74 replies to this topic

[Nept]

As everyone (who's anyone) is aware, TPG's considering Siege for Season 3. Our recent TPG Siege Cup was organized largely to gather gametype feedback from Hawken's competitive players (although we will continue to host Cups in the future). If you participated in our Cup, we'd love to hear your feedback. If you didn't participate in the Cup but plan on participating in TPG Season 3, your feedback's also welcome. And if you're simply drifting through and want to post your opinion, by all means, post away.

 

Ensure, though, that you're supporting your opinions through coherent (and polite) arguments and/or competitive experience. We're not interested in opinions about pub play Siege.

 

I'm going to edit this post later with my personal opinions. Don't want to colour the discussion just yet.

Edited by Nept, 30 May 2015 - 02:12 PM.

[PsychedelicGrass]

Some teams are better at holding aa than taking it, and vice versa. For this reason alone i don't feel like siege is very good for competition as it could be a tad bit imbalanced despite each team being of similar skill levels.

[Elite_is_salty]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously I think we could've had much more fun if they weren't running MK3 EMP on all their mechs. That was so unfun. Very annoying.

[comic_sans]

Consider some no EMP games? 

[Hyginos]

Seriously I think we could've had much more fun if they weren't running MK3 EMP on all their mechs. That was so unfun. Very annoying.

 

Hestoned ran no emps

GGGanja ran 1

I ran 2,

Crafty ran 2,

ButtSatisfier ran no emps,

Kirk ran 2

 

 

Consider some no EMP games? 

 

It's just as good for pushing as it is for stuffing a push. I think EMP is too vital to breaking up a point defense. It is unpleasant to get EMPed, but IMO is is even less pleasant to have no recourse against a wall of fat and damage.

Edited by Hyginos, 30 May 2015 - 02:44 PM.

[Elite_is_salty]

Hestoned ran 33570

GGGanja ran 9

I ran 700,

Crafty ran 666,

ButtSatisfier ran 69,

Kirk ran 21

 

That's a lot of EMP's man!

[Nept]

Alright guys, let's move on from the EMP topic.  Anything else?

[TheButtSatisfier]

*** Editing out EMP-related conversation

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 30 May 2015 - 02:52 PM.

[Amidatelion]

First off, GGs all.

 

What became very clear today was that at least one of my premises was true. A huge issue with Siege is this:

 

It's TDM in a smaller area, with limited approaches. The team that DMs better will win. You will eventually need AA. What flexibility you have is on avenues of attack, but once the attack starts, it's just TDM.

 

EU collection is basically just a formality. Sure, you can pull some clever stuff with counter launches, and ambushing EU collectors, but in the end all of that is pointless. If you control AA, you win. And you do it by DMing better than the other team. The tactical flexibility that lets lower ranked teams compete in Missile Assault is simply not present in Siege. 

 

My other premise, the one that didn't really come around to testing because there were no close matches today, was that Siege matches between closely matched teams take forever. And one thing today did prove is that TPG scheduling is bad enough without needing to set aside 2 hours to complete 2 matches. 

[Hyginos]

I've enjoyed the games to far, but I wonder if that will only last until the novelty wears off. There are a lot of mechanics I haven't gotten down yet.

 

It feels like MA with only one silo really, then a little minigame every few minutes where we get to use the other two points.

[CraftyDus]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Seriously I think we could've had much more fun if they weren't running MK3 EMP on all their mechs. That was so unfun. Very annoying.

 

 

Consider some no EMP games? 

 

 

Siege has the most going on in terms of player roles and multiple objectives, teams taking turns attacking and defending, and team coordination.

I had though that the best of 3 would take too long, but that wasn't the case.

It's the most Hawken gamemode to me.

I'd be  down for a season of it.

[crockrocket]

I think we should do it. TPG is a great way to showcase Hawken gamemodes and since siege hasn't been done yet, we should do it. 

 

As far as competitive viability, I will refrain from making any comment as I am not on the competitive end of things.

