User Tag List

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 12
  1. #1
    Rampage Spiderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    337

    A Logical Suggestion for Siege, Must think upon it !!! (Mainly for Admins/Moderators/Regular players)

    Hello everyone, I m playing Siege in UK servers from a long time, that is from about 3 or more years. But was not much active in forums and TS3 before than now i m. And i like siege very much but still sometimes it force me to think regarding some situations of this gametype.
    Ok, i told i played a lot of siege games and found something sometime not justified, well i explain everything here what i want to say, and those who unable to understand my English :P as there may be mistakes, try to focus on what i want to say, u can ask me back what u dont get.
    A humble request that read it with a open mind to accept new ideas even seems silly at first look. But think on it.
    This is the idea as well as the few percent part of that why suddenly players left after facing such kind of game end.
    The matter is very simple to understand. Take an example that 2 well balanced teams are playing Siege game in Simplex map. And both teams playing good. And time going on and Nukes were built, taken down etc. And both teams have build up a good base with different buildings at suitable places. Now 50 min time has passed, all are busy in getting as much RU to make nukes and some one thinking to go for Neutron/EMP. Now as nukers nuked, even some one got much lucky and effect other team's core , but team repaired core back to 100. As good players playing who know what to do at what time, even though few new players are there in both the teams. And both team cores are at 100-100. Now 70 mins have passed (10 mins remaining in game). Now just stop for a second and think over it and imagine situation how i have wrote here. Also consider that there are players in both teams playing since from the start of this map (Simplex) and working hard to win.
    Now move ahead of it, now just 5 min left in game (75mins passed) and game going on with 100-100 as both teams core. Nukers tried to nuke but after getting repair or when nukes taken down, 2 min left in game and both cores are at 100 - 100. Now stop for a minute now and think over/beyond the situation.
    That even after have good team mates and building up a very good base still how a single hit to core at last minute can decide the result ?

    I am clarifying here again that siege should not be game that in last minute it decide only upon the action on core and which neglects all time to make base. i know base has been made to defend core and to achieve more RU and prevent from opponents. But now think in new direction that is as i told both have 100-100 core health and some one come with trans having invisibility, shield with less than 10 health, can now easily enter in the core room as sp also fails at this health to shoot, even defenders cant detect easily. And that player do last minute damage to core and game ends. According to me its not justice As its Luck, luck that he not got killed by any mine or other player's hit. And players of that team think like WTF happened even though making a very good base and spending 80 mins in game still lucky shot did everything. So luck should not be the deciding factor I know it needs skill but also luck.

    So my point of view is --> That instead of making this last min end, game can go, i mean reduce the total game time to 50 or 60 mins or leave it to 80 mins, but i suggest to reduce to 50 mins then it must be like this that when time ends, game doesnot ends, cores must become unrepairable when ends time, and the only team lose which when core went to 0 health. It will lead to more fun and a more justified game. Just think over it. And m not saying to implement it on all right now, but i think as 1 column is empty is mapvote so admins can try to put such "siege with modified deciding factor " in that. and let players to play and then can be practically visible that its better or no, according to me, it will be much better as players also get proper justification of playing long time in a map. Moreover afterwards poll can be created to know regarding this from other players. Just try it, and see the results. Thats all what i want to say.

    And one more suggestion if siege modifiers can modify it more then to make it more logical it can be like that if at the end of time (80min) cores health difference is 20 or more than 20, then higher the core health team will won, otherwise game should go on with having both team cores unrepairable from that time as i wrote above.
    Here example was taken of map Simplex but is applicable to other all maps as we know this very well.

    Take a chance, may this lead to more fun and fair games otherwise we have it all as siege running currently, so i dont think any kind of harm in this. i know it may seem different but i think this will be good way. And someone pls do tag admins to this post/thread, as i dont know how to tag them here, thnx.
    Comments/posts/replies are welcome
    Last edited by Spiderman; 11-08-2012 at 02:29 AM. Reason: 2nd suggestion highlighted also.

  2. #2
    Whicked Sick SilverWing's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,140
    Country:
    Summarized version of what Spiderman was saying:

    In case of making games a last min take 1 or 2 point off the core (100-98) and one team wins, to change it to where game go up to 50 - 60 mins long(or even 80 mins). Also to make cores not repairable even if cores are at 100-50 and let the game continue till one core dies.


    My opinion:

    It sound like a good idea, what Spiderman asked, but it would be nice if the game was decided by 80 mins. For example if we did 50 min games and you cant repair core after 50 mins and score is tied at 100-100 there is a good chance that the game might go on for another hour (110 mins). But in case of that make the core decay at rate where it would take 100% core to 0% in 30 mins so at the end you will still have 80 min game but still have one of the cores go down to 0%(or even both, but that's unlikely because of NBomb).


  3. #3
    Whicked Sick Higor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Full sail ahead!
    Posts
    3,675
    Country:
    And that's how Epic sells their games, they know how to end them.
    Onslaught and Warfare apporach: Overtime is reached, both cores start taking slow, constant damage.

    The whole thing can be managed by a INI setting, to prevent forcing an unwanted change.
    ------------------------------------- * -------------------------------------

  4. #4
    Rampage Crsk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    I'm out
    Posts
    323
    Country:
    Quote Originally Posted by Higor View Post
    And that's how Epic sells their games, they know how to end them.
    Onslaught and Warfare apporach: Overtime is reached, both cores start taking slow, constant damage.

    The whole thing can be managed by a INI setting, to prevent forcing an unwanted change.
    what do you think about that INI?


