116 replies to this topic

[BurnsHot]

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

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.

I said Fine the way it is.  I didn't call it perfect.  I've said repeatedly that you are basing your response on old information.  Short of producing a new video with the current game build of your team camping in base and blowing up the ship then my experience from Playing Siege tells me that the Devs have fixed this issue.

I have read the various proposed changes to Siege by you and your Clan.  I think too many times a few individuals ask for a more complicated game that involves more strategy etc....  I think the masses like simple so that is what i mean when i said fine the way it is.  You guys have great ideas and i'm not against change.  If you play anything long enough you are sure to get bored and want something new or different but just because you got bored with it doesn't mean you scrape the old and in with the new.  No, you keep the old for the New players and you make something completely NEW for the Old players.

[Beemann]

BurnsHot, on May 19 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I said Fine the way it is.  I didn't call it perfect.  I've said repeatedly that you are basing your response on old information.  Short of producing a new video with the current game build of your team camping in base and blowing up the ship then my experience from Playing Siege tells me that the Devs have fixed this issue.

I have read the various proposed changes to Siege by you and your Clan.  I think too many times a few individuals ask for a more complicated game that involves more strategy etc....  I think the masses like simple so that is what i mean when i said fine the way it is.  You guys have great ideas and i'm not against change.  If you play anything long enough you are sure to get bored and want something new or different but just because you got bored with it doesn't mean you scrape the old and in with the new.  No, you keep the old for the New players and you make something completely NEW for the Old players.

1. We shouldn't have to produce a brand new video of Siege being tremendously broken every single patch, especially when nothing in the patch notes is going to solve the problem anyway. It's an easily testable strategy, and we are not the only ones who have tested it, and our clan is not the only one that is aware that Siege is broken.
2. We're not asking for an immensely complex gamemode. The most complex strategies often come out of simple gametypes because they allow a large amount of variance. Siege is overcomplicated right now for what it actually is, which is glorified King of the Hill, and the added complexity actually takes away from that objective overall
3. Can you name a few titles that have created explicitly separate versions of their main gamemode for newbies alone_ I really can't think of anything outside of tutorials.

Edited by Beemann, May 19 2013 - 10:40 AM.

[Dinre]

Beemann, on May 19 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

BurnsHot, on May 19 2013 - 10:33 AM, said:

I said Fine the way it is.  I didn't call it perfect.  I've said repeatedly that you are basing your response on old information.  Short of producing a new video with the current game build of your team camping in base and blowing up the ship then my experience from Playing Siege tells me that the Devs have fixed this issue.

I have read the various proposed changes to Siege by you and your Clan.  I think too many times a few individuals ask for a more complicated game that involves more strategy etc....  I think the masses like simple so that is what i mean when i said fine the way it is.  You guys have great ideas and i'm not against change.  If you play anything long enough you are sure to get bored and want something new or different but just because you got bored with it doesn't mean you scrape the old and in with the new.  No, you keep the old for the New players and you make something completely NEW for the Old players.

1. We shouldn't have to produce a brand new video of Siege being tremendously broken every single patch, especially when nothing in the patch notes is going to solve the problem anyway. It's an easily testable strategy, and we are not the only ones who have tested it, and our clan is not the only one that is aware that Siege is broken.
2. We're not asking for an immensely complex gamemode. The most complex strategies often come out of simple gametypes because they allow a large amount of variance. Siege is overcomplicated right now for what it actually is, which is glorified King of the Hill, and the added complexity actually takes away from that objective overall
3. Can you name a few titles that have created explicitly separate versions of their main gamemode for newbies alone_ I really can't think of anything outside of tutorials.

Actually, for item #3, some games have a barrier to entry that is required for higher level games.  For instance, in LoL, you have to own (and presumable be competent with) 16 characters before you can participate in the higher levels of ranked play that use Draft Mode.  The map is essentially the same, but the dynamics of the game are drastically changed when you and your team can't just pick an "ultimate" combo that you've practiced.

I'm not really wanting to get into the middle of the heated argument, but that last item on your list caught my eye.

[FussyBadger]

Dinre, on June 11 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I'm not really wanting to get into the middle of the heated argument, but that last item on your list caught my eye.

Oh, you're in the middle now. You're the meat in that sammich. Brace yourself!

Your example seems a bit opposite of what Beemann asks for in his question. The LoL example is a gamemode locked off for advanced players - newbies still have access to the standard (non-draft) mode, I assume.

