92 replies to this topic

[Lithium03]

If they can harass, why can't we do the same_

You're saying while turtling they have more then 1 gathering at a time_ The more mechs on a node the slower each fills up, a net gain of 0 over just having 1. They are also at a disadvantage gathering due to lack of cover, so either they stop or stay in a bad situation.

You wouldn't even need to take them all down, you have your mech at 100% by that time returning, any you can stop puts you ahead if only a little.

It's true they will have +1 on you, but I'm not suggesting trying to fully take both nodes, simply to make life hard on the other team, and take what you can in the time they went to dump EU before going back to make sure your gatherer can stay on your teams node.

With decent teams it shouldn't be a guarantee. Pub games like that basically people thinking "we have the AA they can't possibly shoot it down" mostly because it's not stated you can, and the game says to take the AA. If they were beefed up to require AA like that, holding the AA from them, because of equal skill, would take a while and not be held completely for long, it would be rarer for a ship to be shot down. At some point one team may not even try because there isn't the time and just wait until they can gather more energy to try again next round. Making it less easy or impossible to do so from the comfort of your base wouldn't be a bad change imo.

I was comparing strategies, mine of being offensive during gathering, to you being offensive holding AA, saying it's weird that you would try to hold both/prevent them from holding the other AA for too long, but not try to prevent the other team from gathering.

-snip- really, try explaining any game to someone who hasn't played it, you'd be surprised how much they ask if they've never played a game before. Much like you're doing atm.
Good question for CTF, "why do you want their flag_ What makes it so special it's worth killing each other over_ Does it grant magical powers_" at some point you'd just have to say "just because".
You'd watch because you saw something you like, which would probably be the combat, and over time they would become familiar with the game and learn more about it. I've seen lots of comment on SC2 videos or people who say they don't understand what's going on, or are very bad at playing but still enjoy watching the large engagements. Same here, the gameplay could be complex, but the combat is simple and enjoyable to watch, trying to figure out who will come out on top.

As is the base provides little defense, it's easy enough to just go in and kill them. if the base defense get buffed then in addition it should prevent being able to camp and shoot down the ship from there.

I'm not forcing fights, it's my strategy for the gathering phase, you don't have to fight, but I think it's preferable to just sitting there. And having more options for taking down the ship is always better. You could even start shooting the ship to bring the enemy up towards you and have one sneaky mech sent to the AA which would be unguarded/lightly guarded and cause some indecision in the enemy, it boils to what strategy you want to use.


-How would you change the gameplay to be more dynamic/rewarding_
-Any team in a game will at some point try just turtling, it's just what some people do. You don't want just a TDM over the AA but also want to remove the only other option to that TDM over the AA.
Because with the ability to shoot the ship, brings the ability to draw some mechs away from the AA to hunt them down. They couldn't turtle on the AA they would have to weigh the option of holding it VS hunting them down.

[Immie]

Lithium03, on November 01 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

-How would you change the gameplay to be more dynamic/rewarding_

Make it CTF

[noten]

That's what missile assault kinda is. Capture and maintain the silos until the enemy base dies.

[Immie]

Um... how is capturing/defending static, neutral objectives and waiting on a timer even remotely similar to stealing dynamic, enemy-owned objectives and moving them to your own base to score_

[noten]

Capture the flag is static. Are you refering to capture intel like in tf2_

[Beemann]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Capture the flag is static. Are you refering to capture intel like in tf2_

TF2's Intel capture IS capture the flag
Have you not played Tribes, Quake, UT, Halo etc. before_

[AsianJoyKiller]

I don't think I'm getting through to on why the turtling strategy is better, Lithium.

Lithium03, on November 01 2012 - 03:16 AM, said:

Good question for CTF, "why do you want their flag_ What makes it so special it's worth killing each other over_ Does it grant magical powers_" at some point you'd just have to say "just because".

... What_
If I face-palmed any harder my hand would go through my skull.

You're being completely ridiculous.
This isn't about finding some deep philosophical meaning.
It's about a simple explanation of the basic mechanics of how the gametype works.

