HAWKEN servers are up and our latest minor update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Jet and air thrust


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

#1 Warwhale

Warwhale

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 225 posts

Posted October 30 2012 - 02:00 AM

just played my first game since the earlier build

im interested to know if the jet thrust or transition to the thrust has been altered as it "felt" significantly smoother, though possibly that is server related

is there any word to movement changes made at all? i would still like to see thrust and boost combined into a fuel heavy explosive air thrust!!!

atm the speed going from thrusting forward to air seems better but is still a little too slow imo...im not talking about turning it into tribes but u want skilled movement to be an advantage just like good aim is

if u balance it with fuel it works really well to develop unique playing styles

impressions very positive, if anyone is aware of movement changes pls post!

yes im obsessed with movement in fps'

#2 defekt

defekt

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted October 30 2012 - 02:22 AM

Yes, the transition into and out of thrusting has been greatly improved; no more mystery sudden losses of momentum.  Top stuff.

#3 Immie

Immie

    Dev Killer

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 446 posts
  • LocationToronto, Ontario

Posted October 30 2012 - 02:37 AM

The transition out of thrusting has not been improved. You still mysteriously lose momentum down to about half your max walking speed, and then have to accelerate back to top walking speed. If you looked at a graph of speed over time, boosting forwards and continuing to walk would be a big awkward zig-zag.

Edited by Immie, October 30 2012 - 02:37 AM.

Posted Image


#4 defekt

defekt

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 818 posts

Posted October 30 2012 - 05:30 AM

Sure about that?  It was the first thing I noticed in the [redacted] but I've not been annoyed by it in the beta; maybe I've just acclimated myself.  I'll be checking this later but I have noticed that there's no more juddering and running jumps do 'running speed + thrust' ranther than what used to be the bleeding off of all running speed.

#5 DDwarrior

DDwarrior

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 293 posts
  • LocationUS

Posted October 30 2012 - 07:43 AM

View PostImmie, on October 30 2012 - 02:37 AM, said:

The transition out of thrusting has not been improved. You still mysteriously lose momentum down to about half your max walking speed, and then have to accelerate back to top walking speed. If you looked at a graph of speed over time, boosting forwards and continuing to walk would be a big awkward zig-zag.

I noticed this almost be accident. I land my Assult TOW Rocket regularly simply by waiting for my opponent to boost as I found out intuitively there speed seem to come almost to a stand still for about a quarter or half second.  This is always the moment I take advantage of to land a direct rocket hit and it's given me a lot of kills.  I actually got accused of hacking for landing them so well. lol
When I've launched onto the battlefield, torn my enemies to shreds.  I stride through the field and listen, I see a ping.  I quietly take my time moving into position, it pings.  I see him...but he doesn't see me.  That feeling of making someone feel defenseless in that moment.  It is glorious!


"I5-2400 3.3Ghz, 16GB Corsair 1600Mhz, MSI 2GD5/OC GeForce GTX 660Ti, COOLER MASTER HAF 912, GIGABYTE GA-Z77X-UD3H, LSP 750 PRO,  500GB Sata 6GB"

#6 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts

Posted October 30 2012 - 08:18 AM

I agree, there could be more air movement in this game.  I'd like to see the ability to dodge mid air as well.  Currently, if you're in the air, you're dead, thus making it pretty pointless.  The only time I ever use my jump jets is to get on top of the AA turret.  There's simply no need elsewhere.  Giving more movement in the air would increase the role of the jump jets to more than just "need to get on top of a building".

Edited by RedVan, October 30 2012 - 08:20 AM.


#7 LaurenceGough

LaurenceGough

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • LocationReading, UK

Posted October 31 2012 - 03:24 AM

Mid air dodges would be awesome, it feels a bit lacking and slow currently, the only time you hover is to get over things.
www.laurencegough.com
Sharpshooter - Aim good, kill good.

Say yes to more customization!
Please add a Melee attack!

#8 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted October 31 2012 - 05:39 AM

View PostLaurenceGough, on October 31 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Mid air dodges would be awesome, it feels a bit lacking and slow currently, the only time you hover is to get over things.
That'd be impractical, physics-wise.
Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#9 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts

Posted October 31 2012 - 07:46 AM

View PostDarkPulse, on October 31 2012 - 05:39 AM, said:

View PostLaurenceGough, on October 31 2012 - 03:24 AM, said:

Mid air dodges would be awesome, it feels a bit lacking and slow currently, the only time you hover is to get over things.
That'd be impractical, physics-wise.

Please don't waste my time bringing realism arguments into a fictional game.  It's a god dam mech, you have no idea what they make these out of in the future, you have no idea how much power their jets can generate, who are you to say it's impractical physics-wise.

