68 replies to this topic

[Russhole]

I agree with the OP, the new Seige game mode is completely inferior compared to CB2. I played three days straight, with 80% of it going to Seige. I can't really see myself doing that if this new mode gets released. It just isn't compelling, it's lost depth, it's lost competitiveness.

In my opinion, the CB2 Seige mode only really needed a couple changes.

1) A surrender vote option for a team.

2) Faster ramping up of Ship HP.

Much like league of legends, the games were long, fairly evenly matched, and in some cases you could see the writing on the wall for one team, but it could still take time to finally kill them off. I'd love to see the CB2 Seige come back in its old form, with nothing but a surrender vote added.

The new energy gathering, as has been mentioned, kills a huge amount of depth. If the slowdown of multiple gatherers was too newbie-unfriendly, make it so only the first person on the pad gets energy, and extra mechs get nothing. Giving all this consequence-free energy away means there's no point hunting down gatherers and there's no point spreading out from your secured energy pad. It makes the game way too straightforward.


Seige in CB3 is way, way too fast, and I miss the depth and back and forth long matches. I'll play Missile maps if I want a faster match.

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.

Like me, he was probably too busy playing the awesome, awesome CB2 seige mode to bother complaining about anything.

Also, I've heard that the 32 player servers were just stress tests_ I hope that isn't the case.

Edited by Russhole, November 21 2012 - 07:26 PM.

[Zanity]

Female, on November 20 2012 - 04:14 PM, said:

I've played Siege matches lasting 40 minutes start to finish..

This isn't League of Legends...

I think it is reasonable.

but yet average game of league of legends is exactly 40 mins lol

[Conquistador]

They simply need to bring back bases with three health points. It makes for very interesting comeback situations.

[Etan]

The 3rd health point does let the team get there fuzzy bunny together to make a comeback however to alot of people the games were too long. I enjoy a good 2 hour siege mode but i realize others cant always commit that amount of time. So the ship HP increase and the base points lowered helps this. However the EU gathering makes this EVERYONE RUSH AA gametype and extremely hard to make comebacks. Make EU take more stratgey so its a actual phase not just the first couple minutes...

[Sythorian]

Pap, on November 21 2012 - 04:58 PM, said:

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.

Exactly.

[bac9]

c0mad0r, on November 21 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

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).

While you're right about other issues, I have missed an interesting feature battleships have. Actually, they are well-protected from non-AA kills. Each subsequent ship is stronger (not to mention, packing better turrets), so shooting it down without AA help quickly becomes impossible on a second or third try, forcing the team to either contest AA or die.

It's a great idea from developers, as it allows you to make an impact on battleships, effectively tying them to the battlefield instead of leaving them as untouchable ephemeral outside entities, and at the same time, preventing game-breaking exploitation of that. You can take out a pesky turret on it or save your base with a frantic last-minute coordinated assault, but you won't be able to hold off indefinitely. So I don't think battleships really need a buff. Third one is practically impossible to shoot down even with a coordinated fire and prolonged stalemates are well-prevented.

Edited by bac9, November 21 2012 - 11:47 PM.

[Beemann]

bac9, on November 21 2012 - 11:44 PM, said:

c0mad0r, on November 21 2012 - 12:57 PM, said:

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).

While you're right about other issues, I have missed an interesting feature battleships have. Actually, they are well-protected from non-AA kills. Each subsequent ship is stronger (not to mention, packing better turrets), so shooting it down without AA help quickly becomes impossible on a second or third try, forcing the team to either contest AA or die.

It's a great idea from developers, as it allows you to make an impact on battleships, effectively tying them to the battlefield instead of leaving them as untouchable ephemeral outside entities, and at the same time, preventing game-breaking exploitation of that. So I don't think battleships really need a buff. Third one is practically impossible to shoot down even with a coordinated fire.

We know about the increasing ship health, the problem is that it pushes the point where conflict is forced back even further
If you don't have to fight for EU, and you don't have to fight for the AA for the first 1-2 ships, how long does it take for people to fight when they're serious about winning_
The gamemode needed more conflict, not less

Edited by Beemann, November 21 2012 - 11:49 PM.

[Pap]

shooting down the ship with mechs was absurd. all they needed to do in cbe2 was making the ships more tough and that is all. you should only be able to kill it when it has little to none health left. i remember games when the loosing team (defending from the ship) was just waiting for it to get close and then just shoot it down from the sky. its absurd but at the same time it made massive games interesting.
first you had to protect the turret. and after the ship has passed half of the map you had to rush enemy to keep them busy.

like most people said here, eu collection is now bullcrap, often in games nao i just sit in one eu tower and collect with my whole team. if one team gets one more mech or have more heavy mechs they win cause we will gather the eu slower. its rubish

[defekt]

Beemann, on November 21 2012 - 11:48 PM, said:

The gamemode needed more conflict, not less

QFT.

