92 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

RipperT, on November 01 2012 - 01:43 PM, said:

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.

1. That still doesn't address the poor pacing up until that point
2. You're going to stop people who are constantly respawning and spamming shots at a slow target_ That seems unlikely even before you bring item spam into it
3. I'm pretty sure Asian was referring to the standard match time of the non-comp version of the gamemode

[RipperT]

The best siege games I was in were not poorly paced. They generally had two team member collecting, one or two on guard and the rest harassing the other team trying to collect energy.

Am I missing something here_ Although these games were a bit long they were constantly intense in nature.

[Keyser Soze]

NotKjell, on October 31 2012 - 05:52 PM, said:

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.

I think maybe shortening the amount of energy it takes to launch the BS would be the best way to pace seige for e-sport. I like the 3 strikes your out with HQ damage. It gives the other team atleast a chance to regroup after a hit and make a run at it. And for those that want the normal length of siege could just select it when the session starts. Pretty ez fix and not alot of difference coding wise to make the change.

Edited by Keyser Soze, November 01 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[Beemann]

RipperT, on November 01 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

The best siege games I was in were not poorly paced. They generally had two team member collecting, one or two on guard and the rest harassing the other team trying to collect energy.

Am I missing something here_ Although these games were a bit long they were constantly intense in nature.

1, You were playing, not watching
2. You were not top tier players playing for a large sum of money

It's like comparing your pub Quake Live matches to ESL finals

[RipperT]

I have to admit, I've never played competition matches or even watched them.

[Beemann]

Here's a quake live duel with commentary by Rapha

The match starts at about 3:55
Quake uses DM, but combats the lack of centralization with powerups and limited resources. It's easy to follow comp matches due to the low player count (1v1) and the small map sizes and powerups/weapon drops make for a lot of forced encounters

Note how in the video his strategy is not to directly fight the enemy, but rather to outmanoeuvre and make sure he has the advantage before he fights. Siege runs into this issue, but doesn't have the same dilemma
In siege, the enemy does not gain more power through EU collection. In fact, faster EU collection is meaningless without AA control, and AA control is trivialized (at least at the match start) by the ability to shoot down the ship with normal weapons

[noten]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Are you serious bro_

As serious as I can be. Pray tell where are you going with this_

[AsianJoyKiller]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 08:36 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 08:39 AM, said:

Are you serious bro_

As serious as I can be. Pray tell where are you going with this_

As others have already pointed out, you referred to a gametype that is definitely not CTF.

[Roundlay]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

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

Why not_ Dota 2 matches, for example, regularly last just as long and attract thousands of viewers.

[Beemann]

Roundlay, on November 01 2012 - 09:43 PM, said:

Why not_ Dota 2 matches, for example, regularly last just as long and attract thousands of viewers.

Do they attract anyone outside of fairly dedicated Dota2 players_

[noten]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

As others have already pointed out, you referred to a gametype that is definitely not CTF.

So it was a mistake. I think you can figure that out yourself no_

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Do they attract anyone outside of fairly dedicated Dota2 players_

That is anyone's guess, doesn't change the fact that dota2 is steam's most played game however http://store.steampowered.com/stats/

I assume the majority of hawken viewers should there be e-sports will mostly comprise of hawken players as well no matter the game mode.

[Roundlay]

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Do they attract anyone outside of fairly dedicated Dota2 players_

Almost certainly. I think it's safe to assume that any sufficiently large population will be composed of multiple interest groups; relaxed, unconcerned players are no doubt represented here.

[AsianJoyKiller]

noten, on November 01 2012 - 09:55 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 08:39 PM, said:

As others have already pointed out, you referred to a gametype that is definitely not CTF.

So it was a mistake. I think you can figure that out yourself no_

Quite the mistake...

Roundlay, on November 01 2012 - 10:02 PM, said:

Beemann, on November 01 2012 - 09:51 PM, said:

Do they attract anyone outside of fairly dedicated Dota2 players_

Almost certainly. I think it's safe to assume that any sufficiently large population will be composed of multiple interest groups; relaxed, unconcerned players are no doubt represented here.

Considering the genre, the majority of the viewerbase for Dota2 is going to be fairly different than the people who watch Hawken.

On that note games like Dota2, LoL and SC2 are all very different in how they work in comparison to Hawken, or other fast paced shooters.
It's one thing to have a 45 minute strategy game and quite another when it's a action game.

[Roundlay]

AsianJoyKiller, on November 01 2012 - 10:11 PM, said:

Considering the genre, the majority of the viewerbase for Dota2 is going to be fairly different than the people who watch Hawken. On that note games like Dota2, LoL and SC2 are all very different in how they work in comparison to Hawken, or other fast paced shooters.
It's one thing to have a 45 minute strategy game and quite another when it's a action game.

I would argue that there is insufficient data on the makeup of each player base, no less viewer base, to make assumptions like this.

Adhesive are in the position of having to design a game that appeals to a large and diverse audience (ROI), whilst remaining interesting to players that decide to approach the content competitively (have identified the game as a potential eSport). If Adhesive are placing the emphasis on eSports related functionality that I think they are, a lot of the disconnects that come with watching a fast paced first person shooter can be overcome, and make for a more broadly appealing experience for spectators.