#10 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted October 31 2012 - 08:33 AM

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Please don't waste my time bringing realism arguments into a fictional game.  It's a god dam mech, you have no idea what they make these out of in the future, you have no idea how much power their jets can generate, who are you to say it's impractical physics-wise.
You're no more of an expert at physics than I am, either, so let's not get too high-and-mighty. As Scotty said, "You cannot change the laws of physics!"

That said, I'll humor you and make a simple, non-physics assessment: It would suck, look silly, and give some classes almost excessive mobility. A-Class mechs would be able to get damn near anywhere, not to mention it destroys the whole point of these being heavy-ass mechs; now you want them to zip 5-8 meters to the side through the air even after they boost up from the ground?

No. Just no.

The only way it'd ever work from a gameplay POV is if the magical air sidedash 100% killed your fuel immediately upon execution, since it's going to take at least 1/3 of a tank to get up to an appreciable height in the first place, plus I presume you want the same dash "distance" as a ground dash, which is not exactly a small amount of distance. And, of course, when you land, you're subject to the normal dash recharge penalty - plus the fuel penalty that you need to execute the dash in the first place. So in short, if you do airdashing, you're definitely not going to be able to crutch on it.

That said, I could see something like this, if need be, an optional thruster that you buy, but obviously it comes with a penalty of its own (perhaps reduced ground dashing/sidedashing speed). But making it standard on all mechs, especially when the game is trying to go for a "heavy and clunky" feel, is kind of flying in the face of what the rest of the game feels like, so as a whole I feel it's best if it's simply not an option.

Edited by DarkPulse, October 31 2012 - 11:17 AM.

Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#11 AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Lithium Cellophane Unicorn Salad

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 8,011 posts
  • LocationWI

Posted October 31 2012 - 10:01 AM

DarkPulse used Logic.

It's super effective!

[HWK]HUGHES, on July 03 2013 - 11:07 PM, said:

AJK is right

The Sinful Infil HEAT Cannon Hustler, Cloaking and Smoking, C-Class Swagger, Ballin' n' Brawlin'


#12 Elix

Elix

    Good Guy Elix

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 4,228 posts
  • LocationFred's cockpit

Posted October 31 2012 - 11:14 AM

View PostDarkPulse, on October 31 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

That said, I could see something like this, if need be, an optional thruster that you buy, but obviously it comes with a penalty of its own (perhaps reduced ground dashing/sidedashing speed).
I'd support magical air dashing thrusters as an internal upgrade slot that reduces your total fuel by a small percentage (maybe 15%) and slows dash fuel regen by a similar small (or maybe smaller) percentage. You're only going to be able to manage one side dash in midair, and it's only left-right, so this can't be used for a turbo-powered lateral leap forward for rediculous flying distance. You could dash off the side of a ledge to the right and then fly forward, yes, but the 90-degree turn and the slowness of mechs in turning would probably mitigate any advantage you get from your magic hover shuffle.

Edit: Unless you were clever and parallel-parked your rusty bunny onto a ledge by flying beside it and then zipping sideways. And that should be allowed as long as it takes some skill to execute properly.

Edited by Elix, October 31 2012 - 11:16 AM.

HAWKEN Community Values (updated!)

ETA for $feature_you_want to be added to Hawken Open Beta: Imminent™
See someone breaking the rules? Don't reply, just hit Report. I am a player, not staff.
Drinking game: Check the daily stats. If I'm not the top, DRINK! (I'm joking!)

#13 Montiblanc

Montiblanc

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 117 posts

Posted October 31 2012 - 02:23 PM

I WANTS ARMORED CORE FOR ANSWER ONLINE!

but this game will never come close to that sadface T_T

#14 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts

Posted October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM

View PostDarkPulse, on October 31 2012 - 08:33 AM, said:

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 07:46 AM, said:

Please don't waste my time bringing realism arguments into a fictional game.  It's a god dam mech, you have no idea what they make these out of in the future, you have no idea how much power their jets can generate, who are you to say it's impractical physics-wise.
You're no more of an expert at physics than I am, either, so let's not get too high-and-mighty. As Scotty said, "You cannot change the laws of physics!"

I'm not?

Well, I'm no physics major, but I am a pilot, so naturally I do need to know a bit about physics.

Quote

That said, I'll humor you and make a simple, non-physics assessment: It would suck, look silly, and give some classes almost excessive mobility. A-Class mechs would be able to get damn near anywhere, not to mention it destroys the whole point of these being heavy-ass mechs; now you want them to zip 5-8 meters to the side through the air even after they boost up from the ground?

Who said they're big heavy ass mechs?  As I said before:  You don't know what the technology of the future holds.  They could be light as a feather for all you know.

Currently, one can dodge to the side, and immediately jet up.  You have limited energy, thus your resulting upjet will not be as high as if you had full energy.

Explain to me how that is any different than jetting up into the air, then dodging?  Actually, according to rl physics, you would use less energy if you jet up then dodge, as you won't have ground friction.  If you jet up too high and run out of energy, then obviously you won't have energy to dodge seeing as dodge burns energy in HAWKENs current state (and it should remain that way).

