116 replies to this topic

[FussyBadger]

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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.

That change would address the stalemate concern, though it'd exacerbate other issues. Siege matches would go faster, due to only one route to victory, but it'd be even more challenging to change momentum. It'd be pure "King of the Hill" with a stationary, often easy to defend, hill.

If Siege is going to be a dressed up KotH, changing the point of control throughout the match in order to control the AA - i.e. moving the "hill" - would help. Use the silos from missile assault and shift which one is capable of firing. I'm sure there have been tons of suggestions out there, though.

[Beemann]

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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

TIL allcaps = epeen

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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".

A time limit doesn't help when you can destroy the enemy ship indefinitely and keep the score at 3000/3000

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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.

No, you were denying that it could happen based on your experience in pub matches, and stating that Siege being broken as a result of nobody ever having to lose is/was an opinion

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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.

If the Battleship can't be taken down at all without the AA, we just have an overly convoluted King of the Hill
And again, we're arguing that Siege in its current state is broken. You're now attempting to shift the goalposts in a way that isn't even sensible
It's in no way a moot (not mute btw) point

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

@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.

The AA itself gives an unfair advantage, as does having a consistent objective. A mobile objective (which I've suggested already) that forces fights around EU (see the last bracketed bit) works far better than the current iteration of Siege

BurnsHot, on May 02 2013 - 07:09 AM, said:

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.

They've been purely experimenting with Siege. Testing out different match times and the like. The problem is that there's a fundamental flaw with it
They already had to lock Siege off from new players, and they understand that there are flaws with the gamemode that occur when people aren't dead-set on playing it exactly the way they planned. I think they want more out of Siege than they're getting, and it becomes absolutely necessary to change it if that's the case

@ the second bit
Causes the gamemode to be an overly convoluted King of the Hill, and like you said, forcing conflict to be centered around the AA removes a lot of variety in terms of strategy. It also gives the team that has the AA after the initial push what basically amounts to a free pass

[lionhearth4]

regards

According to understand what developers want to give the game time limit you to realize type siege and other modifications, I disagree with that because this type of battles are designed to work as a team so far, this is because orders must be set for a winning strategy, not many times but it is still fun and interesting games of this type.

[Kinzuko]

as a dota player i think they could go on longer :V like 35-60 minutes

[BurnsHot]

@Beeman: I said some kind of Time Limit and used the example of not allowing the enemy to destroy the ship until its practically on top of the base thus ensuring damage leading to the end of the match.

Just because you don't like the rules or you want to make up your own rules, you call it broken. Lots of players accept the rules and have fun.

Ok, so you identified one exploit. Teams can shoot down the ship. Maybe too easy to do_ The Devs have already taken steps to prevent prolonged battles.  If they have to make it more difficult to do then how hard can that be_  Problem solved.  Why do you keep talking about this_

If you think a Maps gives advantage then you play more than one round and the team swap sides (Comp play). Pub matches_  Well I've never complained and I've won and lost on both sides of the map.  Most of us are Happy with all the Time and Effort they put into building these maps so hardly my place to complain not to mention that the game is Free to Play.

[FussyBadger]

BurnsHot - for what it's worth, the devs themselves have admitted that map balance is an issue. They've also agreed that Siege needs work. Check out this week's episode of the Cockpit for some of that: http://www.twitch.tv...ckpit/c/2231484

Beyond that, offering (ideally constructive) criticism is an essential role for participants in the beta process. It's absolutely our place to raise concerns in the hope that the game improves, grows a larger audience, and makes more money.

[Beemann]

BurnsHot, on May 03 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

@Beeman: I said some kind of Time Limit and used the example of not allowing the enemy to destroy the ship until its practically on top of the base thus ensuring damage leading to the end of the match.

Except those aren't fixes
Time limits dont change the fact that you can choose not to take any damage
Not being able to destroy the ship until it reaches your base = might as well not be able to destroy it at all. It turns Siege into an overly convoluted king of the hill
Just because you suggest fixes, doesn't mean they work

BurnsHot, on May 03 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Just because you don't like the rules or you want to make up your own rules, you call it broken. Lots of players accept the rules and have fun.