[Amidatelion]

As far as competitive viability, I will refrain from making any comment as I am not on the competitive end of things.

 

False.

 

Speak your piece.

[M1lkshake]

I want everybody to consider something before voting on whether or not to make siege the mode for Season 3.

 

You will not make any more headway against Omni than you did in the other two modes. Consider maps like Origin, where (those who have played them on this map will remember) they held all 3 points against you and pushed you back into your base. This was MA, where you had three points to worry about. Now consider Siege, where you have 2 points (the energy collectors) and sometimes one point (the AA) to attack or defend. Is it easier or harder to defend fewer points? 

 

Moreover, maps like facility or last eco (which favored the team that rotated around the map better, instead of the team that could fight better) will play the same as maps like origin or wreckage. If anything, you're taking away any possible advantage you could have.

 

Also it will be longer. You will be losing for a longer period of time.

 

This is considering any conceivable team against Omni. Any other matchup is up for debate, but generally the less skilled team will have less of a chance to win against the more skilled team. You might as well choose TDM and make it shorter.

[Amidatelion]

This is considering any conceivable team against Omni. Any other matchup is up for debate, but generally the less skilled team will have less of a chance to win against the more skilled team. You might as well choose TDM and make it shorter.

 

My point exactly.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

 

Siege has the most going on in terms of player roles and multiple objectives,

 

Crafty plz...It's king of the hill.

 

Omni will do the pooping on you.

 

Rofl, M1lkshake that is no real reason to consider a game modes competitive viability. Omni is gonna Omni hard no matter what. If you think the game mode is good for evenly balanced teams, competitive play, and you enjoy it, then you should play it. You should play it, and start addressing what you need to improve in order to step up to Omni.

[eth0]

I enjoyed it. The matches can drag on painfully, though I intentionally post-poned our death by shooting out ship turrets. Bad or good, we gave siege a run and we got to see what happened.

I think siege should get sped up a bit by shortening the lulls between running eu/charging aa stages. Since standing at aa is always a good idea, launching defensively or shooting the ship are the only options after charging.

 

A few ideas... in the end siege 2.0 is coming anyway.

• Ships should shoot mechs.
• Ships should do more damage to the base, but not as much to the other ship.
• Ship armor should be less.
• EU trees should fill up slowly even if a ship is in the air.

[Amidatelion]

Crafty plz...It's king of the hill.

 

 

Rofl, M1lkshake that is no real reason to consider a game modes competitive viability. Omni is gonna Omni hard no matter what. If you think the game mode is good for evenly balanced teams, competitive play, and you enjoy it, then you should play it. You should play it, and start addressing what you need to improve in order to step up to Omni.

 

From another perspective:

 

We need to do what Omni does - make no strategic concessions whatsoever. They play a super-heavy comp on Origin in order to maximize their ability to DM any and all comers, the select the best overall FPS players they can find and they play their strats very close to the chest.

 

It makes no sense for any team outside the top 3 to decide to play Siege when it is a worse tactical and strategic decision. There is more to be gain and learned playing MA. Anything you can try in Siege will eventually fall flat against a team that can wipe you.

 

EDIT to clarify: I'm not saying the top 3 wanted to play Siege. Changed wording.

Edited by Amidatelion, 30 May 2015 - 05:01 PM.

[Nept]

Just to clarify something quickly: Omni's not pushing for any gametype in particular.  The requests for Siege didn't actually come from any of the top three teams.

[Amidatelion]

Just to clarify something quickly: Omni's not pushing for any gametype in particular.  The requests for Siege didn't actually come from any of the top three teams.

 

In turn clarified.

[DM30]

My main concern about Siege is the length that games can reach if it isn't a one-sided matchup. Organizing matches around people's IRL schedules with the block of time that Siege could require might be a challenge.