Quote


The only way it'd ever work from a gameplay POV is if the magical air sidedash 100% killed your fuel immediately upon execution, since it's going to take at least 1/3 of a tank to get up to an appreciable height in the first place, plus I presume you want the same dash "distance" as a ground dash, which is not exactly a small amount of distance. And, of course, when you land, you're subject to the normal dash recharge penalty - plus the fuel penalty that you need to execute the dash in the first place. So in short, if you do airdashing, you're definitely not going to be able to crutch on it.

As I explained before, jetting up (and managing your energy so that you have enough to dodge still), then dodging would technically use less energy.  So there is no reason it would use 100% of your fuel, unless you got just enough altitude to have just enough energy to dodge.

Also look at dropping off "cliffs" or buildings.  You're not jetting up, but you do have altitude.  Why should we not be able to dodge after dropping while still midair?  Why is it when we are dashing forward, and drop off a cliff, we lose that speed, though we have less overall friction?  Logic?  Negative.

Last I checked, we have rocket and jet engine propelled vehicles that speed up while in the air every day.

As for you calling it a "crutch", hardly.  The game is already very easy to hit your target, it could go for a little more challenge.

Quote

That said, I could see something like this, if need be, an optional thruster that you buy, but obviously it comes with a penalty of its own (perhaps reduced ground dashing/sidedashing speed). But making it standard on all mechs, especially when the game is trying to go for a "heavy and clunky" feel, is kind of flying in the face of what the rest of the game feels like, so as a whole I feel it's best if it's simply not an option.

Where do you get the idea the game is going for a "heavy and clunky" feel?  Did you think you were posting in the MWO forums?  They have been designing this game to be faster than mechwarrior since it's inception.  Don't bring in preconceived notions about how the game is supposed to feel.

#15 LaurenceGough

LaurenceGough

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 34 posts
  • LocationReading, UK

Posted November 01 2012 - 05:57 AM

How do you know what the future will bring? You don't... Hawken is set many years in the future, who knows what propulsion technologies will be around.
www.laurencegough.com
Sharpshooter - Aim good, kill good.

Say yes to more customization!
Please add a Melee attack!

#16 Arcana13

Arcana13

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Posted November 01 2012 - 09:11 AM

A lot more people should check out the pre-alpha footage on the main page to get the idea how this game has developed past the last/this year.





As you can see the devs have greatly reduced overall mobility in this game through this stage of the beta (alpha is under NDA although I'll just say the pace was almost the same). I didn't think much bout the mobility nerf and just adapted to the actual pace of the game. Right now you have to be much more aware of your surroundings and adapt your positions to the situational danger since you can't cross half of the map to teammates with lightning speed or hovering midair (air speed was ridiculously fast compared to now in the vids above) without height limit almost forever and shredding enemies down. I'm sure adhesive was aiming for hawken to be fast paced and not totally on simulational basis, but some people on this forum wants it to be even more paced like arcade/action-like mechgames thus bringing in suggestions like air-dashing, back/diagonal-dashing, melee, third-person cam "blabla fancy stuff you name it you get it"...

Right now it feels balanced and strategicly challanging to some extend. Adding "fancy" mobility could potentially remove the need of tactical approach and turn the whole game in a chaotic dodge fest (!!!this is absolutely hypothetical!!! I am insane). If the devs think they need more spice on this and find a way to implement it fairly well in the game I wouldn't mind adapting myself to the new pace. As it is rightnow Hawken is still a fastpaced FPS, but with its own mechanic (limited turn speed, slow movement acceleration, hover speed/height limits, limited UI info while scoping, repairing, the 180 turn....etc) it requires its player to use his/her brain to go into fights and punishes them hard if they don't do so. I love the game as it is. I think the devs had this in mind based on the direction of the developement.

Quote

Where do you get the idea the game is going for a "heavy and clunky" feel? Did you think you were posting in the MWO forums? They have been designing this game to be faster than mechwarrior since it's inception. Don't bring in preconceived notions about how the game is supposed to feel.        

DarkPulse prolly never had any intentions to compare hawken to MWO. He rather meant that the game will not be arcade fastpaced like, for example, the Armored Core series or Exteel (RIP) but instead restrict mobility with the mechanics I mentioned above. It adds small/moderate tactical elements to the game by eg. limiting escape options in certain situations so you will need to think ahead where to position yourself and where/when to attack. Judging based on the vids and comments I posted up there DarkPulse is prolly right bout the airdash (and prolly the other "fancy" stuff too) not being a core mechanic for all the mechs anytime soon and if yes it will be very limited in its uses.

Discussions about whether mechanics and gameplay elements are realistic or not are kinda silly. First thing to watch out for is if it fits the gerenal concept and flow of the game. Plausible things like a hydraulic melee drill for mechs for example might change the dynamic of Hawken entirely.

