SABOTAGE new HEAD to HEAD mode :)

2

Comments

  • Lokken13Lokken13 Member
    I am looking forward to the new game mode and testing it out.

    I think Private matches need to be added asap and a bit disappointed that it is not in the release version.

    I would also like to see Weekly Challenges for the new game mode as well.

    With Private matches available this could lead the game mode into esports, also adding in Spectator and Reply down the track.
  • It reminds me a bit of BloonsTD Battles. I'm happy with that game mode, and prior to the announcement I thought it was one PVP mode which could work in this game. 
  • MetratonMetraton Member
    Reeper said:
    Having a higher chance of dying and losing because another team want you dead isn't my idea of "fun" and then there might be a pvp meta which might have to be nerfed which nerfing it will also do so for pve as well. 

    "After a while of playing the same maps where everything is always the same, it can get boring and feel very grindy" Is what needs to be worked on not sweeping it under the rug with other things that might follow.
    So much THIS. You, sir, make the quotes.

    PvP indeed will come with metas and "supposed" defeats. In PvP, there must be a winner and there must be a loser, the preview shows it.
    And no PvE player would knowingly go to the mode, where he is SUPPOSED to be defeated. One thing is to tackle a trial with his team, maybe lose once or twice, but tackle it - the other is to play the "real player casino".

    Also - I can't believe this game still doesn't have a random map generator. This is like bread an butter of any similar type of game. Okay, you have to start somewhere, maximize game modes and such, but...
    You still have korean RNG not fixed. You still have endless mode that is virtually WORTHLESS. You still have per-hero grind on the normal maps as the MAIN way to eventually get enough chests.

    I remember reading about the reason of dropping Siege - it was because it was splitting the effort, and was not really appreciated by the players.
    So why risk this new mode, when Survival is still in Open Beta?

    I'm not salty for no reason, I started this game with TWO friends, real life friends, playing along with me on voice comms. And when one of them was tired of redoing every Apprentice map just to get XP and base trap parts to be able to build anything for War Mage, when he saw that the only thing awaiting in War Mage - is even more grind, and that it ONLY escalates further - he quit. Because he literally can't stand this kind of game mechanic. I am more lenient and hookable on grind, but not everyone is. Even if he got a year of Survivor Pass, he wouldn't return. And the other friend left with him.
    So, as I grind and progress ALONE, I, excuse me, waited for some OPEN BETA improvements to the existing system.

    Instead I find out that the game is leaving Open Beta with the launch of another PvP mode... Wow.



    Salt aside, I also totally agree with SeanPoe. Changing the win\lose state of PvP into a "star count" for both teams sounds like a... to be honest... the ONLY reasonable way to put it.
    I mean, if even Robot Entertainment has stated that OMD is PvE cooperative first and foremost - why even implement forced PvP?
    Having stars for reward keeps it absolutely PvE, just, as TimeMaster said - with a little bit of extra, unexpected difficulty.

    Anyway, paranoia aside, I hope that Survival issues will not be ignored, and that that PvP will be rewarding for participation, not for victory. Otherwise... I foresee the memorable scene of Sideshow Bob and the rakes...
  • PvP indeed will come with metas and "supposed" defeats. In PvP, there must be a winner and there must be a loser, the preview shows it.
    And no PvE player would knowingly go to the mode, where he is SUPPOSED to be defeated. One thing is to tackle a trial with his team, maybe lose once or twice, but tackle it - the other is to play the "real player casino".
    Isn't this what endless is supposed to be.
  • ducccduccc Member
    edited April 7
    I Don't think this fills the void for people who liked Siege mode though. I for one am quite sure that I probably won't like it as much as I liked siege. It might work out but why couldn't we have just gotten siege mode back and just work on it so it's more appealing to everyone? Bringing this mode out really seems dumb when you had a PvP mode which had a dedicated player base. 
    Post edited by Harmonia on
  • JuicyJuicy Member, Master Founder, Early Access
    Well, we're beating a dead horse talking about Siege here, but I will say this... One of the problems with MOBAs, in general, is that they seem to have trouble attracting players if teamwork is too important.  There's a balance between making the game co-op and giving players the ability to carry their team through individual skill. 

