68 replies to this topic

[Etan]

When i played them earlier and our group got split to both teams its took a good 45 minutes and i saw potential for long battles it just requires alot of teamwork on the AA. I perfer it the way it was in CB2 but right now its short if people arent good. And i completely agree that it is too short for some teams to REACH there potential to win. Getting energy is way to fast the first stage is send 4 people to node deposit energy and fight for AA. It might as well be timed ship launchs at this point. Disrupting your  enemies energy flow is worthless now because you can just get your ship up before theirs if they send people at you. Maybe put nodes back the way they were and make killing people make the ship require more energy to make killing people significant enough to be worth it.

[z121231211]

I feel like I'm the only person who liked the 30-40 minute matches. Siege was your 40 minute objective-based game mode, and Missile Assault was your 20 minute objective-based game mode. What was wrong with this_

Though length isn't the problem, Beemann has it right. Where's my "This EU point is dry, let's try the other one, oh no the enemy took it all we gotta shoot em' down for the EU" moments_

[Sythorian]

z121231211, on November 21 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I feel like I'm the only person who liked the 30-40 minute matches. Siege was your 40 minute objective-based game mode, and Missile Assault was your 20 minute objective-based game mode. What was wrong with this_

Though length isn't the problem, Beemann has it right. Where's my "This EU point is dry, let's try the other one, oh no the enemy took it all we gotta shoot em' down for the EU" moments_

+1

I too prefer the 40 minute matches over the current short arse ones.

[MK501]

There's something to say for both versions, however, I don't like the energy gathering system in the current version. It's a bit too simplistic.
I don't really mind the base only having 2 points, then again, combined with the current energy trees, the match can be over quite fast.

[Raxaphan]

Maybe I can't see things in a correct way, but I don't feel anything tactical about siege now.
Teamwork: all go together to the EU because it'll never run dry and then all run AA and stay there.
I loved the 'protect the mech that's refilling tanks with EU' or 'disrupt their EU gathering' or 'ambush them near their base' or 'A and C go to the AA and assault will ambush them and the SS will snipe them'.

What do I need to do about this siege now_ Play rocketeer_

Edited by Raxaphan, November 21 2012 - 07:02 AM.

[defekt]

The only change I disagree with is the infinite energy tree supply.  Having plucked all of the available fruit from your tree you were then faced with a choice: wait for more fruit to blossom or go and start a fight at the other tree, and pinch their fruit.  This added a nice dynamic to the mode and, IMO, contributed almost nothing to the length of the game.  I don't understand why it was removed.

Perhaps in future there will be more than one kind of Siege, Short and Long games.  Short would be as it is now and long would be more like as it was in CB2 (with the additional tweak of making the battleships much harder to shoot down with mechs alone).

While we're on the subject, the game mode makes no sense; the concept is fine but the implementation of it is illogical IMO.  Why, in a world starved of resources remember, are we fuelling massive battleships for the sole purpose of ramming them into the opponent's freaky spine-base thingy_  It's bizarre.

[bac9]

z121231211, on November 21 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I feel like I'm the only person who liked the 30-40 minute matches. Siege was your 40 minute objective-based game mode, and Missile Assault was your 20 minute objective-based game mode. What was wrong with this_

Though length isn't the problem, Beemann has it right. Where's my "This EU point is dry, let's try the other one, oh no the enemy took it all we gotta shoot em' down for the EU" moments_

This is spot on, the simplification of EU trees killed the strategic aspect of the mode, and long matches were absolutely awesome.

[Sythorian]

bac9, on November 21 2012 - 08:23 AM, said:

z121231211, on November 21 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I feel like I'm the only person who liked the 30-40 minute matches. Siege was your 40 minute objective-based game mode, and Missile Assault was your 20 minute objective-based game mode. What was wrong with this_

Though length isn't the problem, Beemann has it right. Where's my "This EU point is dry, let's try the other one, oh no the enemy took it all we gotta shoot em' down for the EU" moments_

This is spot on, the simplification of EU trees killed the strategic aspect of the mode, and long matches were absolutely awesome.

I don´t really see the point in shortening the game mode. If people want a fast paced game mode, there´s missile assault.

[D3thpool]

can add that i prefered the "old" 3 pips over the current 2
games end to quickly and seldom have a change to turn around.

[Dreizehn]

I feel Siege games have been going way too fast cause the players are such complete fuzzy bunny. Too many new players on one side, not reading instructions or checking out the tuts and not listening to people.

My faith in the playerbase is rather dwindled when people can't even figure out what to do in Missile Assault.

[D3thpool]

Also have to feeling that especially siege mode has turned into tdm even more then before.

on a sidenote, i would suggest that every player should play a training mission first before jumping blindsided into siege/missile

[JonnyO2]

Now that I've had a chance to play the new style, I agree that it seems too easy to get energy now, but I also have to say that 2 points on the base is fine with me - the length of the matches last night seemed just right (to reiterate, I got into some hour+ matches in cb2 and thought it was way too long.)