I hope some of you can appreciate what I tried to sum up above. Pls don't flame my arse. K thx bye

Edited by Arcana13, November 01 2012 - 09:12 AM.


#17 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted November 01 2012 - 09:20 AM

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Who said they're big heavy ass mechs?  As I said before:  You don't know what the technology of the future holds.  They could be light as a feather for all you know.

Currently, one can dodge to the side, and immediately jet up.  You have limited energy, thus your resulting upjet will not be as high as if you had full energy.

Explain to me how that is any different than jetting up into the air, then dodging?  Actually, according to rl physics, you would use less energy if you jet up then dodge, as you won't have ground friction.  If you jet up too high and run out of energy, then obviously you won't have energy to dodge seeing as dodge burns energy in HAWKENs current state (and it should remain that way).
If they're "light as a feather," I'm sure we would not see UI and HUD sway from just simple, basic movement. Walking feels "weighty," and the thing tosses aside cars that weigh, presumably, a couple of tons. Furthermore, I think I seem to recall devs giving some off-handed ranges like 40 tons or so for the A-Class, but don't quote me on that.

It's pretty obvious, though, that they're certainly not light - the likewise slow boost height proves that. Yes, these thrusters are definitely amazing enough to lift a machine like that straight off the ground - but not very high (comparatively speaking, when you consider these things are "really" a couple of storeys tall), and definitely not very fast. You're going to expend fuel to get them off the ground a bit, which is fighting gravity, then you are going to channel that fuel immediately into a sideways direction, which means that technically even as you perform the maneuver, gravity is already reclaiming its hold. Therefore, to get appreciable distance, you will need appreciable height off the ground, or else it'll be cut short because you land, pure and simple.

However, we are interjecting physics into a game now, which you had said you previously did not want.

I gave my non-physics reasons above: A-Class mechs would be almost too maneuverable in the air, it would look silly considering they still thump and pivot like they mechanically have weight, and the only way I feel it would work would be if it were an internal slot of some kind. It would absolutely look silly "standard."

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

As I explained before, jetting up (and managing your energy so that you have enough to dodge still), then dodging would technically use less energy.  So there is no reason it would use 100% of your fuel, unless you got just enough altitude to have just enough energy to dodge.
Dodging uses less, but you're countering gravity by jetting up (which is a far stronger force than friction would be to the mech). Furthermore, you have to jet up to a decent height to get a decent side burst, as I said above.

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Also look at dropping off "cliffs" or buildings.  You're not jetting up, but you do have altitude.  Why should we not be able to dodge after dropping while still midair?  Why is it when we are dashing forward, and drop off a cliff, we lose that speed, though we have less overall friction?  Logic?  Negative.
It takes a lot of thrust to move something heavy - sustained thrust, not burst thrust. Burst would work fine in a zero-gravity environment, but the world has gravity. Newton's Laws of Motion, etc.

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Last I checked, we have rocket and jet engine propelled vehicles that speed up while in the air every day.

As for you calling it a "crutch", hardly.  The game is already very easy to hit your target, it could go for a little more challenge.
Those vehicles also push in only one direction - you can't make a rocket turn sideways very easily, now can you?

And you're correct, I don't want it becoming a crutch. It will be if it uses the same amount of energy as a regular side-dash, so if anything, it should use more in the air.

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Where do you get the idea the game is going for a "heavy and clunky" feel?  Did you think you were posting in the MWO forums?  They have been designing this game to be faster than mechwarrior since it's inception.  Don't bring in preconceived notions about how the game is supposed to feel.
...The way they walk, the way they pivot, the fact that movements have a bit of pre- and post-movement "lag" to them... it's not going to Mechwarrior levels (and the devs obviously don't want it to be and I'm fine with that), but I don't think the devs are trying to make these mechs out like they're made of some kind of super-strong, super-light metal here. They're trying to make out these are relatively bulky machines. They can do some things quickly, but - for tactical and gameplay reasons - they don't want a game where they can zip all over the place and turn a match into Metallic Skeet Shooting.

It's really apparent to anyone who watches the game, even casually, that these are not lightweight mech chassis bodies. The A-Class moves relatively quick, but even it has a bit of "thump" to its step. Therefore, the mechs presumably weigh a great deal, with A-Class obviously lighter than B-Class, which is lighter than C-Class. The reasons the A-Class is smallest, lightest, and fastest, is because it has less armor, and thus, less weight. Anyone who's worked with any kind of vehicle armor would know that the armor is easily the heaviest part of the vehicle, by far.

I could see you making this argument if all you did is play an A-Class - after all, the A-Class is quite light and fast. But play the B-Class or C-Class, and you'll see that there's definitely more slowdown to compensate for the armor, and upward thrust is much smaller, as are dash distances. Therefore, we can conclude that the mechs have high weight, and the trusters are standardized, so that an A-Class Mech will get much more use out of them than a B-Class, and way more than a C-Class.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 01 2012 - 09:30 AM.

Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#18 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts

Posted November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM

View PostDarkPulse, on November 01 2012 - 09:20 AM, said:

...alotta blah blah irrelevant physics by me and darkpulse...

However, we are interjecting physics into a game now, which you had said you previously did not want.

Thank you :D  There is no point in discussing rl physics in an imaginary world.

I have edited out any irrelevant RL arguments through this post ;)


Quote

I gave my non-physics reasons above: A-Class mechs would be almost too maneuverable in the air, it would look silly considering they still thump and pivot like they mechanically have weight, and the only way I feel it would work would be if it were an internal slot of some kind. It would absolutely look silly "standard."

Now we're talking.  I have no problem if you have a problem with it, I only have a problem with people bringing RL into video games.

As for your concern, while you may think it looks silly, why does it not look silly that they dodge or jet at all?  I mean, you can dodge then jet already, that doesn't look silly does it?  Why does it suddenly look silly if you do it in reverse?



Quote

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Last I checked, we have rocket and jet engine propelled vehicles that speed up while in the air every day.

As for you calling it a "crutch", hardly.  The game is already very easy to hit your target, it could go for a little more challenge.
Those vehicles also push in only one direction - you can't make a rocket turn sideways very easily, now can you?

I don't think the main rockets move in the current animation of the mech to do a dodge, so, I really see no reason that this would be any sort of cosmetic issue were dodge allowed in the air.  If it is, add small side boosters.

Quote

And you're correct, I don't want it becoming a crutch. It will be if it uses the same amount of energy as a regular side-dash, so if anything, it should use more in the air.

I see no way that would be considered a crutch.  Usually something is referred to a crutch when it makes the game easier for someone.  If this were to become a standard feature, everyone would have it, thus no one person would benefit from it being "easier".  And IMO, it would not make the game easier, as the ability to dodge in the air would make aiming harder.  Currently, someone else jetting up is a "crutch" to the person shooting them.  There's nothing you can do once you jet up but be a giant floating blimp to shoot down.

Quote

View PostRedVan, on October 31 2012 - 05:24 PM, said:

Where do you get the idea the game is going for a "heavy and clunky" feel?  Did you think you were posting in the MWO forums?  They have been designing this game to be faster than mechwarrior since it's inception.  Don't bring in preconceived notions about how the game is supposed to feel.
...The way they walk, the way they pivot, the fact that movements have a bit of pre- and post-movement "lag" to them... it's not going to Mechwarrior levels (and the devs obviously don't want it to be and I'm fine with that), but I don't think the devs are trying to make these mechs out like they're made of some kind of super-strong, super-light metal here. They're trying to make out these are relatively bulky machines. They can do some things quickly, but - for tactical and gameplay reasons - they don't want a game where they can zip all over the place and turn a match into Metallic Skeet Shooting.

Understandable concern.  I don't believe fast paced games take anything out of tactics though.  Fast paced adds challenge to hitting your target, but does not detract from the necessity to use tactics.  You simply must be able to employ your tactics quicker, and acquire your target quicker.

Having played a vast variety of games, I've noticed that games that are slow and, for some reason, thus considered "more tactical", are generally the easier games to master.  A fast paced game will require tactics, but it also adds the ability to think quick and aim quick to the mix.

Quote

I could see you making this argument if all you did is play an A-Class - after all, the A-Class is quite light and fast. But play the B-Class or C-Class, and you'll see that there's definitely more slowdown to compensate for the armor, and upward thrust is much smaller, as are dash distances. Therefore, we can conclude that the mechs have high weight, and the trusters are standardized, so that an A-Class Mech will get much more use out of them than a B-Class, and way more than a C-Class.

I played primarily B (Sharpshooter), and quite a bit of assault and infiltrator.  Yes, there is a slowdown, but, that doesn't mean they can't change that to make more challenging gameplay.

#19 DarkPulse

DarkPulse

    Ghost Liner

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2,243 posts
  • LocationBuffalo, NY, USA

Posted November 02 2012 - 04:44 AM

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Now we're talking.  I have no problem if you have a problem with it, I only have a problem with people bringing RL into video games.

As for your concern, while you may think it looks silly, why does it not look silly that they dodge or jet at all?  I mean, you can dodge then jet already, that doesn't look silly does it?  Why does it suddenly look silly if you do it in reverse?
Well, logically, the thrusters are affixed to the back. Without going into semantics of it (I remember discussing this in A2, as well), and trying to avoid going into physics again, since the thrusters are fixed, you can only thrust in so many directions. This is why it's possible to thrust forwards, but not backwards - they're stuck to your back. I had proposed, at the time, positionable thrusters, so people who wanted a backwards dash could have it, at the cost of sticking those thrusters on the front of their mech and thus losing all forward dashing, or they could put one each on their side, giving them dashing in all directions, but reduced forward/backward speed compared to normal placements of those, and obviously seriously reduced sideways speed (since only one thruster could be activated at a time).

