14 replies to this topic

[Racerxintegra2k]

I really hate Siege Maps .. 3 lanes that are usually only wide enough for 2 mechs to traverse at once. Its such one dimensional play. IMO siege maps are whats wrong with siege always has been. I know i stop playing as soon as i realize Siege is the maps being pulled. Shame i really like the Drop Deck aspect of it and the team work aspect but not enough variation in play style to keep it interesting... Thoughts ?

[Mystere]

Question: What engineer builds fortresses easily accessible by the enemy?

Answer: The one that was just executed by high command.

[Racerxintegra2k]

Mystere, on 22 July 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

Question: What engineer builds fortresses easily accessible by the enemy?

Answer: The one that was just executed by high command.

While that is accurate and funny .. it does NOT make for a fun experience. Ask anyone that stormed a heavily defended fortress, pretty hopeless feeling.

[Paigan]

Mystere, on 22 July 2017 - 04:36 AM, said:

Question: What engineer builds fortresses easily accessible by the enemy?

Answer: The one that was just executed by high command.

This is total nonsense.

If you want to talk realism, then fights would be actual sieges, like taking down the walls from long distance, forcing the DEFENDER to come out. Also artillery, orbital bombardement and the like.
In a modern or even sci-fi world with long range weapons (even energy based ones with unlimited ammo), heavy fortresses are pretty useless to begin with.

However, MWO is not a simulator. It's a game with the priority being a balanced and entertaining fight, intentionally sacrificing realism for it (e.g. by having indestructible walls). In turn, those walls must be built in a way that the fight remains balanced, but not becomes dull or frustrating for either side.
And here, the siege maps are indeed questionable.

Edited by Paigan, 22 July 2017 - 05:45 AM.

[Mystere]

Racerxintegra2k, on 22 July 2017 - 05:34 AM, said:

While that is accurate and funny .. it does NOT make for a fun experience. Ask anyone that stormed a heavily defended fortress, pretty hopeless feeling.

You are certainly entitled to your opinion.

Here's mine: I expect sieges to be messy affairs.

Frankly, this obsession by both PGI and much of the player base for maintaining 1:1 parity for all game modes is very much the source of all of this "unfun".

Who in Hades' name attacks a fortress with the same "force" as the defenders.

Well, my answer is: the dead ones.

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 05:42 AM, said:

This is total nonsense.

If you want to talk realism, then fights would be actual sieges, like taking down the walls from long distance, forcing the DEFENDER to come out. Also artillery, orbital bombardement and the like.
In a modern or even sci-fi world with long range weapons (even energy based ones with unlimited ammo), heavy fortresses are pretty useless to begin with.

However, MWO is not a simulator. It's a game with the priority being a balanced and entertaining fight, intentionally sacrificing realism for it (e.g. by having indestructible walls). In turn, those walls must be built in a way that the fight remains balanced, but not becomes dull or frustrating for either side.
And here, the siege maps are indeed questionable.

Well, as I said, you too are entitled to your own opinion. I just don't share it.

[Phoolan Devi]

Racerxintegra2k, on 22 July 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

I really hate Siege Maps .. 3 lanes that are usually only wide enough for 2 mechs to traverse at once. Its such one dimensional play. IMO siege maps are whats wrong with siege always has been. I know i stop playing as soon as i realize Siege is the maps being pulled. Shame i really like the Drop Deck aspect of it and the team work aspect but not enough variation in play style to keep it interesting... Thoughts ?

See...so defferently people tick! I actually love the siege maps and am delighted that they come up more often now.

What I really miss and think it should be implemented again is the old recapture territory mode! I really miss that one!

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 05:42 AM, said:

This is total nonsense.

If you want to talk realism, then fights would be actual sieges, like taking down the walls from long distance, forcing the DEFENDER to come out. Also artillery, orbital bombardement and the like.
In a modern or even sci-fi world with long range weapons (even energy based ones with unlimited ammo), heavy fortresses are pretty useless to begin with.