Would it be possible to have 3 point bases for high-level players and 2-point bases for noob (like me) matches and let the matchmaking sort it out_

[Aelieth]

Sythorian, on November 21 2012 - 03:41 AM, said:

z121231211, on November 21 2012 - 03:37 AM, said:

I feel like I'm the only person who liked the 30-40 minute matches. Siege was your 40 minute objective-based game mode, and Missile Assault was your 20 minute objective-based game mode. What was wrong with this_

Though length isn't the problem, Beemann has it right. Where's my "This EU point is dry, let's try the other one, oh no the enemy took it all we gotta shoot em' down for the EU" moments_

+1

I too prefer the 40 minute matches over the current short arse ones.

Agreed, I enjoyed my long games - put it together with the insanity servers that hosted 16 on 16 and it was beautiful. The action never seemed to stop and that made it worthwhile. Energy collection could be done through points or by picking people off. Took a lot of teamwork to finally push the ship over the edge to the other side. I was down for sitting there and hour in my mech enjoying the atmosphere and the chaos.

[Beemann]

D3thpool, on November 21 2012 - 10:01 AM, said:

Also have to feeling that especially siege mode has turned into tdm even more then before.

Wat
If that's the case then people are just dicking around
There's no point in fighting until you get to a solid AA fight
It actually hurts your team to try to kill enemies beforehand

[Manoloco]

its a problem more to do with knowing players that are on the winning team fighting to rank 1st.

Since the teambalance is off, when a team is almost assured to win top position players try to take the first position by playing like TDM, happened often while i was playing and i even had to tell one guy to go ahead and take the #1 spot but help the team (we needed ppl in the AA because both battleships were launched iirc), i laughed hard because even though that he was trying to have the most kills i ended taking 1st place at the last second, but by playing team. even though that happened, more often is the case that people take 1st place by not helping and just killing, leave that for pure DM, TDM Missile and Siege needs something to balance teams.

i think shuffling players by level in both teams would work (you know not all 20 lvl players on one side and lvl 0 on the other)


the teambalance is responsible for all this playstyles we are seeing now, it needs serious tweaking.

[OddaC]

Personally, I liked Siege better before these 'modifications.' If you ask me, the length problems could've been easily solved with selectable time limits.

Honestly, these changes don't even begin to make sense to me.

[DDwarrior]

I can understand the new 2 point system however what they did to the EU trees just doesn't strike me as a good idea in any sense of the word.

[c0mad0r]

After playing ~10 games of the "new" seigemode I can honestly say that there are 2 major flaws:

-EU Tree needs a cap again
-No one will seriously attend AA's so long as they can easily shoot down the battleship themselves. AA wins should decide the game more than they currently do (i.e. Buff Battleships more).

The above 2 points can be seen by the changing play styles of players whereby:

- There is more interest in continued EU collection and standing around until AA is over (or shooting @ Battleship from DE point)
- There is less interest in attending AA's since it can be pretty much decided by a good group shooting at the Battleship from home turf

[bacon_avenger]

Lithium03, on November 21 2012 - 01:06 AM, said:

bacon_avenger, on November 21 2012 - 01:00 AM, said:

I don't recall seeing anyone in the forums complaining about the length, or potential length, of the siege matches, so why fix something that really wasn't broke to begin with_

You weren't reading the forums then.

Oh, it's quite possible that I missed more than a few posts.  As I said, I don't recall seeing them.  That doesn't mean they didn't exist.

Regardless, I don't think these changes were for the best, and it kind of ruined the game mode for many.

Edited by bacon_avenger, November 21 2012 - 03:23 PM.

[Pap]

in CBE2 i played 3 long matches
- 61 minutes
- 59 minutes
- 70 minutes
i LOVED THEM ALL
if you want to play shorter game, go for missile or not a MASSIVE siege (i only got those long games on massive madness with 32 players)

Now siege is just broken, unfunny, uninteresting and borring. tha game can end so quickly i can't even scratch my balls.
For me the biggest problem was being ablt to shoot down the ship with the whole team. they should buff up the ship from mech fire so it wouldnt take so much damage from normal mechs firing at it (only the AA should do real damage and mechs should only be able to kill it when it has almost no life left.

autobalancing is a pain in the back, cause there is no autobalancing and matchmakin sux even harder than the siege mode. teams are EVEN MORE unbalannced than in CBE2.

collecting energy is now a joke. it was a strategy in CBE now it's just "GO THERE AND STAND ALL IN ONE PLACE". meteor should make the tutorials more accurate and explain all energy collection niuances (like when  more than 1 mech collects energy it is slower) and not dumb down the game.