That said, even though I main as a Sharpshooter, I'd feel allowing backwards dashing would be incredibly overkill. No mech would be able to catch up to someone unless they out-maneuvered them, and as others have said, part of the point is to make wise tactical combat choices; if you don't make a wise decision, you shouldn't be able to backdash harmlessly out of it, or if you can, you should have some kind of penalty so that the enemy has some kind of slight (but not overwhelming) advantage.

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I don't think the main rockets move in the current animation of the mech to do a dodge, so, I really see no reason that this would be any sort of cosmetic issue were dodge allowed in the air.  If it is, add small side boosters.
They don't (although they should). It still doesn't change the fact that it really eliminates a lot of the "feel" I think they're going for, and that it would make some classes OP if it were standard. It should, therefore, be an optional part, that a player must buy, take up an internal slot, and obviously have a fairly heavy fuel use to compensate for the wide mobility. I mean, with this, someone could drop off a high point, sidedash off, and get a rather large distance before gravity makes them hit the ground. Maps have to therefore be constructed carefully with this sort of thing in mind.

Ergo, why I feel it's simply best if it's not something the devs pursue, but if they do, I hope they keep in mind to not allow its advantages to be too useful. Otherwise, we will see a rash of this. Personally, if I want to hit people flying through the air, I'll play Unreal Tournament. :P

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I see no way that would be considered a crutch.  Usually something is referred to a crutch when it makes the game easier for someone.  If this were to become a standard feature, everyone would have it, thus no one person would benefit from it being "easier".  And IMO, it would not make the game easier, as the ability to dodge in the air would make aiming harder.  Currently, someone else jetting up is a "crutch" to the person shooting them.  There's nothing you can do once you jet up but be a giant floating blimp to shoot down.
It makes the game harder for the person trying to hit, and easier for the player not trying to get hit. Again, this move could allow them to get to a place, very fast, where a slower, bulkier mech can suddenly not hit them - for example, it could allow a mech to go from the ground floor onto the bridge of Andromeda, if it's an A-Class, by hovering up onto the roof of the small buildings nearby, waiting a brief moment for his fuel to charge back up a bit if need be, then hover up again and side-dash onto the bridge. He has then successfully broken LOS, and can immediately begin healing, while a slower/heavier B-Class or C-Class mech would be forced to trundle to the on-ramp, by which time not only is the A-Class likely to be close to (if not fully) healed, he'll naturally be watching that on-ramp, and so can break out of healing, fling stuff in his direction, get backwards... see where I'm going?

It just makes them too powerful. They'll outmaneuver anyone, and then you factor in that they've got pretty powerful weapons like the Grenade Launchers or Vulcans. It turns any A-Class pilot who's good at maximizing the air boosts into a dangerous threat that is hard to hit, yet hits hard, and ultimately will allow him to dance around and probably take out opponents he should have no business facing.

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Understandable concern.  I don't believe fast paced games take anything out of tactics though.  Fast paced adds challenge to hitting your target, but does not detract from the necessity to use tactics.  You simply must be able to employ your tactics quicker, and acquire your target quicker.

Having played a vast variety of games, I've noticed that games that are slow and, for some reason, thus considered "more tactical", are generally the easier games to master.  A fast paced game will require tactics, but it also adds the ability to think quick and aim quick to the mix.
But the devs aren't very focused on making this ultra-fast. Again, if people want that, there's plenty of other games that do that. As much as I love Unreal Tournament, I don't want this game to feel like a UT mod where the players got replaced with mechs - I want it to be a bit different. As-is, it is a bit different; they feel a bit clunky and weighty, and while they can have quick, burst movements, they're not all over the place, dashing through midair or blasting off of walls.

Simply put, maps are made with game mechanics in mind. Adding what you want would require another pass over all the maps to factor in the new move and make sure that it doesn't make maps trivial for those classes. The walldodge fundamentally changed UT gameplay (it's one of the reasons I felt 2k3 was absolutely horrible - 2k4 made this somewhat better but it took until UT3 to actually make walldodging not ridiculous), and this airdash would fundamentally change Hawken gameplay. The maps are already made with plenty of stuff to break line-of-sight; it doesn't need yet another thing that does that, but is only effectively of use only on one chassis.

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I played primarily B (Sharpshooter), and quite a bit of assault and infiltrator.  Yes, there is a slowdown, but, that doesn't mean they can't change that to make more challenging gameplay.
It's not as simple as that, though.

When you think about a change, you also have to think about the potential ramifications of that change - and in a title like this, the devs have to walk a very fine line. MMO balancing is a sheer nightmare for this reason. Yes, it would make them harder to hit, and sure it could make fights more interesting, but would it allow certain mechs to dominate over others, have easy outs, and allow the pilot to play a little more recklessly due to a safety net?

