Siege has consistently gotten slower over time. This is not a recent development nor is it the result of the changes that came with Operation Solar Raid. Everything from animations to run speed and leaning, it’s all been slowed down. But is this a good direction for Siege to go?
Historically the game has suffered the most when it slows down. The 20 second meta was not good for the health of the game. But the changes to movement speed while ADSing may do more than simply put players “on equal terms when taking on a fight” which was the reasoning cited by the developers.
Unsurprising Changes
Seeing another patch where movement slows down isn’t particularly shocking. Ubisoft has consistently messed with movement speed in one form or another for years now. That typically took the form of slowing down three speeds or leaning, but not always. The first change to movement speed was in Operation Para Bellum where three speeds moved faster and three armors moved slower. This is a bit of an anomaly as the future patches would attempt to slow down leaning, lessen vaulting’s distance, and more.
I would love to cite more patch notes, but apparently every attempt to stop lean spam (there were many) was shown during season reveals and never mentioned on paper. Or I looked at the wrong paper trail. Maybe both. Good thing there’s video comparison.
Now some of these changes were good for the game, slowing down leaning was essential. Many Beaulo Peek enthusiasts denounce this change, but it really was beneficial for the health of the game overall. The trend of a slower Siege is undeniable, and likely the unspoken killer of many OG player’s motivation to keep playing. But I’ll get to that in a bit. My point is that we shouldn’t be asking why Ubisoft slowed down the game, but ask whether a slower Siege is a healthy Siege.
Slow Siege Doesn’t Mean Healthy Siege
The 20 second meta was a time nobody enjoyed and everyone wants to forget. Even for the most tactically minded individual, the game was painful. Too many unavoidable timesinks between taking gunfights and doing the cool stuff. Despite a global pandemic, Siege took a hit to its popularity because of this meta.
For those who are unaware, the 20 second meta was a byproduct of Defenders having too many bulletproof gadgets combined with Jaeger and Wamai’s unparalleled synergy. This resulted in Attackers having to focus on taking utility solely focused on clearing Jaeger ADS’s, Wamai disks, Goyo shields, Maestro cams, Castle barricades, deployable shields, and whatever else the Defense had before being able to shoot their guns. This was a slow, painfully boring meta that really killed Siege. When 9 flashbangs was considered “light utility” you know you’ve got a problem. Hell, a 7-0 without Wamai took SSG 45 minutes.
A 16-0 in CSGO takes less time than that and has way more rounds to burn through.
The most popular times in Siege’s history have been during flexible metas where the game’s pace was up to the Attack. They had autonomy to go wherever they wanted however fast they wanted. 2018-2019 was arguably the game’s peak and it’s no surprise that the meta had very little utility burn back then. It also had significantly faster movement.
In contrast 2020-2021 was a very poor time in Siege’s life despite world events that should have booster player count. The slowdown caused by the 20 second meta indicates that players don’t enjoy painfully slow gameplay. (In case the monthly CoD movement tweets that go viral indicate anything)
Of course this doesn’t mean Siege being slower is necessarily a problem, slowing down movement and slowing down the game’s pace through utility are two very different methods to the same end. I more want to highlight that the last time Siege was slowed down it very nearly killed the game. This attempt may be more effective, but we’ll have to see if this has the effect Ubisoft wanted or if the game starts suffering because of it.
The Effects of a Slowdown
While I can’t speak for Ubisoft, I believe the goal with all the changes to movement are aimed at pushing for a more tactical Siege. Where coordination between teammates is mandatory in order to win. According to the developer blog, the reasoning for Mute becoming a 3 armor is to incentivize more shotgun use in Casual as well as coerce players to spend time making rotates in site instead of running across the map with an MP5. This is a dev team that wants a team based tactical shooter with an emphasis on team.
This is a great ideal to strive for, but also isn’t realistic. Most online games have very little coordination between random teammates. It’s the nature of the beast. Gameplay can nudge players to work together, but it can’t force them to. It shouldn’t try to either.
Game design can’t force players to change their ways, it can only try to nudge them in certain directions. This is especially true in established titles that have existing audiences. Looking at the armor change to Mute showcases this, but it applies to all movement changes made in Solar Raid. If Casual Mute players run off site without making rotates, making him seem like an anchor with a three armor rating will change player perception of the op, and thus the way he’s played.
Relaa, a competitive Battlefield player, has written extensive documents about game design, but applying a small blurb from his work How does a mechanic generate randomness is particularly relevant:
As Relaa points out, using game design to promote certain behavior doesn’t work consistently. Dice’s efforts to encourage burst fire didn’t work and not all roaming Mute players will change their ways because of this patch. However for some, this may ruin their experience of Siege so much they stop playing all together. The played out factoid is that losing hurts twice as much as gaining. Combine those two concepts and you can see that nerfing something as universal as movement will rattle some cages.
This isn’t a shot in the dark on my part, Core A Gaming highlights how Capcom’s balancing in Street Fighter V created frustration among pro players by introducing more RNG and limiting defensive options. Some of those players quit the game in the five years since.
Players are resistant to changing their playstyle, even if systems and mechanics force them to. The discussion around Siege’s movement speed has always been a lukewarm undercurrent but has never been outright addressed. With a forcible change like this, players will be able to scapegoat all their frustration on a singular change. The reality is the game shifted away from the fast paced days of yesteryear gradually. This update will be blamed as the final straw.
What complicates this situation is that the movement changes may not push players towards Ubisoft’s ‘ideal Siege’. Slowing down movement doesn’t directly encourage teamwork. If a player really thinks about it, sure, they can see that their individual performance is more limited and therefore working as a team will result in consistent success. But that’s layers of abstraction. Do you really think JFKpeekedGlaz420 is going to think that hard about it?
The ADS movement speed changes do not directly encourage team play. If pushing to the ‘ideal Siege’ where teamwork is necessary is Ubisoft’s ultimate goal, being so indirect only hurts the community in the long run. It’s better to rip that bandaid off immediately rather than dance around the problem. Being indirect only serves to anger players that get caught up by the roundabout changes.
Slowing down the game does not reintroduce tactics to the game either. If a certain amount of players have been ignoring utility, slowing down their movement isn’t going to make them reconsider that playstyle.
Potential Balancing Issues in the Future?
The ADS movement changes may also create future balancing issues. For better or for worse, Ubisoft relies on data driven balancing. The reason some operators take so long to be balanced is because statistically they don’t seem as problematic as they are. Lion didn’t get addressed quickly because he made Attack and Defense the closest to a 50/50 win rate the game’s ever been, but it’s hard to say it was a fun time playing against him on release.
Slowing down movement benefits Defense, since the Attackers have to peek into them. Since Attackers are now slower while peeking, this gives the Defenders more time to react and shoot. I can’t say how much, if at all, this will increase the Defense’s win rate, but if Ubisoft doesn’t take it into account we could get odd operator balancing designed to address a spiking Defender win rate when the reason isn’t gadget based, but stems from system mechanics.
At the end of the day, the speed changes to Siege will have an effect on Siege. We can’t know how much, I’m no prophet and I suspect you aren’t either, but Ubisoft will have to be careful moving forward. The trend to a slower Siege isn’t surprising, but may be dangerous if not handled correctly. That’s doubly so if the speed changes are just a roundabout method to encourage more teamwork.