16 replies to this topic

[Silk_Sk]

Here's how it works. EU collection is unlimited and always activated, regardless of whether a ship is launched. The number of players collecting does not affect how fast it is gathered. Ships are launched as fast as the EU can be deposited (max 3 simultaneous ships per team). Ships will not prevent enemy ships from attacking tower, but will reduce damage done to it. More ships = more damage done to tower (but not enemy ships). When a team has 3 ships launched can they no longer deposit EU.

This solves one of the core problems of this game mode, the confusing goal switching. Often players are confused as to whether they should be taking AA or gathering EU. With this design, both are constant objectives that the team must divide their forces to accomplish, similar to how players in MA need to divide their forces between the silos.

This creates actual intuitive strategy as opposed to the confusing mess it currently is. A team that holds AA but launches no ship will lose eventually. A team that only launches ships without taking AA is in for a long, drawn out war that could easily swing the other way unless they both take AA and keep gathering energy.

This kind of game flow is what makes MA so great. You can try and hold 2 silos for a sure win, but the other team will be able to keep up enough for a comeback. You need all three silos to get a solid lead. This siege mode has the same dynamic. Ignoring AA and only gathering energy will get you a win as long as you prevent the enemy from gathering it as well, but they can easily make a comeback by only launching a few ships while holding AA.

Anyone else get the feeling this is exactly how it should work_

EDIT: Some examples. Here's how the dynamics would look as I see it, and how they compare to Missile Assault.

If team 1 is always launching ships at the fastest possible rate and letting team 2 keep AA then:

Team 2: 0 ships = Long loss. Equivalent of holding one silo.
Team 2: 1 ship = Very slow push. Equivalent of holding 2 silos.
Team 2: 2 ships = Fast push. Equivalent of holding 2 silos and neutralizing the third.
Team 2: 3 ships = Equivalent of holding all three silos

Edited by Silk_Sk, August 08 2014 - 09:23 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

No. No. No. No. No. Because then we have people who will, no matter what, continue to run off and gather EU when they should be helping to push the AA.

And as far as I can tell, this goal switching is only confusing for brand new players. Everyone else I've ever seen who has had a few matches to get used to Siege understands the goal switching, even if they still are useless players who sit back and never try to take it.

[Silk_Sk]

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

No. No. No. No. No. Because then we have people who will, no matter what, continue to run off and gather EU when they should be helping to push the AA.

Maybe you didn't read it. This would actually be a valid tactic. Launching ships without taking AA works as long as you launch them faster than the AA can take them out.

[AsianJoyKiller]

 Silk_Sk, on August 08 2014 - 09:20 AM, said:

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 09:05 AM, said:

No. No. No. No. No. Because then we have people who will, no matter what, continue to run off and gather EU when they should be helping to push the AA.

Maybe you didn't read it. This would actually be a valid tactic. Launching ships without taking AA works as long as you launch them faster than the AA can take them out.

So why take the AA at all in the first place_ Why wouldn't it be a better tactic to just completely ignoring it and try to get high-health ships as soon as possible_

As soon as your ship blows up, launch another. The enemy ship will have a hard time getting to your base, and if you shoot it manually a bit it probably won't do any damage. Meanwhile, the enemy team who's held the AA starts to fall behind because now you are several tiers of ship-health ahead.

Not to mention you're assuming that amount of strategy in a pub game... which isn't going to happen most of the time.

That's the main issue I have. I want you to show me why this won't end with pub games being a mess of everybody running around doing their own things, whether or not they're helping the team. Even if they're determined never to step on the AA, people are at least forced to somewhat helped by focusing all attention in one place. They're forced to at least take pot-shots at the same targets the rest of the team is facing.

[Silk_Sk]

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

So why take the AA at all in the first place_ Why wouldn't it be a better tactic to just completely ignoring it and try to get high-health ships as soon as possible_

That's like asking why bother taking all 3 silos when you can win with 2. A team that only launches ships will win eventually but the rate at which they do damage will be small enough for the team with AA to make a comeback.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

As soon as your ship blows up, launch another. The enemy ship will have a hard time getting to your base, and if you shoot it manually a bit it probably won't do any damage. Meanwhile, the enemy team who's held the AA starts to fall behind because now you are several tiers of ship-health ahead.

You're assuming any mechanics I didn't mention remain the same. Obviously they wouldn't. The health of ships and the EU required to launch them would likely be constant.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 09:32 AM, said:

Not to mention you're assuming that amount of strategy in a pub game... which isn't going to happen most of the time.

That's the main issue I have. I want you to show me why this won't end with pub games being a mess of everybody running around doing their own things, whether or not they're helping the team. Even if they're determined never to step on the AA, people are at least forced to somewhat helped by focusing all attention in one place. They're forced to at least take pot-shots at the same targets the rest of the team is facing.

How is this is different from a MA pub match_ People running every which-way going towards whatever silo strike their fancy. This siege mode would simply make players to decide for themselves whether they should be defending or attacking, just like in MA. Either one is valid in most cases, and they have the freedom to switch between them at any time, unlike the current mode.

Edited by Silk_Sk, August 08 2014 - 09:55 AM.