In your CTF example, "just because" would be a ridiculous answer.
"Why do you want their flag_"
"Because capturing their flag gives you points. When you hit X amount of points, you win."
At that point, it's easy to see why some people will defend and some will go on offense.

With missile assault you get something like, "When you capture a silo, the enemy loses points at a set rate. Whichever team loses all their points first loses."
After that, a person should be able to realize that means holding 2 silos for longer than the enemy team does.

But with Siege, to get a understanding of the major mechanics, you've got something like this, "Teams need to collect energy from nodes and bring them back to their bases. This charges up their battleships. Whichever team gathers a set amount of energy first will launch their battleship. At that point teams cannot collect energy. The team who did not launch a battleship will need to destroy the enemy battleship before it reaches their base. Battleship also have weapons that they will shoot at the enemy team. They can do this either by shooting it down themselves, or capturing and AA silo. If the defending team doesn't shoot it down, then they lose a point. First team to lose 3 points loses the match. But if they do shoot it down, the energy gathering process starts over. Also, if a battleship is shot down, the next time that team launches a ship it will be tougher and have stronger weapons. Eventually only AA can shoot battleships down."

Sure, you could say something like "Teams gather energy to launch a ship. If a ship reaches the opposing base 3 times, that team loses."
But can you honestly say that sufficiently explains how Siege mode works_
Would a view unfamiliar with Hawken be able to understand what's going on at any given time_

Quote

You'd watch because you saw something you like, which would probably be the combat, and over time they would become familiar with the game and learn more about it. I've seen lots of comment on SC2 videos or people who say they don't understand what's going on, or are very bad at playing but still enjoy watching the large engagements. Same here, the gameplay could be complex, but the combat is simple and enjoyable to watch, trying to figure out who will come out on top.

If it was purely about combat and seeing who comes out on top, people would end up watch TDM matches.
Sure, people say "they don't understand what's going on" in SC2, but I bet you that they at least know that players need to build defenses and offensive units, gather resources and destroy the enemy base. There's also the fact SC2 is a strategy game and people expect a certain amount of complexity going on.
It's about watching an objective based gametype and being able to easily surmise what the objectives are, even if you don't have it explained to you.

@noten
Missile assault is about territory control.
CTF venturing into enemy territory to steal something and surviving to get it back to your base.

[noten]

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

TF2's Intel capture IS capture the flag
Have you not played Tribes, Quake, UT, Halo etc. before_

I'm more familiar with static flag capture like in dod.

[Beemann]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

TF2's Intel capture IS capture the flag
Have you not played Tribes, Quake, UT, Halo etc. before_

I'm more familiar with static flag capture like in dod.

That's Domination/Control/Whatever game x calls it, not CTF
That's EXACTLY the same as Missile Assault
DoD doesn't really have a standard CTF iirc

[Lazoraz]

Quote

CTF venturing into enemy territory to steal something and surviving to get it back to your base.

Think of it this way, if you didn't already, which if you didn't already what are you doing... : Flag= whatever item represents what the "lore" of the game needs. Flag is just the universal referrence we use to describe the gametype.. Or whatever. TF2 Intel_ Still CTF. This game_ I dunno, blueprints, Hawken Virus info, anything that fits the game.

[AsianJoyKiller]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 08:35 AM, said:

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

TF2's Intel capture IS capture the flag
Have you not played Tribes, Quake, UT, Halo etc. before_

I'm more familiar with static flag capture like in dod.

Are you serious bro_

[Beemann]

Lazoraz, on November 01 2012 - 08:38 AM, said:

Think of it this way, if you didn't already, which if you didn't already what are you doing... : Flag= whatever item represents what the "lore" of the game needs. Flag is just the universal referrence we use to describe the gametype.. Or whatever. TF2 Intel_ Still CTF. This game_ I dunno, blueprints, Hawken Virus info, anything that fits the game.

This
Maybe it's a big ol' energy cell or a really rare and big gun
Maybe it's intel like in TF2, though not as cartoony and maybe the containers they use are a little better at holding classified documents
etc. etc. etc.

