77 replies to this topic

[Frenotx]

draco7891, on December 20 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

...Resource management stuff...

I'm going to go ahead and drop this, as it seems to be a topic we just don't see eye to eye on. Additionally, I am not advocating that the trees be made to match the video in the OP- I just want the bonuses to be quite noticeable, and satisfying.

draco7891, on December 20 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

Well, what's not to say that this doesn't already occur internally at Adhesive anyway_ Moreover, while you could increase the number of weapons available, are you seriously suggesting, for example, that there is a large call for an SA Hawkins Scout_ Or an EOC Sharpshooter_ Seeker Bruiser_ I think given the current stable of weapons, the number of choices available are quite good, and doing something like that is variety for variety's sake. What in truth may be necessary is a larger selection of weapons period. More guns is never a bad thing.

I WANT AN EOC + SABOT MECH! Seriously- I have a hunch that that would be hilariously fun. You (and many others) might think it's silly, but I don't. That alone is reason to allow more combinations. Why restrict certain combos just because you think most people don't like it_ For almost every "Lol that build is trash" setups, there will be at least a few people that somehow manage to fuzzy bunny face with it. It allows for diversity. It allows for experimentation. Besides, just because few people use a combo, doesn't mean it should be removed / not allowed.

draco7891, on December 20 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

While there has been some small FOTM issues in CB, we've always seen definite, succinct rebalancing take place, and that's significantly easier to do with a smaller grouping than balancing hundreds or thousands of choices against each other. If Sharpshooter is the FOTM because its accuracy and burst damage make it effective across all ranges, what's the best way to rebalance that_ Hope that among the thousands of choices available, there is one that is just as effective and therefore invalidates Sharpshooter_ Or is it easier to analyze why Sharpshooter is more effective (perfect accuracy + burst + good dodge) and shape those mechanics to push the chassis into the intended role (moving accuracy--, standing accuracy++, add dodge cooldown)_

I don't claim to be a master of balance. I assure such things are possible, though. I'll uses League of Legends as an example, again. They've got over 100 champions, each of which can choose to purchase 6 of many different items in-game. This is on top of the rune / mastery system, which is comparable to the internals / optimizations in Hawken. Somehow, they manage to balance their game AND deal with the "FOTM problem" quite handily.

draco7891, on December 20 2012 - 08:27 PM, said:

I forsee issues. [about pilot levels]

The pilot level scale should probably be between 1 and 2 mechs worth. As for how to balance it_ Have the match maker match people of similar pilot level together. Problem solved. Again, take a look at how League of Legends handles unlocking rune slots and mastery points (again, similar to Hawken's optimizations). Now you can have bonuses that make a significant impact on the feel of the game, with out worrying about high level players having too much of an advantage over low level players.

[Roundlay]

I think it would be safe to assume that a plethora of customisation choices are right around the corner; it's a large part of Adhesive/Meteor's business model thus far, after all.

[Omega22]

this is hawken... i am pretty sure they have tons off stuff brewing in the making to add to this game and this game is hot...so i think they are testing the play phases of the game in stages and chopping and changing according to what the gamers want and will sell...

so i stoped being angry and upset and decided to watch this baby grow and change into a perfect product....

i agree , more freedom to tinger with mechs

[Frenotx]

I understand that the game is still in a fluid state- it's one of the things that gives me hope, and motivates me to make threads like this. What worries me is that thus far, the trend of this game's changes over time has been in a direction away from customization.

Edited by Frenotx, December 21 2012 - 06:28 AM.

[fides5566]

Totally agree with you.

[Aelieth]

Frenotx, I applaud you on a well written article with the included video. I believe LunaticCalm said it best on a thread once before about the devs needing to decide between customization and progression. They haven't done that, they keep mixing it and it's creating a huge strain on the game and how we the players feel about it.

Devs, please highly consider this post as well as thinking about horizontal vs. vertical gaming. Do you want a regular FPS or do you want a progression style game with a dedicated matching system_

And I point back to LunaticCalm's post in conjunction with this.
http://community.pla...-customization/

[Frenotx]

Aelieth, on December 21 2012 - 07:54 AM, said:

Frenotx, I applaud you on a well written article with the included video. I believe LunaticCalm said it best on a thread once before about the devs needing to decide between customization and progression. They haven't done that, they keep mixing it and it's creating a huge strain on the game and how we the players feel about it.

Devs, please highly consider this post as well as thinking about horizontal vs. vertical gaming. Do you want a regular FPS or do you want a progression style game with a dedicated matching system_

And I point back to LunaticCalm's post in conjunction with this.
http://community.pla...-customization/

That's a good thread you linked, there- it's a shame it didn't get more attention.

I agree with a lot of what LunaticCalm had to say, but disagree that Hawken needs to decide on either progression or customization. The way I see it, the pilot level bit (unlocking optimization points) would be strictly progression. This progression is kept balanced by only matching pilots of similar levels together. The mechs would be strictly customization, i.e. using a mech unlocks different variants of weapons for said mech, etc.

[Derf]

I think a combination of vertical and horizontal progression is in order.

I think that pilots/players should have levels as Frenotx suggests, and that those levels should go towards the optimization points available. If a pilot has gained a total of X experience points over the course of all of their games then they unlock a new optimization point up to a cap of 25. Additionally, X should be a reasonably large number and the optimizations should be pretty strong so that there is a good reward for good effort. This gives new players a goal system, which will help them get hooked. In this system matchmaking would be based on pilot level.

For horizontal progression I'd love to see WEAPONS get experience points or some equivilant. You could use the weapon xp to unlock variants of each weapon (e.g. slower rate of fire higher damage, etc.) I'd also love to see more weapon COMBINATIONS available. I know that some weapon combos would be overpowered, and those could be prohibited (or for that matter they could be less powerful when combined with each other. e.g. when you put flak and grenade launcher on an A class they do less damage than if you had one combined with something else. Haven't thought much about that, just throwing it out.).

I believe that long term vertical progression is important so that veterans are rewarded for playing, and it provides a natural system for matchmaking.

I believe that horizontal progression is important so that, as Frenotx said, you feel like your mech is YOUR mech. That pride in how you built your machine will make it more likely that you will pay to upgrade the cosmetics. Plus it is fun to experiment and customize.

[Frenotx]

I really like the whole "your weapons get XP" thing- it's a really nice way to approach things imo. It allows you to CHOOSE what your time is "spent on", and allows for mechs to have a greater number of weapons. At the same time, it also promotes experimentation. I can dig it.

[Scanline]

This is a great thread so far. I can very well believe with some of the posters that Adhesive is merely letting us try different aspects of the game in chunks to see how we will deal with it. These mechs we've been given are obviously preconfigured and there is not much to them we can do to them.

However I have considered the idea that Adhesive devs have picked a category of mech for each playstyle and built Archtypes for them. Then force us to play them during open beta. It seems to me they are doing this on purpose in order to get an idea on how to balance each archtype without having to worry about hundreds of random configurations being built and noone using archtypes for actual intelligent combat.

So in conclusion its not too far of a stretch to think they are testing us to see what we want and how to handle balancing without being overwhelmed with all the different combos and creations random people will come up with. If so than it is a very smart move I just wish they could tell us something that might hint to more customization later on down the road so that we don't get bummed out.

[IllusionOfShadow]

It's hard to say at this point, perhaps the devs did get overwhelmed but I would love to see more customization.

[The_Silencer]

I'm very confident on that most of the valid points which have been made in here will be adressed in a more than right way, as well as a big amount of new and cool content as a plus which is going to be progressively put in the game as we move forward!

[0Gungrave0]

Compared to what ive seen from menus and huds of earlier iterations of the game the current one is too dumbed down for my taste.

Older menus would be better for us and also if they ever finish this and decide to release a console version it would be better for them too navigate.



At the very least they maybe could make it optional for you to select your menu style.

[G4M5T3R]

Whoa... I joined by CB2, It seems they were on the right track in pre-alpha. What happened_  There are some things I can understand, like not being allowed to chose any two guns, but damn... After seeing that vid it feels like they've been working backwards in some areas.

[Frenotx]

I know, right_ It's enormously frustrating. At the very least, I'd like to see the whole "pilot level + optimizations actually making a difference" thing put into play, so we can at least customize our mechs numerically. I would love to get some dev comments in here to give us an idea of the direction they're moving in.

[TwiceDead]

Oh yeah...

Give me that UI.

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

Many of the design choices make sense. Optimizations were over nerfed, but they did need to be nerfed.

having limited weapon class selection makes the classes different in more important ways.

Not being able to swap out the secondary is absurd, however i think only being able to change set-ups in the garage improves the game-play.

[Frenotx]

rdKNIGHTMAREZ, on December 26 2012 - 11:57 AM, said:

Many of the design choices make sense. Optimizations were over nerfed, but they did need to be nerfed.

having limited weapon class selection makes the classes different in more important ways.

Not being able to swap out the secondary is absurd, however i think only being able to change set-ups in the garage improves the game-play.

1) Why do you feel that optimizations need / needed to be nerfed_

2) You want to have unique classes, but also to be able to swap out secondary weapons_ What would define the classes at that point_ Weight class + ability alone_

[rdKNIGHTMAREZ]

I think the abilities should be buffed, across the board. double the duration or half the cool down. things like that. Maybe not for the heavies.

I think that the optimizations were giving too much of a stacking effect, making damage mechs do too much damage etc. however now they are nerfed, as a few key abilities (reduce time to repair, dodge, things like that) are soo good they make the minor 1% changes a waste of time.

The secondary weapons need to be some sort of choice. I would make it so that the secondaries can be swapped out for 1 other weapon per class, with the different classes having different choices.

[Frenotx]

I agree with the abilities- they are pretty boring in their current state. I think lower cool down + shorter duration + increased effect would go a decent way for things like the damage boost and defense boost. I'd like to see the cloak be a rechargeable toggle, ala the TF2 spy's cloak.

Keep in mind that if the damage optimizations are really strong, that the defense optimizations would presumably also be strong. The point behind having significant optimizations is to establish the option to specialize_ Want to make your mech do a lot of damage_ Well you're going to have to do so at the cost of defense (glass cannon). Wanna take some serious punishment, yet keep chuggin'_ Well you're not going to be able to hit as hard. Want to keep a balanced build_ That's fin. You'll preform well in most scenarios, but not really shine in any one.

As far as the secondaries go... I just don't see a class system and an adjustable secondary system meshing. Several classes are reasonably well defined by their secondary (see: sharpshooter), and as such, attaching any other secondary to that mech would just make it feel... not like that mech. If you're gonna go with swappable secondaries, then you should scrap the current class system entirely and let us design our OWN classes. You could sell the various chassis (Damage boost B-class, Stealth A-class, etc.), and just allow us to attach whatever we want.

Edited by Frenotx, December 26 2012 - 01:15 PM.