[EliteShooter]

nope

[caduceus26]

How does that "fix" the problem of players in the game who haven't taken the time to learn the objectives_ Siege players should learn how to play Siege.

[Silk_Sk]

 caduceus26, on August 08 2014 - 01:10 PM, said:

How does that "fix" the problem of players in the game who haven't taken the time to learn the objectives_ Siege players should learn how to play Siege.

Don't get me wrong, it would still be obtuse as hell for beginners to figure out what's going on. But their ignorance wouldn't be as harmful and it's easier to be helpful. Take AA or gather energy, either task is a valid option at all times.

In case it wasn't clear, this siege design completely does away with the current terrible method of switching between gathering energy and capturing AA. Now, the AA and EU stations are both activated and active from start to finish. It should have been this way from the beginning.

Edited by Silk_Sk, August 08 2014 - 01:39 PM.

[EM1O]

hasn't something similar been suggested already_ i actually looked at the thread date to see if it was a necro....
Oh! And
  No.

[Silk_Sk]

I haven't yet seen a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't work.

[AsianJoyKiller]

 Silk_Sk, on August 08 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I haven't yet seen a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't work.

You haven't provided a convincing argument as to why it would.

[Barbie_in_a_Mech]

 Silk_Sk, on August 08 2014 - 08:54 AM, said:

With this design, both are constant objectives that the team must divide their forces to accomplish, similar to how players in MA need to divide their forces between the silos.

Please don't overestimate the intelligence of the human race.  I still see a lot of people who don't even understand that moving as one lumbering turtle is a bad idea in MA.  Those are not complete newbies, and even if they were, it wouldn't be an excuse.

Quote

This creates actual intuitive strategy as opposed to the confusing mess it currently is. A team that holds AA but launches no ship will lose eventually. A team that only launches ships without taking AA is in for a long, drawn out war that could easily swing the other way unless they both take AA and keep gathering energy.

Now I think this has potential to be better than the current siege.

One thing I hate about siege is that when one team is dominating the other, they just launch their ship, gather up at the AA, and repel their enemies with complete ease and comfort.  That's boring.

This mode could encourage the teams to spread out.  As a decent player, you would probably want to fight for the AA and hope that the brainless goons don't get lost or distracted away too often from their complicated duty of going back and forth from A to B.

But it's highly probable that they would.  So as the competent player, you would go clean up some enemy goons to help your goons, and then return to the AA...  but by that time, the enemy decent players could have taken control of the AA, so now you'd have to fight a more difficult (and fun) fight.

This scenario sounds much better to me than what currently happens in most siege games.  More fun and more dynamic.

I apologize for any goon's feelings that I may have hurt.

Edited by Barbie_in_a_Mech, August 09 2014 - 07:21 AM.

[Silk_Sk]

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

 Silk_Sk, on August 08 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I haven't yet seen a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't work.

You haven't provided a convincing argument as to why it would.

I've explained as best I can. I can't help but feel there's something you're not understanding or you're just disagreeing for disagreement's sake. Barbie seems to have understood and seen the merits, though.

[EM1O]

i like it just like it is. it has annoyances (read: PIA Maps that aren't really for Siege), true.
Vanguard underneath, Incin+Tech on top.
AA mini-deathball. SS/Reaper somewhere (junkpile_) for anyone jacking with the EU carriers.
Win.
Works for me.

[AsianJoyKiller]

 Silk_Sk, on August 09 2014 - 09:56 AM, said:

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 08 2014 - 07:49 PM, said:

 Silk_Sk, on August 08 2014 - 05:54 PM, said:

I haven't yet seen a convincing argument as to why this wouldn't work.

You haven't provided a convincing argument as to why it would.

I've explained as best I can. I can't help but feel there's something you're not understanding or you're just disagreeing for disagreement's sake. Barbie seems to have understood and seen the merits, though.

Here's the thing, you're essentially saying "I think my idea will work because I believe it will work."

You've done nothing to convince me that general pubs are smart or coordinated enough to make it work.
Why should I believe that they can successfully split the team without one or more parts of that split failing horribly_

If 2 people go carting EU, while 3 attack the AA against a full team, then the 3 are going to get massacred, or at least never be able to touch it at best. And if that goes on the whole time, they've lost the match, because two people are just working on getting more ships shot down.

You tried to equate it to capping silos in MA, but that's not quite right. Because working on launching a ship while the enemy holds the AA is like throwing yourself at a silo held by at least 2 people more than you bring to the fight. It's not the same as capping a silo by yourself.
Pubs in MA always have one main goal, which is capturing silos. No matter what, they work towards that same goal.

But that brings up a point an example of why having 2 separate goals is so problematic. Look at how many pub MA teams just play "rotate the silos". As soon as they get two, they go for the 3rd, abandon the others and get back capped. They should defend what they have, but unless it's constantly under attack, they don't stay there. This is not an uncommon mindset in the least.

It's that sort of extremely common behavior I see in the 1600-1800 MMR range that I see which makes me extremely skeptical that having split goals in Siege would help. It encourages the "do your own thing" behavior whether or not that sort of behavior is actually helpful at the moment or not.