[Lazoraz]

Quote

Maybe it's intel like in TF2, though not as cartoony and maybe the containers they use are a little better at holding classified documents

Let's give them the benefit of the doubt and say that the intel files forgot to mention how to close a briefcase.

[Coldrew]

Wow, dat a lot of Siege talk ITT.  In regards to the OP, I'd love to see 2v2 or 3v3 TDM, there's a lot of great potential with different mech pairings.  Will we see lots of ABC teams, AAB, or CCA_  How will each map vary those groups, I'd bet you'd see more B and C mechs on Andromeda because they're more open, and end up with more A mechs on alleys because you'd want to be quicker to get around fools and flank 'em.  I could be totally wrong though!

Similarly I think team make-up is a strong contributor to what makes Siege a good candidate as well, the moment to moment fights over objectives can wildy change the mech you pilot and the role you take.  Are you going to roll ABC class when you go make that start of round push, or send a C and B to mess with one node and roll CBAA or CBBA to gather from the other.  No way to know for sure now.
Given some time there's a good chance we'll see something similar to, what is it in SC2_ 9 pylon starts.  Do you roll hard Dfence with a 5/1 split, try to make a power-play off a 3/3 or try to run 2/4 and send one or two of the larger group around the enemies backside.  That's just the start of a match, there's a whole plethora of possibilities after that.

[Beemann]

Coldrew, on November 01 2012 - 10:13 AM, said:

Wow, dat a lot of Siege talk ITT.  In regards to the OP, I'd love to see 2v2 or 3v3 TDM, there's a lot of great potential with different mech pairings.  Will we see lots of ABC teams, AAB, or CCA_  How will each map vary those groups, I'd bet you'd see more B and C mechs on Andromeda because they're more open, and end up with more A mechs on alleys because you'd want to be quicker to get around fools and flank 'em.  I could be totally wrong though!

Similarly I think team make-up is a strong contributor to what makes Siege a good candidate as well, the moment to moment fights over objectives can wildy change the mech you pilot and the role you take.  Are you going to roll ABC class when you go make that start of round push, or send a C and B to mess with one node and roll CBAA or CBBA to gather from the other.  No way to know for sure now.
Given some time there's a good chance we'll see something similar to, what is it in SC2_ 9 pylon starts.  Do you roll hard Dfence with a 5/1 split, try to make a power-play off a 3/3 or try to run 2/4 and send one or two of the larger group around the enemies backside.  That's just the start of a match, there's a whole plethora of possibilities after that.

TDM is too decentralized, and it's difficult to tell who to follow unless everyone clumps up... which is kinda a boring way to play
Actually, on the subject of TDM, have you seen Firefall's TDM comp_ It;s pretty boring because there's no reason to play aggressively
Everyone is defensive and takes up 1% of the map, where they take potshots, chain heal and bodyblock for each other before making a very short push into enemy territory to try to assert a little bit more dominance
We don't want that kind of pacing to comp play... trust me

[RipperT]

For final siege competition play the map could be adjusted to sudden death with each team receiving only one battleship. The earlier rounds could have two instead of three ships. This, I believe, would answer the question of game length and intensity.

[Beemann]

RipperT, on November 01 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

For final siege competition play the map could be adjusted to sudden death with each team receiving only one battleship. The earlier rounds could have two instead of three ships. This, I believe, would answer the question of game length and intensity.

Edit: Misread
Doesn't change the overall pacing and intensity of the match though. You can still blast ships to bits from spawn and it's still slow going til that point

Edited by Beemann, November 01 2012 - 01:35 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

RipperT, on November 01 2012 - 01:26 PM, said:

For final siege competition play the map could be adjusted to sudden death with each team receiving only one battleship. The earlier rounds could have two instead of three ships. This, I believe, would answer the question of game length and intensity.

Do you really think casual players want matches that can last 40 minutes though_

[QuanZen]

This type of thing may call for an arena much like those on the Armored Core series. The only map that may come close is Sahara, and the closest game mode would probably be Siege.

[RipperT]

You can blast ships from spawn if your opponents are not pushing forward and blasting you while you are focused on shooting the ship down.

AJK, I do not see a single ship match lasting 40 minutes but then I also do not see casual players in a competition environment.