    The closer a co-op game is to the "playing by yourself with friends" design that League of Legends has, the more accessible it is. Objectively speaking, I think Heroes of the Storm is hands down a better game than LoL, but it's never going to get the same traction because team play is so key to victory in HotS.  Same thing with Siege. Excellent design, lots of fun, but it required more teamwork than even HotS. I think it was always going to be niche because of that.
    A wonderful way to put it. As someone that plays far too much HotS, I've tried to get friends (even LoL or DOTA friends) into it, and they can't. They hate that they have to rely on their teammates, and can't just excel enough to carry a team. Siege was far more reliant than HotS,  as in HotS it's basically solo/duo play until a fight. In siege you (normally) couldn't do anything alone, as it was usually a 2v2 situation with a roaming hero. (in my experience of late siege, atleast. Most of my memories are from early alpha ;P)
    Wiki Contributor: Juicearific - Got a wiki suggestion? Let me know.
    Welcome to Juicy's Midnight Assassination Service. You grab em, I'll stab em.
  • Ok, home now so I had a chance to watch the video. Where do the mercs come in? Is that a secret for later ;) or are they in there somewhere? I am looking SO forward to spamming archers :)
  • rayleiraylei Member
    So this is how we add small words under our post/comments.
  • Well put Shade. 
  • AFistAngrilyAFistAngrily Member, Early Access
    What I have seen of Sabotage doesn't appear suffer from anywhere near the same amount or severity of design issues that Siege did. That is entirely true. "Sabotage is an extension of Survival" seems to be an accurate and nice way of putting it. I still see a few scant things that it has in common with the old Siege mode.

    People in this very thread have expressed a disinterest in playing Sabotage due to its competitive nature. Other people are very excited about there being some new PvP content. I don't want to sound overdramatic, but there's a real chance that the introduction of Sabotage will split the playerbase. New players will be sold on the game based on only the PvE/PvP section of the game and never play the other one. Queue times for both modes might be even longer then they are now as a result unless the playerbase surges at all levels and stays there.

    Competitive games by their very nature require a stronger balance than cooperative ones. I'm sorry to state it in such an unfriendly tone, but I don't feel like the game is in a good enough place, balance-wise, to support a competitive mode. Due to the highly random nature of chests, players of a similar account level can have WILDLY different loadouts. Some players will be matched together who are at a severe disadvantage to the enemy team before the game even starts. Or on the flip side, some matches will be complete walkovers. Neither of those are very fun for long.

    I'm very eager to see how Sabotage turns out in practice rather than theory, I'm just worried.
  • ShadeDevShadeDev Member, Robot Entertainment, Early Access, Apprentice Founder, Featured Developer
    What I have seen of Sabotage doesn't appear suffer from anywhere near the same amount or severity of design issues that Siege did. That is entirely true. "Sabotage is an extension of Survival" seems to be an accurate and nice way of putting it. I still see a few scant things that it has in common with the old Siege mode.

    People in this very thread have expressed a disinterest in playing Sabotage due to its competitive nature. Other people are very excited about there being some new PvP content. I don't want to sound overdramatic, but there's a real chance that the introduction of Sabotage will split the playerbase. New players will be sold on the game based on only the PvE/PvP section of the game and never play the other one. Queue times for both modes might be even longer then they are now as a result unless the playerbase surges at all levels and stays there.

    Competitive games by their very nature require a stronger balance than cooperative ones. I'm sorry to state it in such an unfriendly tone, but I don't feel like the game is in a good enough place, balance-wise, to support a competitive mode. Due to the highly random nature of chests, players of a similar account level can have WILDLY different loadouts. Some players will be matched together who are at a severe disadvantage to the enemy team before the game even starts. Or on the flip side, some matches will be complete walkovers. Neither of those are very fun for long.

    I'm very eager to see how Sabotage turns out in practice rather than theory, I'm just worried.
    Depends on the level of competitiveness that we push. 

    This is closer to Mario Kart than LoL.
    Doug Houserman
    Robot Entertainment | Lead Balance Designer
  • AFistAngrilyAFistAngrily Member, Early Access
    Now that's something I can get behind. Granted, there are those folks out there who take Mario Kart way too seriously, but I can see where you're coming from now. I took away a much more serious picture of Sabotage from the little 5-minute intro trailer than was intended. I think if you make that comparison a bit more front-and-center in future presentations of Sabotage, it'll end up in a much better place than Siege ever did.