You're asking me to believe if the average run-in-alone, boost-straight-into-battle pubby is smart enough to understand the nuances of when it's okay to keep gathering and when it's better to take the AA, all happening most likely without communication.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy it.

[Barbie_in_a_Mech]

I think it would be ok for people to just brainlessly gather EU and only have a few fight for AA, but it depends on numbers.
Maybe it's different for Silk_Sk, but the way I imagine it is the AA would be about as effective as 75%-150% of one ship, a number set to make the AA meaningful without making too big of a difference.  Each ship would also be weaker than the one we have now.

I imagine there would be constant fighting for EU with 3-4 players on each side constantly going back and forth and the AA would be an important bonus that is just useless if not backed up by a sufficient EU supply.

People wouldn't have to understand anything subtle because there would be no grand strategy.  Just pick your own job and try to do it well.  Fight for EU or fight for the AA.  (Hopefully most would prefer to run the EU.)

5 team members defending the AA should be inefficient because if they don't have any ship, the enemy ships would have enough time to deal damage, especially with a lot of runners being able to keep at least two ships in the air.

[Silk_Sk]

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

Here's the thing, you're essentially saying "I think my idea will work because I believe it will work."

I believe lots of things work, but they don't work just because I believe they do. I've explained why this would work as best I can.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

You've done nothing to convince me that general pubs are smart or coordinated enough to make it work.
Why should I believe that they can successfully split the team without one or more parts of that split failing horribly_

You shouldn't believe that. But people being stupid in the current siege is much more harmful to a team's chances of winning than in the design I've laid out. This way the odds of them accidentally doing something right go way up. People tend to have more fun when they're not being yelled at or feeling like they need to yell to get things done. I've been on some pretty stupid teams in MA but I don't get broken up about it. That's what siege should be like.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

If 2 people go carting EU, while 3 attack the AA against a full team, then the 3 are going to get massacred, or at least never be able to touch it at best. And if that goes on the whole time, they've lost the match, because two people are just working on getting more ships shot down.

But the full team at AA won't be launching very many ships so their tower would still be taking more damage.  If the enemy has AA on lockdown, then those other three guys can easily switch to gathering energy and launching more ships faster than they can be shot down. Whether they are smart enough to do this is just a matter of experience, just like any other game mode. Again, many of the mechanics of the game will have to change. The amount of energy required to launch, how close they get to the tower, how much damage they do and take, and even when they start shooting (probably as soon as they launch).

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

You tried to equate it to capping silos in MA, but that's not quite right. Because working on launching a ship while the enemy holds the AA is like throwing yourself at a silo held by at least 2 people more than you bring to the fight. It's not the same as capping a silo by yourself.
Pubs in MA always have one main goal, which is capturing silos. No matter what, they work towards that same goal.

Again, ships can be launched faster than AA can shoot them down. All of this can be adjusted and balanced. The main goal is to launch ships. AA is a bonus goal, not the main goal like it is now. But neither team will ignore AA either. The team that commits more resources to AA won't necessarily win, unlike now.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

But that brings up a point an example of why having 2 separate goals is so problematic. Look at how many pub MA teams just play "rotate the silos". As soon as they get two, they go for the 3rd, abandon the others and get back capped. They should defend what they have, but unless it's constantly under attack, they don't stay there. This is not an uncommon mindset in the least.

It's that sort of extremely common behavior I see in the 1600-1800 MMR range that I see which makes me extremely skeptical that having split goals in Siege would help. It encourages the "do your own thing" behavior whether or not that sort of behavior is actually helpful at the moment or not.

The ability to do that and not be a huge handicap to your team (in pub matches) is what makes MA great. Siege should be like that too.

 AsianJoyKiller, on August 09 2014 - 11:25 AM, said:

You're asking me to believe if the average run-in-alone, boost-straight-into-battle pubby is smart enough to understand the nuances of when it's okay to keep gathering and when it's better to take the AA, all happening most likely without communication.

I'm sorry. I just don't buy it.

Are you saying siege should magically make them smarter_ I'm not trying to solve their stupidity. I'm trying to minimize the damage it does to their team.

 Barbie_in_a_Mech, on August 09 2014 - 05:50 PM, said:

I think it would be ok for people to just brainlessly gather EU and only have a few fight for AA, but it depends on numbers.
Maybe it's different for Silk_Sk, but the way I imagine it is the AA would be about as effective as 75%-150% of one ship, a number set to make the AA meaningful without making too big of a difference.  Each ship would also be weaker than the one we have now.

I imagine there would be constant fighting for EU with 3-4 players on each side constantly going back and forth and the AA would be an important bonus that is just useless if not backed up by a sufficient EU supply.

People wouldn't have to understand anything subtle because there would be no grand strategy.  Just pick your own job and try to do it well.  Fight for EU or fight for the AA.  (Hopefully most would prefer to run the EU.)

5 team members defending the AA should be inefficient because if they don't have any ship, the enemy ships would have enough time to deal damage, especially with a lot of runners being able to keep at least two ships in the air.

You've pretty much got it.

Edited by Silk_Sk, August 10 2014 - 06:50 AM.