strategy, because there's nothing you can do to stop the enemy from shooting down a max-health battleship from inside their own spawn. Mistakes don't matter, because there is no risk involved in the first place and the strategy has allows for a large margin of error.

The mistakes only matter if the teams are forced to fight each other and fight over territory/resources. That's the major problem with Siege as it stands. It's not forced, it's merely an option and the only reason you don't see it commonly in pub matches is because most people don't realize you don't have to fight.

[Leonhardt]

@Burnshot

Beemann and AJK are talking about siege in reference to a coordinated competitive team based gametype. In pub play you probably experience what you are saying, but Beemann and AJK are pointing out the exploits of the gametype now so that it can be fixed for competitive play. If competitive play has great depth of strategy and hopefully no real exploits then pub play will benefit or stay the same.

[Beemann]

Leonhardt, on May 01 2013 - 06:12 PM, said:

@Burnshot

Beemann and AJK are talking about siege in reference to a coordinated competitive team based gametype. In pub play you probably experience what you are saying, but Beemann and AJK are pointing out the exploits of the gametype now so that it can be fixed for competitive play. If competitive play has great depth of strategy and hopefully no real exploits then pub play will benefit or stay the same.

Honestly with the inevitable party system you wont need to be in a high-end competitive match to face an organized team. As I said before, Umbre and I, with limited/no team participation, can drag a match out for an extra 45 minutes. Poorly balanced match, we're on Bazaar high spawn, enemy team has all the map control

[Leonhardt]

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Honestly with the inevitable party system you wont need to be in a high-end competitive match to face an organized team. As I said before, Umbre and I, with limited/no team participation, can drag a match out for an extra 45 minutes. Poorly balanced match, we're on Bazaar high spawn, enemy team has all the map control

I always play lonewolf so I didn't know it was that easy. I just assumed you were talking about coordinated teams. My skim reading skillz need some work. lol

[AsianJoyKiller]

Leonhardt, on May 01 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Honestly with the inevitable party system you wont need to be in a high-end competitive match to face an organized team. As I said before, Umbre and I, with limited/no team participation, can drag a match out for an extra 45 minutes. Poorly balanced match, we're on Bazaar high spawn, enemy team has all the map control

I always play lonewolf so I didn't know it was that easy. I just assumed you were talking about coordinated teams. My skim reading skillz need some work. lol

Yeah. Currently, having even 2 or 3 people coordinating can drag out a pub match for an inordinate amount of time, in a manner that isn't actually fun.

[Leonhardt]

AsianJoyKiller, on May 01 2013 - 11:43 PM, said:

Leonhardt, on May 01 2013 - 07:20 PM, said:

Beemann, on May 01 2013 - 07:08 PM, said:

Honestly with the inevitable party system you wont need to be in a high-end competitive match to face an organized team. As I said before, Umbre and I, with limited/no team participation, can drag a match out for an extra 45 minutes. Poorly balanced match, we're on Bazaar high spawn, enemy team has all the map control

I always play lonewolf so I didn't know it was that easy. I just assumed you were talking about coordinated teams. My skim reading skillz need some work. lol

Yeah. Currently, having even 2 or 3 people coordinating can drag out a pub match for an inordinate amount of time, in a manner that isn't actually fun.

Hmmm... that could explain why I rarely see a siege game above 1900. I always wanted to try playing in a 2000> one. I did once, but it was a stalemate for a while. That may have had more to do with us messing around than anything else though. lol Nobody collected EU for a good 20 minutes.

[Dinre]

Actually, this may explain a bit about why I'm experiencing so many longer siege games.  My rating is unfortunately a bit too high, and I'm usually playing high MMR siege matches.  If I could get my rating to come down a bit, maybe I would have better siege matches, but right now, a lot of them just drag on forever.

And I'm not bragging about my MMR rating... it just seems to go up a little every game I play, so it seems more like an indication of how many matches I play and not how good I am.  That's a different thread...

[FussyBadger]

Dinre, on May 02 2013 - 05:57 AM, said:

Actually, this may explain a bit about why I'm experiencing so many longer siege games.  My rating is unfortunately a bit too high, and I'm usually playing high MMR siege matches.  If I could get my rating to come down a bit, maybe I would have better siege matches, but right now, a lot of them just drag on forever.

And I'm not bragging about my MMR rating... it just seems to go up a little every game I play, so it seems more like an indication of how many matches I play and not how good I am.  That's a different thread...

At lower ratings than where we are at, Siege games are a lot eaiser and thus not much more fun than the slow wars of attrition we currently play. I don't miss them and all the horrendous mistakes and lack of collaboration. Hoowee.

[Kmaleon73]

I read what answers Beemen and others, I believe that the general format of the game is suitable for exhigencias of many, it is a simple format and easy to play, where any novice or beginner can play and keep improving your game, with respcto the siege, I continue in my position is fine as is and does not need any changes.

Now as I said earlier, I explain well enough, if not it good play you develop another version of a game and that will suit your taste, as happened with Quake, but for me the different styles of play are well conceptualized and there many ways to play it.

[BurnsHot]

AsianJoyKiller, on May 01 2013 - 05:38 PM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 01 2013 - 05:02 PM, said:

The e-peen meter grows bigger and bigger by the minute.

Keep debating like a child. Random unfounded ad hominem attacks don't actually do anything to support your argument. They only serve to make you look silly.

@hypocrite: Random Attacks_  No, It was a direct response to your own "make you look silly" posts:

AsianJoyKiller, on May 01 2013 - 04:50 PM, said:

Quote

"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU"

Quote

"LA LA LA I CAN'T HEAR YOU AND I'M IGNORING IMPORTANT INFORMATION JUST SO I DON'T HAVE TO BE WRONG AND CAN KEEP ASSERTING PROVEN FACTS ARE INVALID!"

Your posts are completely over the top and not constructive = my e-peen is bigger(notice the ALL CAPS) than your e-peen.

Getting back to the conversation, I am in favor of establishing some kind of time limit to the match.  You guys (Asianjoykiller etc.) did a good job in identifying the exploit of a team sitting back and destroying the ship. Probably due to your efforts, the Devs have taken measures to correct it, so to "prevent excessively long matches".

I was only sharing that In my experience this has not occurred in "pub" matches.  I find that it takes concentrated fire from the whole team to bring the ship down before it does damage and usually the ship deals out damage before it is brought down, but if you can still exploit prolonged battles by long range Mech spamming the BS then I believe it is still an easy fix.

Realistically we are only talking about how to guarantee Base damage by the BS. How about not allowing Mechs to damage the ship at all or only the turrets.  Or make it so the damage is minimal and progressively increase Mech damage to BS as it comes closer to base.  It sounds like the Devs already did this maybe they just need to further reduce the damage taken from enemy team.  Honestly with the Dev's aware of this issue, I think they have a better handle on how to fix it then my suggestions.  So its really a mute point IMO.

@Beemann  I see now your point about forced fights at the EU vs the AA.  Putting aside my argument that it didn't matter if the objective was to fight at EU stations or the AA that the Better team will Dominate regardless, forcing fights at the EU should offer greater potential for different scenarios to play out due to the different locations.  As it stands, if the focus is strictly on the AA then only fierce battles occur at the AA which some have described unfair advantage given to the defending team.

I think the Devs have invested to much to go back to the drawing board.  There are plenty of players who enjoy the mode the way it is.  By all means lets tweak it to make it better.  Wouldn't removing mechs ability to destroy the BS force fighting at the AA instead of camping in base_  This should force the end without rewriting the game mode.