    I appreciate your continued posts and clarifications, ShadeDev. If it's any consolation to your precious time lost on the forums writing this stuff, I've moved from "expecting the worst" to "cautiously optimistic".
  • I wouldn't be too worried about the playerbase getting split from an addition like this: There's a large wad of players you were already not seeing since they simply quit the game when Siege got removed. Perhaps this will bring them back.

    The real worry is how much focus and time this new mode will drain from the development team - Sure, a lot of the content will overlap, but the last thing this game needs is any kind of fresh-content stagnation, especially right after its release. A new mode will simply demand more focussed attention, and it will be at the cost of attention given elsewhere..
  • SpamwagonSpamwagon Member, Master Founder, Early Access
    Not a huge fan of random card draws for your "sabotage" deck. 

    Other than that, looks like it will be a fun game mode.  (IF the random deck thing doesn't ruin it for me - which it might)
  • I guess it is random, because if it is not random that might create some "metas"?
  • What I have seen of Sabotage doesn't appear suffer from anywhere near the same amount or severity of design issues that Siege did. That is entirely true. "Sabotage is an extension of Survival" seems to be an accurate and nice way of putting it. I still see a few scant things that it has in common with the old Siege mode.

    People in this very thread have expressed a disinterest in playing Sabotage due to its competitive nature. Other people are very excited about there being some new PvP content. I don't want to sound overdramatic, but there's a real chance that the introduction of Sabotage will split the playerbase. New players will be sold on the game based on only the PvE/PvP section of the game and never play the other one. Queue times for both modes might be even longer then they are now as a result unless the playerbase surges at all levels and stays there.

    Competitive games by their very nature require a stronger balance than cooperative ones. I'm sorry to state it in such an unfriendly tone, but I don't feel like the game is in a good enough place, balance-wise, to support a competitive mode. Due to the highly random nature of chests, players of a similar account level can have WILDLY different loadouts. Some players will be matched together who are at a severe disadvantage to the enemy team before the game even starts. Or on the flip side, some matches will be complete walkovers. Neither of those are very fun for long.

    I'm very eager to see how Sabotage turns out in practice rather than theory, I'm just worried.
    I play with a few friends, or if they aren't playing, I play solo.  ie one imagines that a proportion of the queuing players will come from existing players that don't queue.

    When you put 3 players together, you get a much better potential trap set than you do as a solo player.  ie I only lack one trap, the friend I play with most has it (boom barrel rollers).   Also lots of traps are essentially optional, you can complete the game with common/uncommon traps.

    Also you can force the game to the golden point round simply by being good at defending, which is something everyone ought to be good at, since its all anyone has done since siege was removed, and you can choose heroes on your ability to defend with them, not on their ability to oneshot or otherwise 1v1 against another class.

  • GhengisJohnGhengisJohn Member
    edited April 18
    I think this is a great idea for people that need their PVP fix to play a game, while remaining far more true to the Orcs Must Die system than Siege did, which was a radical departure. That said, I can tell just looking at it that I'd probably find it frustrating simply because it's unpredictable and planning ahead is one of the things I personally enjoy in a tower defense game. That said, I'm fine with this existing and I'm optimistic that this will increase the number of active players. Bearing that in mind though, what I don't want is for the PVE experience to start getting balanced around PVP. I can already see it coming and it made the game a lot less fun in PVE before, you know that. I'm hoping the inability to directly attack other players alone will help with that but on that front I remain skeptical.

    Edit: I just found the patch notes and started reading them:

    Dobbin:
    • Coin bags now provide 200 coin (from 220).
    • Coin bags now de-spawn after 12 seconds (from 15).
    • There is now a max of 4 coin bags that can spawn from a single dynamite.
    • Armor reduction from Dust Devil reduced to -15 (from -30).
      Developer Comment: When testing Sabotage, it became very apparent that Dobbin was far too powerful. These changes are designed to make him a competitive choice rather than a mandatory one.

    Well orc. HERE WE GO. It begins.
    Post edited by GhengisJohn on
  • LorelleLorelle Member
    edited April 19
    Anything overpowered for sabotage is probably overpowered for the most part in survival too.  Dobbin was a good example.

    That said, now that I've played Sabotage a bit, I can think of a few theretical things that might be better in one more than the other, but it needs testing since sabotage is new.
2
Sign In or Register to comment.