92 replies to this topic

[CaliberMengsk]

Simple as the poll question. Also, if you don't mind, give a case and point.

For example, I personally think Siege mode would be the best as it provides a long game that requires tactics and in my experience takes around 45 minutes to an hour leaving for a lot of intense battles and things to watch and talk about by the spectators.

That's pretty much it! DISCUSS!

[kumiiyo]

i agree because siege mode is hella dynamic. but i still think it needs to be alot shorter

[NotKjell]

I'm really not sure. Siege mode is great, but with how long it can take a best-of-3 becomes so much harder... I guess next opportunity I should actually measure the amount of time it takes on average, particularly for a back-and-forth game. I seem to remember a stat that the average SC2 pro-level game lasted 16 real-life minutes which allows for a fairer bo3 format (not in-game time). Missile assault is much closer to that amount of time, but I feel it would be less interesting to watch/play.

For a stupid bad idea, you could always have a bastard bo3 format, 1 siege, 1 missile assault and 1 TDM.

[Tezkat]

Heh. Siege was actually a game mode they developed with eSports in mind. Objective based game modes are easier to spectate in general simply because there are well defined focal points for the action and conflict.

I don't know if 45 minute matches are really its main selling feature, though. And the fact that it stills take teams a while to close out a match despite being very far ahead drains a some of the tension. Furthermore, from a tournament organizer's perspective, running potentially hour long games even as a Bo3 (much less a Bo5 or Bo7) could prove quite problematic.

Edited by Tezkat, October 31 2012 - 01:26 PM.

[Lazoraz]

Seige mode almost feels like a moba, you have to be efficient with gathering, have to scout all the time, and positioning is more important than you may think. The games can be kind of long, but that's what makes for amazing games, when watching two very powerful teams go at it and be forced to pull out all the stops. Yea. Seige mode has GOT to be the main scene! There's so much strategy and skill to it than boring old deathmatch! Missle would be cool, but I don't think it should be the main event.

[Immie]

None of the above. Of all the available game modes, I'd say siege comes closest... but IMO, It doesn't really encourage the strong dueling elements in the game. It's much more about holding hands with as many allies as possible, and while team play is a good thing, I feel like in a competitive environment, it'd boil down to blobs of mechs trading blows for 40 minutes.



IMO, the best bet for a competitive mode would be a round-based mode with a simple objective and no respawning (Like Counterstrike's Disarm the Bomb), or good old fashioned Capture the Flag.

[IvanSidorenko]

I voted for Siege for exactly everything that you said Caliber and Tez!

[Beemann]

Siege to me has too many steps and variables. I think the game needs something that requires less explanation for comp play, particularly if we want the viewer-ship to be comprised of more than just Hawken fanatics
It's also kinda slow and not very fun to watch. Ring-around-the-rosie with energy beams combined with sitting in spawn shooting a large static target = snoozefest from a spectating standpoint. Even taking out the whole "sit in spawn and shoot to deny point scoring" thing, you've still got a single objective won by the whole team spamming and trading blows
Like Immie said, something round-based or classic CTF would be great

[kumiiyo]

i think i heard one of the devs say they were still playing with game length so i bet we'll see some changes before open beta

[NotKjell]

kumiiyo, on October 31 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

i think i heard one of the devs say they were still playing with game length so i bet we'll see some changes before open beta

That's good to hear. A faster-paced siege mode would probably be the nicest for E-sports.

So, any of you mods/devs that browse the forum have any updates or thoughts you'd like to share_

[Lazoraz]

Beemann, on October 31 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Siege to me has too many steps and variables. I think the game needs something that requires less explanation for comp play, particularly if we want the viewer-ship to be comprised of more than just Hawken fanatics
It's also kinda slow and not very fun to watch. Ring-around-the-rosie with energy beams combined with sitting in spawn shooting a large static target = snoozefest from a spectating standpoint. Even taking out the whole "sit in spawn and shoot to deny point scoring" thing, you've still got a single objective won by the whole team spamming and trading blows
Like Immie said, something round-based or classic CTF would be great

You guys might be right, it upsets me, but you might have a point. Even still, if they could keep this seige mode as it is for casual pubs I'd be happy. I really don't want to see this game mode go, or be drastically changed. As long as they don't make deathmatch the compedetive scene I'll be okay. But that's just me of course.