 

Something that comes to mind is that there could be a time limit placed on games, like 15 or 20 minutes, and whichever team has more points at that time is considered the winner. It might reduce the chances for comeback wins, but it could also stop games from dragging on too long.

 

Second minor concern is similar to what M1lkshake and Amid brought up: since there's only one primary objective to focus on, weaker teams facing stronger teams are going to feel more powerless if/when they're unable to dislodge the stronger one from the AA. With MA games you can at least try to split the stronger team's focus, but in Siege you have no choice but to beat your head against their defences, or eventually lose from not being able to shoot ships down yourself in time.

 

I'll play no matter what mode is chosen, but those are my thoughts.

[M1lkshake]

Crafty plz...It's king of the hill.

 

 

Rofl, M1lkshake that is no real reason to consider a game modes competitive viability. Omni is gonna Omni hard no matter what. If you think the game mode is good for evenly balanced teams, competitive play, and you enjoy it, then you should play it. You should play it, and start addressing what you need to improve in order to step up to Omni.

 

I'm not saying it's not competitively viable. All three modes are viable. I just think fighting Omni in siege would be the least amount of fun - for anyone. Similarly, any matchup between teams where one can dominate the other in a TDM scenario will not be very fun for the losing team. MA was forgiving in this regard for various reasons, and TDM was at least shorter.

 

Whether or not "fun" is grounds for voting for or against a game mode I'd actually leave up for debate. Maybe there are teams that don't take into account how often they'll be winning or how close they'd be losing by, and won't get discouraged if they don't do well. Maybe they want to tackle the odds anyways and see where they end up. In my experience, this is usually not the case, but I'm prepared to be surprised.

[Hyginos]

Something that comes to mind is that there could be a time limit placed on games, like 15 or 20 minutes, and whichever team has more points at that time is considered the winner. It might reduce the chances for comeback wins, but it could also stop games from dragging on too long.

 

I like this idea, but it looks like a logistical nightmare with the current infrastructure available to us.

[CraftyDus]

Playing siege as organized comp was a good time this weekend.

There is something in the gamemode for every sort of player.

I'm up for another season of MA TDM or Siege.

[CounterlogicMan]

I really enjoy siege. High level siege games require a lot of team work and coordinated defenses/attacks on aa. Yes they can be one sided. But I noticed it is always the more coordinated team winning. 

 

As for the emp spam. You gotta hit people with the emps for them to really do a lot. I saw a lot of teams that spammed emps didn't hit a lot of them. They have to make those emps count or the fight will most likely not go their way. So I think it is an interesting choice to take emps and launch them all at once vs doing another item comp. Or holding onto emps for after the fight actually starts. Also the strength of mech/mech setup swapping for defense or attack situation is highly under utilized atm.

 

Siege imo has the most depth to it out of all the current Hawken game types. It is the most interesting for me to play. I like it and support it for at least partial use in TPG season 3. Would I like all matches to be nothing but siege? nope. But I think siege could add some much needed variety. Siege still needs some work. It is good that Siege 2.0 is still something being looked at as a future dev goal. (not ascension siege changes were not siege 2.0)

 

 

My proposal. 

 

**disclaimer** something I just thought of while writting this post....don't crucify plzzz***

 

DO sort of what we did this weekend. Use base hp as score for the teams.

 

1 ma game

1 siege game

 

team with most base hp after 2 games wins

 

This way we aren't playing 2 siege games in a row. Something a lot of people have already voiced as something they did not want to do.

Edited by CounterlogicMan, 30 May 2015 - 07:55 PM.

[Amidatelion]

Siege imo has the most depth to it out of all the current Hawken game types. 

 

Disagree for reasons already stated.

 

 

 

DO sort of what we did this weekend. Use base hp as score for the teams.

 

1 ma game

1 siege game

 

team with most base hp after 2 games wins

 

This way we aren't playing 2 siege games in a row. Something a lot of people have already voiced as something they did not want to do.