[NotKjell]

45 minute games pose a lot of logistical issues too. Yes they CAN work, but the issue isn't that. It's about would it be better for them to be 20 or 40 minute games.I personally think 20 minute or less games would be best. Easier to schedule, simpler to commit to (remember you need to get 12 players to commit time from busy real-life schedules) and also much easier to watch.

On the topic of DOTA only being watched by DOTA players, etc. I used to not follow or really be aware of the e-sports community. I realized it existed to an extent, and played BF2142/CoD4 competitively (did actually rather well within 2142, team never took to CoD4 much, then disbanded). From then on I only saw occasional things on youtube, stuff on gaming news sites or fighting game stuff my friend would show me. So what turned me onto SC2, and thus onto E-Sports_ Mothrfucking When cheese fails.



I'd never even played SC2 at that point. Sc1 singleplayer yes, but I was so bad that I know the idea to build more workers than the 4 you started with never occurred to me. I know all I ever did was build 1 of each building in the tech tree then make BC's. And turn on cheats so I could. It wasn't 45 minute long epic games that made me a fan - I'd seen those before, but who sticks around to watch almost any 45 minute long youtube video_ Especially on a game you haven't played. fuzzy bunny that, I'm lazy. But a stupid, 10-minute long series on a game I never even played got me hooked. Exact same thing for 2 friends of mine - the one who linked me When Cheese Fails and the one I passed it on to.

So, 45 minute games can work, but I definitely feel shorter, more intense ~20 minutes games would be far far more accessible. We've already got free -to-play in our corner, shorter more interesting games would be great too. I've tried watching both LoL and Dota many times. I get bored of watching people turtle and avoid engagements, even when I know what's going on. Then I go watch fighting games or SC2 or paint dry or something.

[Roundlay]

NotKjell, on November 01 2012 - 10:51 PM, said:

So, 45 minute games can work, but I definitely feel shorter, more intense ~20 minutes games would be far far more accessible.

All good points. Short squirts of content are always going to attract more views, but say little to the viability of longer form content.

Anyway, do Siege matches really last 40 minutes_ I played a lot of Siege Mode and don't think I ran into many matches that lasted this long.

[NotKjell]

Some of mine certainly felt that long, though I have no way of showing. Could someone who streamed/recorded an entire match post some links to get a feel for exact time_ Or just anyone who has some confirmed game lengths_

[Roundlay]

NotKjell, on November 01 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Some of mine certainly felt that long, though I have no way of showing. Could someone who streamed/recorded an entire match post some links to get a feel for exact time_ Or just anyone who has some confirmed game lengths_

I captured a few matches whilst streaming, most of which lasted around 20 minutes: http://www.twitch.tv...ndlay/c/1720735.

Here's another example I uploaded to YouTube. From start to finish the match lasted around 17 minutes.

Edited by Roundlay, November 01 2012 - 11:34 PM.

[NotKjell]

Hm, that's actually not bad. The most one-sided siege possible lasted 16:10 minutes. Times from your video -


2:20 first battleship launched. Enemy has returned no EU at this point.
5:15 first battleship lands.
6:35 second battleship launched. Enemy needs ~500 more to launch their first.
9:30 second battleship lands.
13:15 third battleship launched. Enemy finally launches their first.
16:10 you win.

That's about as fast as possible. All 3 ships landed, and at least for the first 2 ships your team had pretty much full control of both EU points. It also shows that each ship takes 3 minutes from launch to hit. So assuming the first ship gets gunned down, because in the current version it's so fragile that makes 4 ships to win - or 12 minutes in just ships. Assuming a minor back-and-forth game where a team can hold the AA for 1 ship that makes 5 ships launched - 15 minutes. 2 minutes of gathering energy each (this I do not know how long it will take. I think more than 2 though) makes 25 minute bare-minimum game time for a minor back and forth game. 30 if it averages out to 3 min per launch.

Thinking about this more and having these timing, I'm not sure what to think. The minimum time it would take to roll someone over is quite long, but the hard-capped time limit isn't much longer than that. This is all hypothetical BS which I hate, but I feel like I would prefer a game where you could get very shot ~10 games, an average of 20 but with the possibility of epic back-and-forth matches going longer than that.

[Tezkat]

NotKjell, on November 01 2012 - 11:13 PM, said:

Some of mine certainly felt that long, though I have no way of showing. Could someone who streamed/recorded an entire match post some links to get a feel for exact time_ Or just anyone who has some confirmed game lengths_

30-60 minutes was normal for me.

Here's a fairly typical siege mode match on Sahara. I joined about 10 minutes into the match; it ended at 45:42.

A rather long match on Titan clocked in at 53:01, and that wasn't even my longest match of this beta (which I remember being over an hour--it was unfortunately after I'd turned off my stream but decided to try "just one more before bed" ).

For the full noob experience, my first two games of the closed beta on Friday afternoon were also siege mode on Sahara--45:05 and 32:44 minutes respectively. I don't think any of us really knew what we were doing back then, however, so I'm not sure those count.

The only sub 25 minute matches I've seen were curbstomps where one side completely dominated the other.