[Tezkat]

Beemann, on October 31 2012 - 01:51 PM, said:

Siege to me has too many steps and variables. I think the game needs something that requires less explanation for comp play, particularly if we want the viewer-ship to be comprised of more than just Hawken fanatics
It's also kinda slow and not very fun to watch. Ring-around-the-rosie with energy beams combined with sitting in spawn shooting a large static target = snoozefest from a spectating standpoint. Even taking out the whole "sit in spawn and shoot to deny point scoring" thing, you've still got a single objective won by the whole team spamming and trading blows
Like Immie said, something round-based or classic CTF would be great

Hmm... even in the very short space of the beta, we saw a metagame develop in Siege Mode where defenders began relinquishing the AA and falling back to shoot the battleship down themselves. Which necessarily transformed a standard point capture battle into an intense, all out assault into the heart of enemy territory to keep one's battleship alive.

Regardless, it's not necessarily a bad thing to have setup periods or other lulls in the action, since that gives casters the time to sit back and discuss strategies and tactics instead of frantically trying to follow the play by play of a massive clash. They can use that time to educate new viewers on the current metagame or even basic features of the maps or game modes. And just as importantly, it's an opportunity to introduce players and storylines that will allow viewers to connect to the competitors. Pretty much nothing special happens in the first few minutes of a typical StarCraft 2 or League of Legends pro match, for instance, and that doesn't detract from them being the biggest eSports around.

[NotKjell]

Good points all around. And I like that everyone seems to agree that the current version of siege mode take too long. Having a best of X format is generally important in having some level of consistency. Assuming best of 3 minimum, a 45 to hour long game becomes a bit...extreme. I know I could not reliably set aside a full 3-4 hours for a single game.

As far as other gametypes not currently implemented. They're possible, but I do like siege because it is unique to hawken, and also gives some important downtime for casters/watchers. Any normal sport has very defined downtime+many in-between breaks. In the two largest e-sports SC2 and LoL there are many lulls in the action (I'm not a fan of LoL so I can't really speak for it, but there are within SC2).

Some changes I would say for Siege though -

• bases have 2 hit points instead of 3. Leads to tenser games as well as insuring 1-sided beat downs don't have to drag on.
  
• Slightly buff battleship flight speed. Speeds up the game ever so much and forces faster action/response from players.
  
• Buff AA firing rate to match battleship slight speed increase.
  
• Have battleships level faster. By the 4th ship they should be flying death machines. For those not aware, everytime you launch a new battleship it gets stronger. More armor, and weapons go from machine gun turrets to rocket turrets to homing missiles.
  
• Slightly drop battleship EU required and/or increase EU gathered rate from trees.

[Beemann]

It's less about lulls and more about overall pacing. Even TDM is bound to have lulls at some point
The gamemode has a lot of back and forth, and I don't mean when it comes to teams and scoring. The gamemode is centred around running out, filling up, and running back... before running out again to a DIFFERENT spot to take THAT point, and then running back to the collection points
Furthermore, there isn't currently enough incentive to fight outside of AA pushes
Siege just feels slow, and requires too much explanation on top of whatever explanation is already present in Hawken, and (as pointed out in this thread) there's still many PLAYERS who don't have a good grasp of the mechanics.

[RedVan]

Siege would be the best, missile second, and I'm always one for good old fashioned TDM comp

[NotKjell]

Beemann, on October 31 2012 - 03:41 PM, said:

It's less about lulls and more about overall pacing. Even TDM is bound to have lulls at some point
The gamemode has a lot of back and forth, and I don't mean when it comes to teams and scoring. The gamemode is centred around running out, filling up, and running back... before running out again to a DIFFERENT spot to take THAT point, and then running back to the collection points
Furthermore, there isn't currently enough incentive to fight outside of AA pushes
Siege just feels slow, and requires too much explanation on top of whatever explanation is already present in Hawken, and (as pointed out in this thread) there's still many PLAYERS who don't have a good grasp of the mechanics.