 

This... this I don't hate, on the surface of it. I'd still prefer straight MA, but I'd be willing to consider this. I'd have to give it more thought, but it does seem workable. I have two immediate concerns: 1) Base HP degeneration is not even between MA and Siege. 2) For teams that have just formed (which make up a not insignificant portion of TPG this time around) this increases the workload in practice time and developing strategies.

[Xacius]

[hestoned]

i agree with counterlogicman. in siege it feels like every mech is viable if played correctly. and coordination is absolutely more necessary. we had some great moments were we only took back the AA because of a cordinated team attack.

[BaronSaturday]

I will say this, Siege is my favorite mode. I've always liked KotH matches as they have a lot of potential to become battles of attrition. Anyone that's good can be good for 15 minutes. Not everyone can play at their max for 30-60 minutes twice. I'm not sure that I can do it.

This mode has the potential to go long enough to tip balances. All the losing team that may be more consistant over time has to do is hold on. Siege is the only mode that can really push things that far. But it has another extreme. Ending very quickly. What has the potential to be a war has the same potential to be a stomp fest. Only one of those options is fun to play and to watch.

Those are my .02 HC.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

From another perspective:

 

We need to do what Omni does - make no strategic concessions whatsoever. They play a super-heavy comp on Origin in order to maximize their ability to DM any and all comers, the select the best overall FPS players they can find and they play their strats very close to the chest.

 

It makes no sense for any team outside the top 3 to decide to play Siege when it is a worse tactical and strategic decision. There is more to be gain and learned playing MA. Anything you can try in Siege will eventually fall flat against a team that can wipe you.

 

EDIT to clarify: I'm not saying the top 3 wanted to play Siege. Changed wording.

 

It's all cool, I totally agree that siege is a huge poopy doody:

 

10:46 PM - Roach (M1lkshake): wanna play in the hawken siege cup?
10:46 PM - THE MASSIVE: i sincerely hate siege
11:36 PM - Roach (M1lkshake): noted, thanks anyways
 

 

Whether or not "fun" is grounds for voting for or against a game mode I'd actually leave up for debate..

 

It most certainly is. Competitive gaming is really all about fun at the heart of it. No one is going to compete at a game they don't enjoy, even if they, like totally, wanna be the very best.

 

Also...plz... it's king of the hill.

[Elite_is_salty]

Alright, so yesterday I was headin to sleep so I dind't answer seriously. Now that I'm all good, here are some points that I like to address:

 

1- It was much easier for us to jell and work well together even for the very first matches together. I mean we had 4 new people in the squad. In siege, we move in sync, act together, help each other and really never feel like we're not doing things collectively. There's always that feel that we're one unit more than individuals.

 

2- Neutralizing strong threats is much easier then in other modes because group/team fights are much much more frequent than duels.

 

3- I really don't get how some consider the length of the game a bad thing. I've played dozens of 1+ hour siege games since I started and there's nothing I enjoy more than that. I mean seriously guys. Plus, siege games, more than any other mode, becomes more interesting and exciting every single minute.

 

4- You can delay your loss easily in siege, give your team a moment to gather themselves, rethink of a better approach and pretty much some hope to comeback. Ourselves, we trusted comic to be able to take the ship down every single time we were in danger, and we were able to turn what could've been a 10 min game loss to almost 40 mins of action, give and go, and I tell you what, we gave tang a nice run for their money the second game. We enjoyed the challenge, we were improving and I'm sure they had a good time too.

 

5- Like a lot mentioned earlier, every playstyle is viable and needed in siege. The adversity becomes more of an advantage, and it allows every player to play well, have fun, and feel like he's having an impact. You never feel useless in a siege game, even if you're slow or not good at killing, you can be a good distractor, or you can be a good tanker that will take shots for his team and allow them to play better.

 

6- The need for being stationary means -more than anything- heated battles and crazy fights. You know where everyone is, and you try as a team to think how you can neutralize them. Which challenges the other team to try to improve too and adapt. It's non-stop action, strategy, communication, give and take, fall and stand back ... just too epic for weak hearts and players who don't have that warrior mentality.