However, MWO is not a simulator. It's a game with the priority being a balanced and entertaining fight, intentionally sacrificing realism for it (e.g. by having indestructible walls). In turn, those walls must be built in a way that the fight remains balanced, but not becomes dull or frustrating for either side.
And here, the siege maps are indeed questionable.

Not at all......or would you actually state that you always win as defender and always loose as aggressor? Nope? Then they are balanced!

[Paigan]

Mystere, on 22 July 2017 - 01:35 PM, said:

[...]

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 05:42 AM, said:

This is total nonsense.

If you want to talk realism, then fights would be actual sieges, like taking down the walls from long distance, forcing the DEFENDER to come out. Also artillery, orbital bombardement and the like.
In a modern or even sci-fi world with long range weapons (even energy based ones with unlimited ammo), heavy fortresses are pretty useless to begin with.

However, MWO is not a simulator. It's a game with the priority being a balanced and entertaining fight, intentionally sacrificing realism for it (e.g. by having indestructible walls). In turn, those walls must be built in a way that the fight remains balanced, but not becomes dull or frustrating for either side.
And here, the siege maps are indeed questionable.

Well, as I said, you too are entitled to your own opinion. I just don't share it.

Try to understand what I wrote on an intellectual level.
Think through the mechanisms involved.
You'll get there, you can do it!

And why shouldn't I share reasonable arguments to uncover ridiculous naivety?
It's pretty arrogant and insulting from you to try and forbid me to speak. Especially given that you completely and utterly failed to grasp my post.

So I would ask you to read it again and try to understand it.

It is NOT about opinions. It is about logic, arguments, reason.

Edited by Paigan, 22 July 2017 - 02:04 PM.

[Paigan]

Phoolan Devi, on 22 July 2017 - 01:42 PM, said:

[...]
Not at all......or would you actually state that you always win as defender and always loose as aggressor? Nope? Then they are balanced!

I meant the frustration part, not the balancing part.
After all, the frustration part is the OP's topic.
But it was indeed a little ambiguous on my part. Apologies.

Edited by Paigan, 22 July 2017 - 02:08 PM.

[Trev Firestorm]

Right now I'm more upset that damage/killing the objectives doesn't give you appropriate match score and so focusing/rushing the goddamn objectives will tank your match score for the event.

Overall the map design has alot of issues, a beefed up version of incursion would serve better and the overwhelmingly maps in a canyon design is just disgusting. Not saying it shouldn't be hard to attack, it should be very hard, but what we have is just dumb, the walls on most of the maps aren't really defensible beyond creating a chokepoint, there are no fighting positions to stop enemies before they breach.

[LordNothing]

you could do something as simple as replacing gates/gens with the walls from incursion and it would make more sense. why destroy a gen to open a door when you can just destroy a wall. make the gates wider and give the walls 100 hitpoints a segment. 200 hitpoints to open a hole for a single mech, more holes more mechs can get through at once. you have a choice between a fast single file approach or multiple simultaneous breaches.

[Mystere]

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

Try to understand what I wrote on an intellectual level.
Think through the mechanisms involved.
You'll get there, you can do it!

And why shouldn't I share reasonable arguments to uncover ridiculous naivety?
It's pretty arrogant and insulting from you to try and forbid me to speak. Especially given that you completely and utterly failed to grasp my post.

So I would ask you to read it again and try to understand it.

It is NOT about opinions. It is about logic, arguments, reason.

Logic? Where is the logic in an army laying siege to an equally-sized force, but dug in and well entrenched inside a fortress?

The main problem with "siege" is that it was designed as just an arena game mode -- just like everything else -- instead of it, and the game in general, being more, much more. THAT is the problem, and THAT is the logic behind my argument.