Just because you like the way Siege is played in pubs, doesn't mean it's not broken. It being broken has nothing to do with opinion and everything to do with how immensely exploitable the gamemode is. Just because some players choose not to exploit those portions of the game, doesn't mean the game isn't ultimately broken

BurnsHot, on May 03 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

Ok, so you identified one exploit. Teams can shoot down the ship. Maybe too easy to do_ The Devs have already taken steps to prevent prolonged battles.  If they have to make it more difficult to do then how hard can that be_  Problem solved.  Why do you keep talking about this_

The devs have been unsuccessful... or have you not been paying attention_
And making it harder to destroy to the point where you cant shoot down the later ships = the mode is now all about ship spam, and the turtling team still wins

BurnsHot, on May 03 2013 - 08:59 AM, said:

If you think a Maps gives advantage then you play more than one round and the team swap sides (Comp play). Pub matches_  Well I've never complained and I've won and lost on both sides of the map.  Most of us are Happy with all the Time and Effort they put into building these maps so hardly my place to complain not to mention that the game is Free to Play.

That doesn't fix the fact that the map is ultimately broken in a way that it never has and never will need to be
As far as your ability to recognize imbalances in gameplay and exploits in gamemodes... well.. it's ultimately irrelevant. These things have been tested and proven. Your personal preferences have no bearing on the results, and as my statements were about things that have been proven, your responses concerning your opinion don't really have any weight, or relevance to the discussion

[BurnsHot]

Siege is fine the way it is.. A lot of players like it and are having fun.  Just because you don't think so doesn't mean its broken.

[FussyBadger]

BurnsHot, on May 04 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Siege is fine the way it is.. A lot of players like it and are having fun.  Just because you don't think so doesn't mean its broken.

It's not just Beemann's opinion. Scroll up to my last post for a link to a recent Dev discussion clearly saying it needs work.

Fun and balance are separate concepts. Lots of people have fun exploiting an overpowered mech, for example. I usually enjoy Siege and I'm happy to admit it needs work.

Edited by FussyBadger, May 04 2013 - 07:36 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

BurnsHot, on May 04 2013 - 07:27 AM, said:

Siege is fine the way it is.. A lot of players like it and are having fun.  Just because you don't think so doesn't mean its broken.

Whether or not people like Siege has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with broken, exploitable mechanics.
Just because people don't often exploit it in public matches has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with whether or not it's broken.
Popularity has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING with whether or not something is properly balanced.

Siege having broken mechanics is an Objective Truth, meaning it is a fact that remains regardless of personal feelings or biases.
Just like 1+1=2 is not an opinion, being able to infinitely shoot down battleships from inside the base resulting in a stalemate is not an opinion. This is something that can, and has, be done.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, May 04 2013 - 08:24 AM.

[Dinre]

Unfortunately, nothing is ever "fine as it is" when you're in a competitive industry.  You have to constantly evolve or your customers move onto the next product.  It's a fact of business that has taken down huge companies.  Remember when Packard Bell was king of home PCs_  Or when Microsoft was the only tech company people talked about_

If Hawken is going to stay relevant, it has to continually improve.  There are too many competitors in the free-to-play world right now, including MWO, WoT, LoL, and PS2.  If one of those comes out with a crazy killer feature, Hawken could lose a huge chunk of active players for a while and be unable to recapture the players without doing something new.  It's a dog-eat-dog world in the F2P space right now, and Adhesive/Meteor cannot afford to relax or stagnate.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Dinre, on May 05 2013 - 03:31 PM, said:

Unfortunately, nothing is ever "fine as it is" when you're in a competitive industry.  You have to constantly evolve or your customers move onto the next product.  It's a fact of business that has taken down huge companies.  Remember when Packard Bell was king of home PCs_  Or when Microsoft was the only tech company people talked about_

If Hawken is going to stay relevant, it has to continually improve.  There are too many competitors in the free-to-play world right now, including MWO, WoT, LoL, and PS2.  If one of those comes out with a crazy killer feature, Hawken could lose a huge chunk of active players for a while and be unable to recapture the players without doing something new.  It's a dog-eat-dog world in the F2P space right now, and Adhesive/Meteor cannot afford to relax or stagnate.