    [0 / 40] minutes:
    bAllowCoreRepair: True
    bAutoCoreRepair: False

    [40 / 80] minutes:
    bAllowCoreRepair: False
    bAutoCoreRepair: True (slowly, stop in 90 of life)

    [80/...] minutes (case of dead heat):
    bAllowCoreRepair: False
    bAutoCoreDamage: True (slowly, stop in 10 of life)

    well, that ini are changing as time passes but...
    Last edited by Crsk; 11-07-2012 at 08:31 PM.
    w5ykj

  5. #5
    Whicked Sick Higor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Full sail ahead!
    Posts
    3,675
    Country:
    Quote Originally Posted by Crsk View Post
    what do you think about that INI?


    [0 / 40] minutes:
    bAllowCoreRepair: True
    bAutoCoreRepair: False

    [40 / 80] minutes:
    bAllowCoreRepair: False
    bAutoCoreRepair: True (slowly, stop in 90 of life)

    [80/...] minutes (case of dead heat):
    bAllowCoreRepair: False
    bAutoCoreDamage: True (slowly, stop in 10 of life)
    It would look more like:

    bFirstHalfRepair=True
    FirstHalfDamage=0 (every 5 seconds, negative heals, positive damages)

    bSecondHalfRepair=False
    SecondHalfDamage=0

    bOvertimeRepair=False
    OverTimeDamage=50 (on a uK based game, match would extend to a maximum extra 50 minutes)
    ------------------------------------- * -------------------------------------

  6. #6
    Whicked Sick HIGH[+]AdRiaN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,539
    i have other sugestion, all damage that the core get, will be only reparable 80% of this damage... if i damage the enemy core 20%... 100% to 80%, they will only be abble to rep to 96% (4 is 20% of 20 damage)... if i damage more 10%, they will only be abble to rep to 94%... if the game begin, core 100%, and i damage 99,9%, they will only be abble to rep to 80%, and so on...

    this way the game will never continue after the time runs out and values a lot the core attack...

    sometimes is really useless nuke the core, mainly in maps like simplex, because always somebody rep 100% my damage lol, and using less ru that i used for make nuke, trans and boots
    Last edited by HIGH[+]AdRiaN; 11-07-2012 at 11:11 PM.

  7. #7
    Unstoppable audiosonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    735
    Country:
    There is no reason to take simplex as a benchmark, if you get stuck on a 3 hour simplex you probably deserve it.

  8. #8
    Rampage Spiderman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2011
    Location
    India
    Posts
    337
    Quote Originally Posted by HIGH[+]AdRiaN View Post
    i have other sugestion, all damage that the core get, will be only reparable 80% of this damage... if i damage the enemy core 20%... 100% to 80%, they will only be abble to rep to 96% (4 is 20% of 20 damage)... if i damage more 10%, they will only be abble to rep to 94%... if the game begin, core 100%, and i damage 99,9%, they will only be abble to rep to 80%, and so on...

    this way the game will never continue after the time runs out and values a lot the core attack...

    sometimes is really useless nuke the core, mainly in maps like simplex, because always somebody rep 100% my damage lol, and using less ru that i used for make nuke, trans and boots
    Ya its also good suggestion. And values core attack right.

    --- Updated ---

    Quote Originally Posted by SilverWing View Post
    Summarized version of what Spiderman was saying:

    In case of making games a last min take 1 or 2 point off the core (100-98) and one team wins, to change it to where game go up to 50 - 60 mins long(or even 80 mins). Also to make cores not repairable even if cores are at 100-50 and let the game continue till one core dies.


    My opinion:

    It sound like a good idea, what Spiderman asked, but it would be nice if the game was decided by 80 mins. For example if we did 50 min games and you cant repair core after 50 mins and score is tied at 100-100 there is a good chance that the game might go on for another hour (110 mins). But in case of that make the core decay at rate where it would take 100% core to 0% in 30 mins so at the end you will still have 80 min game but still have one of the cores go down to 0%(or even both, but that's unlikely because of NBomb).
    Ya, very good, in this way game will also not go to overtime and will be a fair/justified game. This should be implemented or only for some time to see how it works if have doubts. Results can be seen.

  9. #9
    Whicked Sick HIGH[+]AdRiaN's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Brazil
    Posts
    1,539
    Quote Originally Posted by audiosonic View Post
    There is no reason to take simplex as a benchmark, if you get stuck on a 3 hour simplex you probably deserve it.
    MAINLY in maps like simplex... but these sugestion is better for all maps

  10. #10
    Unstoppable audiosonic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    735
    Country:
    No it's not, most of the games you get to hit the core very early, such as clarion, bathrooms. Once you get it down to 50 they can only repair to 90 for the whole game (and so on...) , other than that it's a ridiculously stupid idea to limit the repairing. Games have been fine the way it is, it's just the balancer (i.e. locking teams from the start) that messes up the majority of the games. Remove the lock on teams, allow teamswitching so that the balancer actually works again, and when teams are unbalanced the players will step in to try and balance teams to have nice game. I've seen less 'noobs' switching to the winning team than complaints about the balancing.

    Spiderman's idea: I don't even understand why you want this implemented. Fairness? Fairness for who? The ones that want to drag an everlasting game even further?

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 15
    Last Post: 04-29-2013, 05:02 PM
  2. [SUGGESTION / SIEGE] Include Obligatory Siege Tutorial Map
    By DontWorryBeHappy in forum Code Reviews
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 03-06-2013, 02:51 PM
  3. [SUGGESTION / SIEGE] Add Marker to Constructor
    By DontWorryBeHappy in forum Code Reviews
    Replies: 4
    Last Post: 03-05-2013, 09:06 PM
  4. Replies: 8
    Last Post: 06-26-2012, 09:22 PM
  5. about IDLE PLAYERS AND fag players
    By [R]^Osyris in forum Technical Problems
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 02-20-2011, 01:57 PM

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •