To cover a few game components...
The Ops tree is still merely a list of artificial, stacked buffs. Laughably, many of them have been reduced in strength to such a degree (still CB3 values in the main) that they afford next to no benefit whatsoever, so the Ops tree even fails to exploit the very philosophy that the game as a whole seems to have now fully embraced: rewarding progress with stacked buffs. If a buff has been rendered next to useless for the sake of balance then why is it still in there at all. There is no coherent thinking behind this that I can uncover.
A Trick Missed: The Ops tree could have been constructed using horizontal reward methodology in that everyone starts with a full set of points to allocate to a core set of available elements within each category (the middle elements in each tier for the sake of example), whilst still retaining points enough only to reach the bottom of any one category, and then unlock side branches from the Ops tree through experience (rather than giving out more points) so that pilots could then redistribute resources to suit a particular style of play as they see fit.
(http://community.pla...ee/#entry107034)
The Ops tree yet further reinforces the game's now obvious vertical progression approach by drip-feeding the unlocking, and therefore use of, alternate primary weapon, items and internals. Not since CA2 (I think it was) has a lvl20 mech been so superior to a lvl0. Setting aside the vertical progression argument for a moment, how anyone at Adhesive thinks that such an approach can work given the current MatchMaking system I really do not know. (Lvl20+ mechs will be routinely pitted against lvl0 ones because the MM system cannot divine which of your available mechs you plan to use.) I don't understand why vital functional aspects of your mech need to be unlocked in the first place; if I'm honest it feels like it was done for the sake of the grind. Huge step backwards.
A Trick Missed: See above; something akin to the above suggestion would resolve this matter.
The weapon levels still stack buffs. Amusingly, the buffs found in here are far higher than anything found within the Ops tree. Not only does this make a further mockery of the Ops tree as it stands now but it also continues to reinforce the game's philosophy of a vertical progression system.
A Trick Missed: The approach of unlocking functionality instead of falling back on the brain-dead solution of stacking yet more artificial buffs fits in neatly here as well: unlock weapon presets (chosen in the garage, not on the field) by weapon level that allow you to use a weapon in a different ways. One example that was suggested by me and echoed by a dev at a later date would be to have a Hellfire preset in that the missiles fly at 150% normal speed but their turn rate is 33% worse.
(http://community.pla...mers#entry92721)
Other general niggles that in and of themselves aren't entirely evil but do contribute to the general state of the game:-
- C-class mechs are still without a special ability that isn't an immediate death sentence.
- C-class mechs are now even slower under thrust; barely an improvement over their already glacial walking pace. (All mechs are slower under thrusting conditions but this change affects the Cs far more than any other chassis. The Cs have been progressively dumped on as the test cycles progress; it's like Adhesive want Hawken to be A-shaped.)
- The cost of internals has roughly tripled.
- Countermeasures, commensurate with the buffing of the only internal item that's ever been useful in the game (the EMP), paint a picture of one of the most transparent attempts at generating revenue I've seen in recent times by creating a powerful force that can only be mitigated (without any skill whatsoever, which only compounds how poorly conceived this idea is) with MPs. (New players, and probably a good number of experienced players, cannot earn HPs fast enough to keep up with the Countermeasure expenditure rate, particularly if you're trying to save up for a new mech and internals [see above].)
...plus enumerable other niggles that I will not be including, at least for now. I am conscious of this being an ostensibly negative post but I don't want to turn it into industrial scale negativity-fest by hanging it all out on the line.
I hoped that the devs had inwardly digested the meaning of this term: Counter-play...
...Alas not, it would appear. I can feel the disappointment twisting my gut. *sad face*
I find it difficult to put into words quite how disappointed I am with this OB; I suppose some of this comes from a sense of resignation that if the above problems haven't shown signs of being resolved now that it's far too late in the day to expect anything better going forward. (An Open Beta that does not wipe progress before full release is a far less agile beast when it comes to making fundamental changes. Money is starting to change hands now so the game has entered into an entirely new, and in many ways binding, ballgame.)
I enjoyed the Alpha tests but can't tell you why (NDA). *cough* Fight Club *cough* I enjoyed CB1 because it was the first glimpse of what the final product might look like; it had its faults but things were looking promising. I now look back upon CB2 as something of a 'golden age' in Hawken's development, much to my current chagrin. CB3 was a difficult beast to like, not in the least part due to the terrible matchmaking results (I think I had perhaps five good games out of countless dozens that were not ruined by stacked teams), and the various discussions about 'vertical vs horizontal' progression gave me cause for hope that something special might still result. This OB sends a shiver down my spine which warns me that all I can look forward to is CoD in mechs. No thanks, not interested in that, but I accept that it might be a model that makes money.
I paid for the Lieutenant package, and yes, I do feel like I've wasted my money. There's no way that I can live with a vertical progression F2P game so I guess this post might well turn out to be my Dear John letter to Hawken. *sniffles*
 
					
					
 

 3
 3 

 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			 
				
				
			
 
					
					 
				
				
			 
				
				
			 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			 Specifically:
  Specifically: 
				
				
			
 
				
				
			









 
								