[Chince_Bucket]

all I play is siege and I have more than 100 hours on it. I voted that the majority is between 25-45, and what it should be is 25-45.  I believe that that number isn't accurately interpreted because of the range of matches that happen.  Siege with 2 very good teams can go on forever but if you have the time they can be fun so I don't mind the long intense matches.  A lot of my games go the direction of fuzzy bunny lasting in a 5-10min match.  I really don't like any of your suggestions to change siege because the potential it has once their is a party system and we can actually group up with friends will make it better.  The only suggestion I could agree with and im not going to push it cause it really wouldn't change the game mode that much is the battleships once they get head to head should either one fly over the top or they shoot each other

[Dinre]

FussyBadger, on June 11 2013 - 10:06 AM, said:

Dinre, on June 11 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

I'm not really wanting to get into the middle of the heated argument, but that last item on your list caught my eye.

Oh, you're in the middle now. You're the meat in that sammich. Brace yourself!

Your example seems a bit opposite of what Beemann asks for in his question. The LoL example is a gamemode locked off for advanced players - newbies still have access to the standard (non-draft) mode, I assume.

Well, it's just an example of a game with two basic modes that explicitly separate the newbies from the experienced players.  None of the experienced players are willing to step into a non-ranked match with some newbie who just uses one of the overpowered characters all the time, and none of the newbies are able to play the ranked Draft Mode games.  I think that's a decent example of what BeeMan was asking for.

[M4st0d0n]

Siege is a mess. It's raining EU litterally. They could at least buff the ship progression speed or damage when you launch and control AA. It would avoid the hawkward moment when I go alone die in AA with an alpha strike just to see everyone are already shooting at the ship who isn't even mid map.

[FussyBadger]

Fair enough, Dinre. I don't know enough about LoL to get into the weeds with it at all, so your elaboration of how that works makes more sense.

[tease_it]

Chince_Bucket, on June 11 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Siege with 2 very good teams can go on forever but if you have the time they can be fun so I don't mind the long intense matches.

Some people might like this, but the problem here is that not ALL people have the time or patience to go through such a game, and would likely quit in the middle of a match and leave one team at a disadvantage in terms of team size, which doesn't help anyone.

As for your statement "Siege with 2 very good teams can go on forever", Beemann and AJK (hopefully I'm interpreting their arguments correctly) have explained that you don't really need good teams to drag on a Siege match forever.  For instance, there is nothing stopping one team from all choosing sharpshooters, hugging the walls of their base, and using powershot to dismantle any battleship that heads towards them.

The key point is that something like this may not happen very often, but shouldn't even be possible in the first place.

By "like this" I mean exploiting the mechanics of the game mode itself to drag out the match with the only intention of avoiding defeat at all costs, even if the match takes several hours to end.  In this case, that involves exploiting the fact that battleships can be damaged/destroyed at almost any time by the players themselves, and that battleships reaching the enemy base are absolutely necessary to end the match.

You can't control how people play a Siege match, but you can adjust the mechanics of the game mode to better encourage entertaining games and good cooperation in teams.

Chince_Bucket, on June 11 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

I really don't like any of your suggestions to change siege because the potential it has once their is a party system and we can actually group up with friends will make it better.

After the party system hits, there is also a potential that some people will use that system to gather their friends and troll in Siege games by doing stuff similar to the SS camping that I described above.  It's unlikely, and it does not speak well on their behalf, but if nothing is stopping them (or even discouraging them, if they don't mind drawn out matches) from doing it, then something in the mechanics of Siege mode needs to change.

Edited by tease_it, June 11 2013 - 11:55 AM.

[ecaflip]

I've had mixed feelings for most of my seige games.
It usually boils down to who gets their ship up first, secures the AA till it hits the base, and then proceed to base fuzzy bunny the opposing team. (10-25 mins)
OR
Both teams camp the AA all game barely getting the ships launched at all, and the game turns into team deathmatch with no timer (60+ mins)
OR (this seldom happens)
The game has properly appointed roles, 2 a class do scouting at the eu stations, intercept carriers, and carry back the stole eun.  2 c class mechs roll up to an unoccupied eu station and fill up, then by time the interceptors and carriers get back to launch their ship 2  random mechs of any class are carefuly guarding the AA and or fighting for its control.  (25-45 mins)

Honestly I don't know what to fix, but there needs to be a way to reward teamwork in this mode aside from "lol lets stand on AA all day and have 2 Cs do the eu work"

[RedVan]

Perhaps an impenetrable bubble protecting the AA while there is no BS in the air.  That would force people to fight for EU, rather than a couple from each team farming opposite trees.