I feel that in this case, the answer is yes for A-Class mechs. They're already fairly hard to hit if you come across a good pilot (AsianJoyKiller was no small task to hit when he closed in, that's for sure), and now this gives them even more maneuverability. Something like what you're saying right now would, for example, in Titan allow one to boost up slightly, then side-dash off the edge of the top level of the center tower (Silo 2 in MA, the AA in Siege), and allow them to land pretty much within the rooms of the side points (where the Energy Stations/Silos 1/3 are) within a matter of a few seconds, with little to no warning. A couple people doing this could easily swamp a defender or two at any given point, if it's not balanced carefully to ensure it doesn't allow them to move too far, too fast, for too little energy.

So, simply put, again, while I think it's an admirable idea, I feel it's the wrong way to go. A little slower isn't necessarily bad, and Hawken's already fairly twitchy as it is. It doesn't need to become mega-twitchy to be fun to play.

Edited by DarkPulse, November 02 2012 - 04:50 AM.

Reason as my minor ego, and opposite my desire to be a murderer.
A coagulated, gloomy thinking in the intelligence, as my major ego.
An antinomian theorem of behaviorism, in all of my thinkings.
It's what we call "The Inversion Impulse."

#20 RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Full Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 3,250 posts

Posted November 05 2012 - 06:58 AM

View PostDarkPulse, on November 02 2012 - 04:44 AM, said:

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Now we're talking.  I have no problem if you have a problem with it, I only have a problem with people bringing RL into video games.

As for your concern, while you may think it looks silly, why does it not look silly that they dodge or jet at all?  I mean, you can dodge then jet already, that doesn't look silly does it?  Why does it suddenly look silly if you do it in reverse?
Well, logically, the thrusters are affixed to the back. Without going into semantics of it (I remember discussing this in A2, as well), and trying to avoid going into physics again, since the thrusters are fixed, you can only thrust in so many directions. This is why it's possible to thrust forwards, but not backwards - they're stuck to your back. I had proposed, at the time, positionable thrusters, so people who wanted a backwards dash could have it, at the cost of sticking those thrusters on the front of their mech and thus losing all forward dashing, or they could put one each on their side, giving them dashing in all directions, but reduced forward/backward speed compared to normal placements of those, and obviously seriously reduced sideways speed (since only one thruster could be activated at a time).

That said, even though I main as a Sharpshooter, I'd feel allowing backwards dashing would be incredibly overkill. No mech would be able to catch up to someone unless they out-maneuvered them, and as others have said, part of the point is to make wise tactical combat choices; if you don't make a wise decision, you shouldn't be able to backdash harmlessly out of it, or if you can, you should have some kind of penalty so that the enemy has some kind of slight (but not overwhelming) advantage.
Since the thrusters are fixed, you technically should only be able to thrust in one direction.  Not "only in so many directions".  But, we know that we can dodge, so, we know that the thrusters are capable of more.  I'm not discussing your ideas of how you think jets should be modular.  All I'm doing is saying there should be a mid air dodge, since we have the capability on the ground, there's no reason it shouldn't be capable in the air.

Quote

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I don't think the main rockets move in the current animation of the mech to do a dodge, so, I really see no reason that this would be any sort of cosmetic issue were dodge allowed in the air.  If it is, add small side boosters.
They don't (although they should). It still doesn't change the fact that it really eliminates a lot of the "feel" I think they're going for, and that it would make some classes OP if it were standard. It should, therefore, be an optional part, that a player must buy, take up an internal slot, and obviously have a fairly heavy fuel use to compensate for the wide mobility. I mean, with this, someone could drop off a high point, sidedash off, and get a rather large distance before gravity makes them hit the ground. Maps have to therefore be constructed carefully with this sort of thing in mind.

Ergo, why I feel it's simply best if it's not something the devs pursue, but if they do, I hope they keep in mind to not allow its advantages to be too useful. Otherwise, we will see a rash of this. Personally, if I want to hit people flying through the air, I'll play Unreal Tournament. :P

I think you're imagining the ability to dodge in mid air as somehow increasing dodge frequency, distance, etc...  It's not going to do any of that.  Rather than people jetting in straight lines in the air, they'll be able to dodge.  It's not going to make any classes OP, they can already dodge on the ground, so whats the difference if they do it in the air.

Quote

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I see no way that would be considered a crutch.  Usually something is referred to a crutch when it makes the game easier for someone.  If this were to become a standard feature, everyone would have it, thus no one person would benefit from it being "easier".  And IMO, it would not make the game easier, as the ability to dodge in the air would make aiming harder.  Currently, someone else jetting up is a "crutch" to the person shooting them.  There's nothing you can do once you jet up but be a giant floating blimp to shoot down.