[Tennoken]

To be honest the only siege I played in CBT2 was the 16 vs. 16 so I can't say anything about regular 8 vs. 8 but I loved it because:

1. It was long, I stick it out win or lose it get crazy xp anyway. If I wanted 20 minutes or less I have other game modes for that.

2. During CBT2 there were time when one team can take both EU nodes and force some crazy fights, now it's not really need.

Now half the team gather at one point to collect EU to launch the ship and the other half drop turrets at AA and wait for the other team by the time your ship launch your EU collectors are already at the AA to reinforce. And if really need the AA defenders can escort the collectors to the point before heading to AA. A good AA fight could give 1 or 2 players enough EU to fill them up anyway. In a world where energy and resources are scarce(I think it is anyway), unlimited EU from nodes seem kind of weird.

3. Where is the forced teamwork from the losing team_ They never get a chance to get their act together. Winning just doesn't feel like an accomplishment any more.

Just my 2 cents.

Edited by Tennoken, November 22 2012 - 07:25 AM.

[Raxaphan]

You can't make a comeback in this new siege mode. I really feel like in a TDM match.
Today I said to my teammates what to do in a siege and in one match someone said I ruin his fun with my indications about what it's needed to be done.
I felt really angry.
Is this what siege mode has become_ A TDM version with a thing in the middle of the map that might do something and with a ship that looks cool but not that cool to be used(launched)/destroyed.
In this new siege I don't feel proud I won a match or that I learned something new from other players, and not even losing I don't feel like: man we lost, but we put a good fight.

Edited by Raxaphan, November 22 2012 - 08:08 AM.

[D3thpool]

My obervations so far have been that as obvoe poster stated, comebacks are gone.
After one team has one successfull ship launch, they are more than likely to win the round, where in cbe2 this didnt mean anything.

Also i also can say that i feel like its turning even more into tdm, no idea why.
Quite a few player dont care about eu collectiing/fighting over the aa at all.

I really want the old siege mode back.

[Russhole]

The more I think about it, the more I'd like to see the old EU collecting come back. As it was pointed out, having a well run dry meant you pushed to try and grab the enemy's point, or ambushed their gatherer as he tries to boost back to base.

[tasnitoken]

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

You weren't reading the forums then.

Maybe not, but read this one. A lot of people including myself enjoyed a powerful see-saw battle with seven+ ships being launched per side and a constant struggle to keep your side organized. While there were times that it was crazy to try to figure out just how long we'd been struggling there was a powerful sense of accomplishment that these quicky rounds just don't have. Even when my side lost I felt a sense of pride in the fact that we had held on for so long against a better team. I really want to see this style back and those who want a quick match can do what I do when short on time and go play a missle round.

Taasnito-ken

[Russhole]

I ended up losing in a match that was 10 ships launched vs 11 in the end. I had over 10k experience, and I have to say it was my best Hawken experience to date. The great thing about long seige matches is, the teams fall into a groove and understand their roles well. It really feels like you accomplish something when you win.

[Lastgun]

i agree siege is not good anymore

+1 for slower transfer rate like before
+1 for 3 energy slots

and come back with server browser

[BlackCephie]

I think the 2 health on bases is a good thing. After a while, the old siege matches started to feel like a chore. I do think that the EU collection mechanic should be restored so that you get less energy the more people who are at the EU stations. Seems like that would be a better balance

[Zorvaz]

I really hope they bring back the old siege matches, as they were much more involved and interesting. As it is now, you barely have to fight besides a handful of times at the AA for a few minutes. Before you had to go for the enemies energy point or ambush people as they were trying to go turn their energy in, which was engaging and made the match more fun. If you do that now it may be fun and slow down the other team, but it really is less efficient than just going to your team's point and running energy back to the base without ever needing to fight. The quickest way to launch your ship should not be the one with the least amount of conflict.

Also, on the point of the matches taking too long, there are other game modes for a reason. If I wanted to play a match real quick and did not have a lot of time I could play a round of TDM. I do not think there was any reason to shorten Siege, as it simply was a different type of game mode that offered a long, interesting battle that really felt engaging. Unfortunately, it simply does not offer that sense of accomplishment anymore after fighting a long battle to finally see the enemies base blow up.

[Titzilla]

Considering how Siege is supposed to be Hawken's main attraction, it would make sense for it to last longer and be more complicated. You can't water down and simplify your best game mode. That would just be silly.

[ApoC_101]

As I mentioned in another thread: Two base bars for siege mode is instant fail: once you've got one of those two bars down, the game is basically over. What a joke! and the energy... no. Siege was great, in fact it was my favourite part of CB2, and now it is the most disappointing and useless part of CB3.