I terms of the pacing of siege, yeah that is to slow. I'd like to see some things change, as overall game speed and pacing wouldn't be hard to adjust with things like 2 ship HP instead of 3.

However, for your feeling on the general game flow...I'm not sure. Yeah, it can happen where you run out to a point, get energy, return it and repeat without incident that wasn't what happened all the time. On sahara that seems to happen the most. But these are also pub game, where the metagame doesn't even exist. In a pro scene, I'm not sure you'll have to worry about lack of incentive to fight. In most of the games I played the best tactic always seemed to be attack where your enemy was and steal their energy. You get energy faster while denying the other team. Then when the battleship gets released the AA turned into holyshitfuck people are fighting.

As far as the difficulty on understanding the gametype it's kind of a problem, but at the same time there exists like NO explanation of it. You really can explain it as, "send the battleship into the other teams base" in the same manner you'll explain SC2 as "kill the other guys base" or soccer as "put the ball in the other team's goal". Obviously behind all of those there is more, but honestly are any videogame modes more complicated than football or soccer or hockey_

Overall I don't think ANY mode is optimal for an E-sport. Missile assault is the current best for logistical reasons, but I think siege has the most potential. Siege just needs some good map variety and gameplay adjustments.

[AsianJoyKiller]

The way I see Siege working in comp environment is something like this:
Both pick a tree to go to and travel out as a group, mostly likely with heavies as transport, a dedicated SS playing overwatch and probably something like an INF playing escort or possible harrasment. Now occasionally, there might be skirmishes over tree contention, but they'll most likely go for the path of least resistance, which means avoiding the enemy team as much as possible.

Now once the first battleship is launched (and based on the current mechanics), the smart play is for the other team to retreat back to base and take it down from relative safety rather than possibly losing a fight on the AA.

Repeat those first two phases until it's no longer viable to take down the battleship without AA.

It's only at that point that the game gets interesting and here's why I think that is.
It forces large fights beyond general harassment because you can no longer sit back.
If the defending team wins the AA, then the next fight there is even more intense, as it becomes required to hold the AA for longer as the battleships become stronger.
If they lose it, then during the next round of gathering, it allows the team in the lead to free up a mech or two for more focused raids on the enemy gatherers. This of course means more fights outside AA capture/defense.



Obviously, tactics could differ from what I predicted.
But I don't see people wanting to watch Hawken just to see people gathering resources (it is a FPS after all) and spend the first 20 minutes retreating back to base to blow the enemy battleship up.
And while having 1 AA point is great for action, it's not as interesting tactically as having 2 or more, because it's essentially a TDM focused on a single part of the map, and you just throw everything you've got at it.
I think to make the matches quicker and more intense, a few changes would need to be enacted.
First, more emphasis around EU tree skirmishes. Have the trees run out faster, put them closer together or something. That would also help make raiding more appealing.
Then I'd probably have it so only the first battleship can be downed without AA. I just don't think sitting back in bases should be viable at all.
I'd also like to see at least 2 AA points. Make it so teams have to properly allocate forces, calling for backup and the like.


Also, like Beemann said, it's not an easy mode to watch. Imagine if you've never played Siege mode before.
If you don't know the rules and there's no commentary to explain them, what you end up seeing is people going to the some poles that spit out green energy, retreating to base, then going out to gather again until some undefined event happens and everyone either retreats and starts shooting at the sky or rushes to suddenly fight to the death in the middle of the map.
Then the thing in the sky blows up and everyone is back to sitting around poles and running back and forth to bases.

45 minutes of that doesn't sound fun to me.

[Nitris]

Gotta say I think Siege is probably the best, and I loath to agree but it does indeed take slightly too long to make it a viable gamemode for competitive play.