Eliminating the ability of players to damage the BS would force AA play more, which in turn forces PVP rather than PVE.  This would also reduce game time.  I, for one, hate how long siege matches can be.  Especially when stuck on a bad team that is content to just shoot the enemy ship down from the base, but can never get a ship of their own past half way.  Winds up me being at AA telling them to get to AA, and them responding "but dis so much ezer!"  And also a billion times more boringer.  Billions. Of. Borings.

Perhaps eliminating EU trees altogether and just collecting EU from kills.  That would be the ultimate way to force PVP.  Perhaps create zones where the trees are that give double EU drops when someone is killed within the zone.  Hell, make the zones move, a small floating robot that moves around the map so that gameplay doesn't get stale in one or two particular areas of the map.  Hell, make this robot an item that must be deployed by a player, give it a timer, and a cooldown.  That way teams can strategize when and where to use it.  Double EU drops would apply to both teams within the bubble, so make sure your team is good and don't die!

So many things could and should be done to make siege better....

Until then, I'll stick with my 2 min of siege time/month.

[GambitX652]

being that siege is my favorite mode to play i have to agree with people when it comes to a match being drawn out because both teams are equally good and i like that i do think the aa should have something done to it not sure what but serving the same purpose in MA is kinda annoying just my opinion but i also think should be only 1 EU tree for both teams to fight over makeing it more of a challenge to get your EU and launch your battleship yes it would draw out the match some more but it would add more intensity to the match i have more but cant think atm see everyone in game

                                                                                                                                                     GambitX652

[Beemann]

Dinre, on June 11 2013 - 09:55 AM, said:

Actually, for item #3, some games have a barrier to entry that is required for higher level games.  For instance, in LoL, you have to own (and presumable be competent with) 16 characters before you can participate in the higher levels of ranked play that use Draft Mode.  The map is essentially the same, but the dynamics of the game are drastically changed when you and your team can't just pick an "ultimate" combo that you've practiced.

I'm not really wanting to get into the middle of the heated argument, but that last item on your list caught my eye.

That's not really designing a mode around low end though, that's just creating an added barrier for high end play. LoL and Dota still have a surprisingly high skill floor that newbies must overcome, and the only thing draft pick alters is the characters used. You still have to play the same game mode overall
It's not unusual to basically house-rule comp play. Ban lists, team sizes etc. are pretty commonplace. What isn't really a thing is having one entire game mode dedicated to newbies, while another is dedicated to hardcore competitive players. Generally you'll get different variations (via rules) on the same game modes

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Perhaps an impenetrable bubble protecting the AA while there is no BS in the air.  That would force people to fight for EU, rather than a couple from each team farming opposite trees.

That would fix people just camping the AA, not people each camping 1 EU tree... also what happens if your team doesn't leave the AA after a battleship is launched_

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Eliminating the ability of players to damage the BS would force AA play more, which in turn forces PVP rather than PVE.  This would also reduce game time.  I, for one, hate how long siege matches can be.  Especially when stuck on a bad team that is content to just shoot the enemy ship down from the base, but can never get a ship of their own past half way.  Winds up me being at AA telling them to get to AA, and them responding "but dis so much ezer!"  And also a billion times more boringer.  Billions. Of. Borings.

That just turns it into King of the Hill, which ought to be its own game mode if it needs to be implemented at all

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Perhaps eliminating EU trees altogether and just collecting EU from kills.  That would be the ultimate way to force PVP.  Perhaps create zones where the trees are that give double EU drops when someone is killed within the zone.  Hell, make the zones move, a small floating robot that moves around the map so that gameplay doesn't get stale in one or two particular areas of the map.  Hell, make this robot an item that must be deployed by a player, give it a timer, and a cooldown.  That way teams can strategize when and where to use it.  Double EU drops would apply to both teams within the bubble, so make sure your team is good and don't die!

Didn't you have that little post about all gamemodes just being TDM_ Isn't this a bit hypocritical_
On killing for EU: Why wouldn't just camp_
On mobile EU gathering: Why not our oft-proposed randomized activated EU trees_ It works a little better for classes that aren't necessarily all that deathmatch-y, and has fewer edge cases involved (do both parties need to be in_ What if one is_ Can I dash out of the circle if I'm low on health to fuzzy bunny them over_ Can I camp and block that area so they cant earn double EU_)

Edited by Beemann, June 12 2013 - 12:18 AM.

[Chince_Bucket]

tease_it, on June 11 2013 - 11:44 AM, said:

Chince_Bucket, on June 11 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

Siege with 2 very good teams can go on forever but if you have the time they can be fun so I don't mind the long intense matches.

Some people might like this, but the problem here is that not ALL people have the time or patience to go through such a game, and would likely quit in the middle of a match and leave one team at a disadvantage in terms of team size, which doesn't help anyone.