 

7- People who disagree with an idea are always the most vocal regardless of the validity of their arguments. So they may overshadow arguments of people who do like siege. I wish it comes down to a poll, and if siege looses then, sure, we can play DM for S3. smh ...

 

8- Thanks so much to tang especially and also amid's team. Those were some real nice games! Can't wait to resume the cup against merl's team later on :)

[Hyginos]

3- I really don't get how some consider the length of the game a bad thing. I've played dozens of 1+ hour siege games since I started and there's nothing I enjoy more than that. I mean seriously guys. Plus, siege games, more than any other mode, becomes more interesting and exciting every single minute.

 

Coordinating 6 people across different time zones with arbitrary schedules is what make the length a bad thing.

 

Arguably that would be a problem regardless of length though.

[CraftyDus]

none of these games are going to last an hour

they ended 20-30 minutes

heres what a couple looked like from yesterday

[Elite_is_salty]

Let's not act like MA games don't last up to 30 mins too ...

[_incitatus]

I liked it.

Longer siege matches are usually enjoyable when both teams understand the mode. When both are playing to win, these become those epic games that a lot of us look forward to with siege.

If we do best of 3, once the teams actually start the match I bet we're looking at edit: an hour 80 minutes to finish it all up. Scheduling wise, this doesn't seem like a big deal to me. Getting all the teams together at the same time on the same day for a siege cup was a bigger pita than setting up a regular tpg match where we have more flexibility.

I'd like to see siege in TPGS3, then back to TDM in S4, MA in S5, SG in S6, etc...

Edited by (thc)_incitatus, 01 June 2015 - 07:15 AM.

[Nept]

7- People who disagree with an idea are always the most vocal regardless of the validity of their arguments. So they may overshadow arguments of people who do like siege. I wish it comes down to a poll, and if siege looses then, sure, we can play DM for S3. smh ...

 

Just going to address this statement quickly, since it's both incorrect and bordering on poisoning the well.  Whether a person holds a positive or negative attitude toward something, it's the strength of the attitude that governs their response.  Put simply, people who love siege are as likely to post as people who detest siege.  And these strongly-held attitudes render both groups vulnerable to irrationality - even when they're exposed to persuasive arguments against their position.  In fact, attitudes are often strengthened by strong arguments against them because people become more confident when they believe that they've successfully defended their position.

 

Leave the psychology to me, guys.  Just worry about putting forth (relevant) arguments and opinions re: Siege.

[eth0]

eth0-vision on the way.

 

Edited by eth0, 31 May 2015 - 08:35 AM.

[eth0]

Double-post teehee

[OmegaNull]

EDIT:

 

I misread this:

 

Seige itself needs more developlement. Honestly, it really should have a rule that waits for the entire server to be filled before starting. This causes some really horrible lop-sided nature to the match otherwise. 

Edited by -vR.OmegaNull, 31 May 2015 - 11:07 AM.

[IareDave]

Siege is TDM in an isolated area. Boring. Not much strategy except maybe planning your EMP cheese spam and prioritizing which trees to cap and who to send to which.

 

MA triangle maps are a clusterfuzzy bunny with everyone rotating around the map trying to cap the majority of the points whilst dealing with the shitty spawns that Hawken has. Linear MA is just cap 2 points and camp the entire game, keeping heavies on specfic points and having the lighter classes roam about between the two. Minimal strategy involved except saying "Oh JoeSmoe and his boys are coming to 2", or "Let's all butt rush point 1 and hope we win"

 

I still stand by that TDM is the most competitive mode and requires the greatest team coordination. Besides maybe Bridge on Prosk, and top on Uptown, there's never really a moment when the winning team is just camping the whole time. TDM matches seems to flow and teams shift around the map while coordinating with there group and sending off the As or stealth mechs to flank around the enemy deathball or pull off some clutch distractions.