It makes the game harder for the person trying to hit, and easier for the player not trying to get hit. Again, this move could allow them to get to a place, very fast, where a slower, bulkier mech can suddenly not hit them - for example, it could allow a mech to go from the ground floor onto the bridge of Andromeda, if it's an A-Class, by hovering up onto the roof of the small buildings nearby, waiting a brief moment for his fuel to charge back up a bit if need be, then hover up again and side-dash onto the bridge. He has then successfully broken LOS, and can immediately begin healing, while a slower/heavier B-Class or C-Class mech would be forced to trundle to the on-ramp, by which time not only is the A-Class likely to be close to (if not fully) healed, he'll naturally be watching that on-ramp, and so can break out of healing, fling stuff in his direction, get backwards... see where I'm going?

It just makes them too powerful. They'll outmaneuver anyone, and then you factor in that they've got pretty powerful weapons like the Grenade Launchers or Vulcans. It turns any A-Class pilot who's good at maximizing the air boosts into a dangerous threat that is hard to hit, yet hits hard, and ultimately will allow him to dance around and probably take out opponents he should have no business facing.
Yes, it makes it harder for the person trying to hit, but, did you forget that the person dodging also needs to be able to hit?  Thus, it's harder for both players = doesn't make it a crutch.

Currently, class C mechs already have a hard time with class A from the difference in maneuverability, if you increase maneuverability in both, it doesn't make one suddenly OP, it just raises the overall maneuverability of the game.  You have this perception that adding the ability to dodge mid air is only going to help light mechs...  While heavy mechs wont be able to go as far, they'll still be able to dodge enough to throw off a shot, rather than being a sitting duck while in the air.  That's all we're going for here.  I'm not talking about UT style dodging.

Quote

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

Understandable concern.  I don't believe fast paced games take anything out of tactics though.  Fast paced adds challenge to hitting your target, but does not detract from the necessity to use tactics.  You simply must be able to employ your tactics quicker, and acquire your target quicker.

Having played a vast variety of games, I've noticed that games that are slow and, for some reason, thus considered "more tactical", are generally the easier games to master.  A fast paced game will require tactics, but it also adds the ability to think quick and aim quick to the mix.
But the devs aren't very focused on making this ultra-fast. Again, if people want that, there's plenty of other games that do that. As much as I love Unreal Tournament, I don't want this game to feel like a UT mod where the players got replaced with mechs - I want it to be a bit different. As-is, it is a bit different; they feel a bit clunky and weighty, and while they can have quick, burst movements, they're not all over the place, dashing through midair or blasting off of walls.

Simply put, maps are made with game mechanics in mind. Adding what you want would require another pass over all the maps to factor in the new move and make sure that it doesn't make maps trivial for those classes. The walldodge fundamentally changed UT gameplay (it's one of the reasons I felt 2k3 was absolutely horrible - 2k4 made this somewhat better but it took until UT3 to actually make walldodging not ridiculous), and this airdash would fundamentally change Hawken gameplay. The maps are already made with plenty of stuff to break line-of-sight; it doesn't need yet another thing that does that, but is only effectively of use only on one chassis.

Like I said, adding the ability to dodge mid air is still not even close to what UT is.  Stop comparing it to UT.  Dodging mid air isn't going to suddenly make these mechs go bouncing off walls and fuzzy bunny lol.  You're blowing it way out of proportion.  UT and HAWKEN with mid air dodge won't be remotely comparable.

Quote

View PostRedVan, on November 01 2012 - 03:25 PM, said:

I played primarily B (Sharpshooter), and quite a bit of assault and infiltrator.  Yes, there is a slowdown, but, that doesn't mean they can't change that to make more challenging gameplay.
It's not as simple as that, though.

When you think about a change, you also have to think about the potential ramifications of that change - and in a title like this, the devs have to walk a very fine line. MMO balancing is a sheer nightmare for this reason. Yes, it would make them harder to hit, and sure it could make fights more interesting, but would it allow certain mechs to dominate over others, have easy outs, and allow the pilot to play a little more recklessly due to a safety net?

I feel that in this case, the answer is yes for A-Class mechs. They're already fairly hard to hit if you come across a good pilot (AsianJoyKiller was no small task to hit when he closed in, that's for sure), and now this gives them even more maneuverability. Something like what you're saying right now would, for example, in Titan allow one to boost up slightly, then side-dash off the edge of the top level of the center tower (Silo 2 in MA, the AA in Siege), and allow them to land pretty much within the rooms of the side points (where the Energy Stations/Silos 1/3 are) within a matter of a few seconds, with little to no warning. A couple people doing this could easily swamp a defender or two at any given point, if it's not balanced carefully to ensure it doesn't allow them to move too far, too fast, for too little energy.

So, simply put, again, while I think it's an admirable idea, I feel it's the wrong way to go. A little slower isn't necessarily bad, and Hawken's already fairly twitchy as it is. It doesn't need to become mega-twitchy to be fun to play.

Like I said, dodging mid air isn't going to make this mega-twitchy, it's not even close to what UT is, it's not going to affect map design.  You're over thinking what I'm saying.




1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users