Others have come up with great ideas for making it faster, more intense and more exciting to watch. I think I can add to the pile:

1. First and foremost: Longer respawn timers. "Whaaaat_!_" I hear you cry! Hear me out; This forces teams to work together and even put themselves in the line of fire for critically damaged allies. More importantly, this creates more 'momentum' for the winner of a fight. This will lead to the games being faster because there will be more of a chance to capitalise on killing foes- you can safely collect more EU, and safely return without escort to your base.

2. More than just two EU trees. Making it an odd number will force teams to fight over them or risk dropping behind, rather than just "Oh well they have one, and we have one. Looks like both battleships will launch roughly the same time." That would be boring to watch.

3. All EU trees having vastly lower max EU storage, and I think a slower regen of EU would also work. This makes EU far more valuable and therefore teams will make damn sure those teammates with large amounts of EU get back to the base in one piece. It will allow high risk, high reward -- and more importantly exciting -- sneak attacks on EU rich targets, and even sneaky attempts to soak up a bunch of EU on your own from a uncontested EU tree, and scurry back to your base without the enemy team catching on. Would work well with a higher number of EU trees.

4. As we know, when mechs are blown up, they drop all their EU on the ground. Even those without any in their tanks will drop a small amount based on their class. This EU that is dropped will slowly disapate over time. If this EU disapated at a much faster rate, it would be a scramble for both teams to soak it up, and again only make the stuff more valuable.

5. An idea I have been toying with, but I am still unsure about: The AA turret simply will not fire if it is contested at all. As it currently is, if a team has more units than the other in the ring, then the AA begins to launch a missle. Only when there are equal numbers of units from both teams in the ring does the AA stop. This will place much more importance on destroying or forcing off all enemies from the AA, and could lead to more intense fights. It also allows for a strategic kamikaze assault just to stall the missle for even a few seconds.

6. As we know on death, in Siege, mechs drop an EU stack. How about dropping one of those yellow heal orb things like in the other games modes as well as the EU thing_ Noone wants to sit and watch a mech scurry off to a corner and repair for lengthy periods. This allows for mechs to heal up faster (sitting on an orb AND going into repair mode) and therefore allows for more action.

I have more half baked ideas, but I will think more on them and maybe post them later.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Nitris, on October 31 2012 - 06:41 PM, said:

1. First and foremost: Longer respawn timers. "Whaaaat_!_" I hear you cry! Hear me out; This forces teams to work together and even put themselves in the line of fire for critically damaged allies. More importantly, this creates more 'momentum' for the winner of a fight. This will lead to the games being faster because there will be more of a chance to capitalise on killing foes- you can safely collect more EU, and safely return without escort to your base.

I think the current respawn timer is great as is.
When you factor in things like the loss of EU (and possible gain for the enemy) and the travel time involved to get back to the action it works out pretty well.
The time it takes to get from the bases to the AA is long enough that being one man down for that short amount of time can be devastating  especially on equally skilled teams.

On more than one occasion, I've seen losing one teammate at the AA end up snowballing into a team wipe, which ends up with them being shut out of the AA. But every now and then, people are able to hold on long enough for their teammates to get back and continue the fight.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, October 31 2012 - 07:10 PM.

[Nitris]

AsianJoyKiller, on October 31 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

I think the current respawn timer is great as is.
When you factor in things like the loss of EU (and possible gain for the enemy) and the travel time involved to get back to the action it works out pretty well.
The time it takes to get from the bases to the AA is long enough that being one man down for that short amount of time can be devastating  especially on equally skilled teams.

On more than one occasion, I've seen losing one teammate at the AA end up snowballing into a team wipe, which ends up with them being shut out of the AA. But every now and then, people are able to hold on long enough for their teammates to get back and continue the fight.

Hm, a good point, though that was basically the idea- we need a way to speed the gamemode up. Is making snowballing easier not a good way to do this_
I can understand that it could make fights predictable after the first death, but I mean its not always the end of the world for the team a man down- what if two of the other team, while not dead are so close to it that they have to flee and repair_