Not to mention deliver a gamemode that people have found ways to exploit in such extreme ways. That's essentially like presenting a defective product knowing it's defective. Simply unacceptable.

[FussyBadger]

AsianJoyKiller, on May 07 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Not to mention deliver a gamemode that people have found ways to exploit in such extreme ways. That's essentially like presenting a defective product knowing it's defective. Simply unacceptable.

That brings us into the cyclical argument of, "Of course it's not perfect - it's Beta!" And so on down that spiral.

Though it should be noted that I agree. It seem to make more sense to pull the mode and work on it rather than leave something that's knowingly broken in. Then again, there are clearly huge fans of the mode who deny any issues exist and would throw fits if it disappeared.

Edited by FussyBadger, May 07 2013 - 05:16 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

FussyBadger, on May 07 2013 - 05:09 AM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on May 07 2013 - 04:29 AM, said:

Not to mention deliver a gamemode that people have found ways to exploit in such extreme ways. That's essentially like presenting a defective product knowing it's defective. Simply unacceptable.

That brings us into the cyclical argument of, "Of course it's not perfect - it's Beta!" And so on down that spiral.

I'm okay with it being beta, and I can accept that, but we're arguing with a person who believes that it is perfect as is.

[FussyBadger]

AsianJoyKiller, on May 07 2013 - 05:30 AM, said:

I'm okay with it being beta, and I can accept that, but we're arguing with a person who believes that it is perfect as is.

I'm about as optimistic on the chances of converting BurnsHot as I am about changing the political views of folks on the extreme ends of the spectrum. There's a suspension of reality at play because it doesn't fit the worldview/story the individual tells themselves.

[Leonhardt]

People are notorious short term thinkers. Thats why most people are bad long term investors lol they have no vision!

[Dinre]

Leonhardt, on May 07 2013 - 06:10 AM, said:

People are notorious short term thinkers. Thats why most people are bad long term investors lol they have no vision!

Ha!  We're all bad long-term investors... it's just that some of us guess better.  =p

I work in a job where I have to fight this problem nearly every day: people don't know what they want until they experience it.  We all have good guesses about what we want, but our guesses always turn out to be internally inconsistent.  The only good way to find out what we want is to keep experimenting and see which experiments work, which ones fail, and why.  In the case of a "living" product, like an SOP (or an online multiplayer game), the experimentation has to be continuous, because the market for the product will continue to evolve.

I guess what I'm saying is that the folks who are arguing against changing Siege mode aren't wrong.  In some ways Siege mode is working fine.  On the other hand, though, Siege mode, along with all the other game modes, will have to evolve over time in order to stay relevant.  Without being able to do some actual experimentation with the game, the only thing we as players can do to help is to continue to debate the benefits and deficiencies of potential changes.  As with any debate, we need both sides of the conversation.

[thegoodnamesgone]

Personally the siege boot-up sequence for the mech's need to be in all game modes

[Beemann]

thegoodnamesgone, on May 11 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

Personally the siege boot-up sequence for the mech's need to be in all game modes

You mean the incredibly unnecessary sequence that happens to people midway through the match just because they joined then, preventing them from assisting their team right from the get-go_
The sequence that lasts you until the EU points but deprives you of your UI and lets you stare awkwardly at other mechs for the remainder of the duration because you cant shoot each other_
Yeah, no thanks

[Dinre]

Beemann, on May 11 2013 - 10:20 AM, said:

thegoodnamesgone, on May 11 2013 - 04:17 AM, said:

Personally the siege boot-up sequence for the mech's need to be in all game modes

You mean the incredibly unnecessary sequence that happens to people midway through the match just because they joined then, preventing them from assisting their team right from the get-go_
The sequence that lasts you until the EU points but deprives you of your UI and lets you stare awkwardly at other mechs for the remainder of the duration because you cant shoot each other_
Yeah, no thanks

I would be okay if the startup sequence was in all game-modes, but I would prefer if it was a little shorter and you couldn't move until it completed.  In MWO, there are no respawns (so slightly different situation), but the startup sequence is your pilot engaging your 'Mech's engine and weapons systems.  No one can move until the animation is over.

For Hawken, the time for the animation could simply be subtracted from your respawn time to produce the same effect.  It would make more sense to see the bootup sequence every time you launched a mech.