Trev Firestorm, on 22 July 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Right now I'm more upset that damage/killing the objectives doesn't give you appropriate match score and so focusing/rushing the goddamn objectives will tank your match score for the event.

Overall the map design has alot of issues, a beefed up version of incursion would serve better and the overwhelmingly maps in a canyon design is just disgusting. Not saying it shouldn't be hard to attack, it should be very hard, but what we have is just dumb, the walls on most of the maps aren't really defensible beyond creating a chokepoint, there are no fighting positions to stop enemies before they breach.

Because the game mode, and the entire game itself, is currently nothing more than an arena-based theme-park experience -- completely the opposite of what was originally sold to the founders. Heck, QP was supposed to be just a filler while CW was built. Fast forward 5 year and QP is the game.

Edited by Mystere, 22 July 2017 - 02:35 PM.

[Phoolan Devi]

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 02:00 PM, said:

It is NOT about opinions. It is about logic, arguments, reason.

.....which are opinions! Your arguments, your logic and your reason are what forms your opinion!

Trev Firestorm, on 22 July 2017 - 02:14 PM, said:

Right now I'm more upset that damage/killing the objectives doesn't give you appropriate match score and so focusing/rushing the goddamn objectives will tank your match score for the event.

Overall the map design has alot of issues, a beefed up version of incursion would serve better and the overwhelmingly maps in a canyon design is just disgusting. Not saying it shouldn't be hard to attack, it should be very hard, but what we have is just dumb, the walls on most of the maps aren't really defensible beyond creating a chokepoint, there are no fighting positions to stop enemies before they breach.

We're talking about siege here and there are, sadly, no match score enhancements for fullfilling the objective : (

Paigan, on 22 July 2017 - 02:07 PM, said:

I meant the frustration part, not the balancing part.
After all, the frustration part is the OP's topic.
But it was indeed a little ambiguous on my part. Apologies.

But the frustration part only comes into play when you play against a well organized team....and there the map actually doesn't matter!

[Red Shrike]

Mystere, on 22 July 2017 - 02:20 PM, said:

Heck, QP was supposed to be just a filler while CW was built. Fast forward 5 year and QP is the game.

This is by far my greatest complaint with the entire game, and also the reason why I hope that PGI loses the IP.

[Daemon04]

op is upset. aww. /s

Racerxintegra2k, on 22 July 2017 - 04:28 AM, said:

I really hate Siege Maps .. 3 lanes that are usually only wide enough for 2 mechs to traverse at once. Its such one dimensional play. IMO siege maps are whats wrong with siege always has been. I know i stop playing as soon as i realize Siege is the maps being pulled. Shame i really like the Drop Deck aspect of it and the team work aspect but not enough variation in play style to keep it interesting... Thoughts ?

are you sure you are talking about factionplay?
last time i checked siege was the mode with more variety in maps rather than quickplay.

i do not hate siege maps, i do indeed welcome them because they offer me something different than what im already playing in quickplay.
quick play.
q-u-i-c-k- p-l-a-y-.
QUEBEC-UNIFORM-INDIA-CHARLIE-KILO PAPA-LIMA-ALPHA-YANKEE.

"Do you get to the siege maps very often? Oh, what am i saying? Of course you dont."

"this happens when keep it real goes wrong" ==> domination - polar highlands with an 8 man vs another 8 man plus pugs on both sides. correction: 8 man vs pugs.
my side gets slaughtered bc theyre too timid to move up even though theyre being commanded. as a result NOONE enters the goddamn circle and timer starts going down.

so first wave gets crushed but im still in the circle with my cicada. i battle and kill a madcat-ii and then get neutralized by a fresh mad-iic. my reeinforcements cannot make it out of the dropzone already and the timer runs out becuse noone can make it to the circle anymore.

Edited by Daemon04, 22 July 2017 - 03:54 PM.

[Red Shrike]

For me, siege always boils down to walking through one of the doors in single file through several laser vomit alphas and hope you survive to make it into cover.