As for your statement "Siege with 2 very good teams can go on forever", Beemann and AJK (hopefully I'm interpreting their arguments correctly) have explained that you don't really need good teams to drag on a Siege match forever.  For instance, there is nothing stopping one team from all choosing sharpshooters, hugging the walls of their base, and using powershot to dismantle any battleship that heads towards them.

The key point is that something like this may not happen very often, but shouldn't even be possible in the first place.

By "like this" I mean exploiting the mechanics of the game mode itself to drag out the match with the only intention of avoiding defeat at all costs, even if the match takes several hours to end.  In this case, that involves exploiting the fact that battleships can be damaged/destroyed at almost any time by the players themselves, and that battleships reaching the enemy base are absolutely necessary to end the match.

You can't control how people play a Siege match, but you can adjust the mechanics of the game mode to better encourage entertaining games and good cooperation in teams.

Chince_Bucket, on June 11 2013 - 10:39 AM, said:

I really don't like any of your suggestions to change siege because the potential it has once their is a party system and we can actually group up with friends will make it better.

After the party system hits, there is also a potential that some people will use that system to gather their friends and troll in Siege games by doing stuff similar to the SS camping that I described above.  It's unlikely, and it does not speak well on their behalf, but if nothing is stopping them (or even discouraging them, if they don't mind drawn out matches) from doing it, then something in the mechanics of Siege mode needs to change.

yeah your right, the odds are low and have never happened to me but once their is a team system the odds will sky rocket and everyone will have a 25 ss in case of emergency.  the only idea I could come up with to prevent this would to take away some of the base defences so that it isn't a instant death when you walk in. Make it so that you still are getting shot at maybe only have 1 turret instead of whatever they have likwe 3 outside the base 3 inside(just guessing).  That's also a terrible idea cause then theres spawn camping.  maybe make it more bullets to shoot down the ship then it already does/speed up the plane

[7ucky]

Played a single siege match yesterday that felt just right - I joined late and can't remember exactly how long it went on (probably 25-35 minutes). Evol and Burns, you guys where there if I'm not mistaken! It was mostly balanced, one of those where both teams inflicted damage on the enemy base. In the end, we were down on the K:D front, but my teammates played well together and performed in clutch situations netting us the win.

I'm on the fence with Siege. I love it and at the same time it can be very frustrating. I can't think of what the mode needs to make it better, though.

[RedVan]

Beemann, on June 12 2013 - 12:17 AM, said:

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Perhaps an impenetrable bubble protecting the AA while there is no BS in the air.  That would force people to fight for EU, rather than a couple from each team farming opposite trees.

That would fix people just camping the AA, not people each camping 1 EU tree... also what happens if your team doesn't leave the AA after a battleship is launched_

DOT within AA bubble.  Get out or die

Yes, it would only fix a single issue with siege, but that's ok, it's going to take a lot of single ideas to fix siege.  Just a matter of finding which work well together.

Quote

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Eliminating the ability of players to damage the BS would force AA play more, which in turn forces PVP rather than PVE.  This would also reduce game time.  I, for one, hate how long siege matches can be.  Especially when stuck on a bad team that is content to just shoot the enemy ship down from the base, but can never get a ship of their own past half way.  Winds up me being at AA telling them to get to AA, and them responding "but dis so much ezer!"  And also a billion times more boringer.  Billions. Of. Borings.

That just turns it into King of the Hill, which ought to be its own game mode if it needs to be implemented at all

If king of the hill is what it takes to get PVP out of the game mode, then I'm all for it.  Because there's nothing more boring than sitting in my base shooting at the biggest, slowest target in the game.

As I said before, this is only a small portion of what is needed to fix siege.

Quote

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Perhaps eliminating EU trees altogether and just collecting EU from kills.  That would be the ultimate way to force PVP.  Perhaps create zones where the trees are that give double EU drops when someone is killed within the zone.  Hell, make the zones move, a small floating robot that moves around the map so that gameplay doesn't get stale in one or two particular areas of the map.  Hell, make this robot an item that must be deployed by a player, give it a timer, and a cooldown.  That way teams can strategize when and where to use it.  Double EU drops would apply to both teams within the bubble, so make sure your team is good and don't die!

Didn't you have that little post about all gamemodes just being TDM_ Isn't this a bit hypocritical_
On killing for EU: Why wouldn't just camp_
On mobile EU gathering: Why not our oft-proposed randomized activated EU trees_ It works a little better for classes that aren't necessarily all that deathmatch-y, and has fewer edge cases involved (do both parties need to be in_ What if one is_ Can I dash out of the circle if I'm low on health to fuzzy bunny them over_ Can I camp and block that area so they cant earn double EU_)

Nothing hypocritical at all.  This would just be TDM with EU collection and battleships.  People can argue that MA and Siege take some "higher" form of strategy, those people just have never played a good TDM team that knows how to control a map via strategy.  The nice thing about modes like MA and Siege is, the game tells you where to implement your strategy.  In TDM, the team needs to decide where to implement it.  There is more variables as combat is not centric around particular objectives.

And as I said before, if both teams are equally good strategically, it'll come down to who kills the most.  The team that kills the most will hold the objectives the longest.  If a team is good at killing, but cant use strategy for the life of them, then yes, they'll lose to a competent team that may not be so good at killing, but is using strategy.

Randomized activate EU trees is an idea.  This is just another idea.  The problem I have with simply randomizing trees between a couple set locations is as I mentioned above:  gameplay revolves around a couple set locations.  Nothing inherently wrong with that, I just find it more fun to let people chose where they want to pick a fight, and try to draw the enemy in.

To prevent camping:  Take away base turrets.  That way a team cannot sit near their base and use turrets to their advantage.  What would prevent camping the enemy base_  Well, that's a possibility, but do remember once you kill and collect EU, you need to transport back to your base, which gives the enemy time to get out.  Also, any kills they get, they're closer to home, so if they do push out of a camped in situation, they get an easier time turning EU in.

As for the deployable EU boost:
All kills drop EU.  The item would just give 2x EU for kills within the radius.  If the enemy gets low HP and gets out of the radius, they just played smart.  It would be rather stupid to stay in and die.  That means teams would need to come up with good strategies on where to use the item.  If the enemy drops a boost and your team kills them all off, then yes, they can camp that boost until it times out.

[Beemann]

RedVan, on June 13 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

DOT within AA bubble.  Get out or die

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_

RedVan, on June 13 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

Yes, it would only fix a single issue with siege, but that's ok, it's going to take a lot of single ideas to fix siege.  Just a matter of finding which work well together.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

If king of the hill is what it takes to get PVP out of the game mode, then I'm all for it.  Because there's nothing more boring than sitting in my base shooting at the biggest, slowest target in the game.

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

RedVan, on June 13 2013 - 01:37 PM, said:

As I said before, this is only a small portion of what is needed to fix siege.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Nothing hypocritical at all.  This would just be TDM with EU collection and battleships.  People can argue that MA and Siege take some "higher" form of strategy, those people just have never played a good TDM team that knows how to control a map via strategy.  The nice thing about modes like MA and Siege is, the game tells you where to implement your strategy.  In TDM, the team needs to decide where to implement it.  There is more variables as combat is not centric around particular objectives.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

And as I said before, if both teams are equally good strategically, it'll come down to who kills the most.  The team that kills the most will hold the objectives the longest.  If a team is good at killing, but cant use strategy for the life of them, then yes, they'll lose to a competent team that may not be so good at killing, but is using strategy.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

Randomized activate EU trees is an idea.  This is just another idea.  The problem I have with simply randomizing trees between a couple set locations is as I mentioned above:  gameplay revolves around a couple set locations.  Nothing inherently wrong with that, I just find it more fun to let people chose where they want to pick a fight, and try to draw the enemy in.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

To prevent camping:  Take away base turrets.  That way a team cannot sit near their base and use turrets to their advantage.  What would prevent camping the enemy base_  Well, that's a possibility, but do remember once you kill and collect EU, you need to transport back to your base, which gives the enemy time to get out.  Also, any kills they get, they're closer to home, so if they do push out of a camped in situation, they get an easier time turning EU in.

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

RedVan, on June 11 2013 - 05:16 PM, said:

As for the deployable EU boost:
All kills drop EU.  The item would just give 2x EU for kills within the radius.  If the enemy gets low HP and gets out of the radius, they just played smart.  It would be rather stupid to stay in and die.  That means teams would need to come up with good strategies on where to use the item.  If the enemy drops a boost and your team kills them all off, then yes, they can camp that boost until it times out.

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

[The_Silencer]

Yawn...

[Moderator03]

Keep posts constructive to the topic and inviting to other members, please.

[The_Silencer]

Ok,
SIege is broken then, according to Many of the most experienced and elitist members of the community who have shared the ways to exploit the mechanics of this game modein these forums many times.

For example, stating that you may destroy the opponent's battleship with your sniper mechs (amongst other ones) from your very base in the long distance.

Use the search function and check it yourself. I'm just reminding you all on these facts.

The truth hurts_ Then you probably have a problem and you're going the wrong way as well. I'm afraid..