583 replies to this topic

[ShadowWarg]

This sucks. I just want to play and get a better understanding at where Hawken is. Any estimate about when Hawken 1.0 will hit_ Aug.30, Sep.3, Sep.5, Sep.9_

[h0B0]

Wasabi_Wei, on August 28 2013 - 08:52 AM, said:

ReachH, on August 27 2013 - 10:03 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on August 27 2013 - 08:42 PM, said:

once a person finishes the grind, what keeps them around_

tbh I don't think many intelligent people will finish the new grind - I'm hoping they can smell BS, and that it offends them.

Even if the RPG skill tree doesn't give you the heebie jeebies, the lack of enthusiasm (and out right negativity) coming out of HAB players should have everyone worried.

Important point: HAB players are still under NDA, so the happy HAB-ers are silent. I think they are in the majority tbh. I wish I could address some outright wrong info in this thread but people will just have to wait. It is killing me. Some HAB people are very happy and can't wait for release to the entire player base. Sometimes things look worse on paper than they actually play out in game. For instance: Maybe the grind is fast if you play worth a hoot and the pilot levels mean that when a pilot buys a new mech they have enough points to spend right off the bat that the further unlocks really don't amount to much_ What if the item descriptions are so good that you can tell what it does without buying_ What if you could see what items the pilot who killed you had equipped so that you knew which items are strong_

I see a lot of HABers that have no clue what they are doing. Posting outside of nda forums stoopid questions and out of context comments.
I am worried that HWK is using players like these to base their Launch product on.
Before yall read this comment and think i am a negative nancy please read the next one.

Krellus, on August 28 2013 - 01:11 PM, said:

if the game needs to go a little more casual to attract a decent playerbase, then i applaud such changes. no point making a game that wont survive. and i want hawken to thrive baby yeah!

accessibility and esportyness aren't mutually exclusive. I'd even venture forth and say that they are complimentary.

Sylhiri, on August 28 2013 - 01:39 PM, said:

Gunmoku, on August 28 2013 - 01:34 PM, said:

I'd love to see a large-scale Hawken tourney once the "1.0" update hits.

Would only happen if 1.0 fixes the glaring issues that we have right now, which has been preventing another large-scale tourney since OB hit.

i'd be curious to know what issues are. I thought the only reason why we haven't had any major tournaments is the lack of motivation from the community. We've had Fight club, that was a major tournament. Admitedly it was fightclub, but it was still a major event for the community and it was organized by the community just like the post-apoc one.

aToastfan, on August 28 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

One thing I've noticed about this patch, adding lots of game changing internals like mentioned also requires lots of balancing. (Apologies if this has already been discussed.)

How balanced is all this stuff they're adding going to be_ Could we see a case of "only use this stuff because it's the best_" Or will it be a matter of every choice changing playstyle but not necessarily overall power.  

Either way, I'm just some casual player who cares more about fun than competing. I'm sure a competitive scene will develop regardless of how good the game design is for it.

As an example, Guild Wars 2 wanted to try and get their PvP as an eSport, but after release they were soo busy focusing on PvE content the PvP development fell by the wayside until about a year later. Most of the people who wanted to play the game purely to compete had left by this point, off to find something else to prove their electronic prowess in. If there's a community there'll be competition, it really doesn't matter how many hardcore players there are who want to be involved.

In HAWKEN this parallel probably won't hold as far (a whole year), because HAWKEN is based around PvP, but I can still understand them wanting to make their game accessible to a broader range of players beyond the guys who want to be hardcore competitive.

One thing that worried me from that video, when he's talking about the internals, he mentions adding more internals as the game goes on. This seems like bad idea if they do want to have a balanced playing field for competitive gamers, between adding more mechs and adding more of these new internals/items they're going to have a headache of a time balancing. Competitive play really needs a set number of tools and enhancements (mechs and their modifications) that doesn't keep growing. While it's in beta sure, but with a full release they'll want a set number of modifications that themselves are subject to ongoing balancing, any additions to that will throw off the whole lot. New mechs are a bit easier to balance because they effect fewer mechanics, although now that each mech has 4 unique turning branches, that too will make balancing harder.

It's like we've seen with each new mech they've added. Often upon release they've been significantly stronger because of the new niche they fill, to be quickly rebalanced based on their relative performance. With the new internals and items, the potentials for this kind of happening has been multiplied. Any additions will probably follow a similar pattern.

Hawken always intended to have more content updated on a "regular" basis. I have shared my concerns over power creeping ever since i have been aware of this. Their response was "we'll deal with it when we encounter it" and since that statement they have released OP det, OP raider with game mechanic breaking abilities, OP tech with sticky beam and pretty damn strong slug reaper.

Balance is obviously an issue at HWK, but more importantly is game breaking mechanics being added on a regular basis.

[Xacius]

AsianJoyKiller, on August 28 2013 - 04:22 PM, said:

aToastfan, on August 28 2013 - 04:15 PM, said:

How balanced is all this stuff they're adding going to be_ Could we see a case of "only use this stuff because it's the best_" Or will it be a matter of every choice changing playstyle but not necessarily overall power.  

As far as internals and items go, it's going to be very similar to how it is now. There's a few good ones that you'll need to use if you want to be your most effective. I'm still not sure if Tuning will fall prey to that too, but Tuning already pushes you towards fulfilling a certain role anyways, so technically not really a problem there.

However, casual players, people who just want to have fun, have plenty of options. Like as has been discussed elsewhere, the air dodging is likely to be less useful than the passive heal or the heal-on-kill internals, but it should be a blast to use. If you're not worried about playing optimally, I don't see 1.0 being restrictive.

Playing optimally is circumstantial and depends on the different gameplay modes available to the playerbase.  

For example, Siege modes would favor the reconstructor, deflectors, and speed altering internals for increased efficiency with EU delivery.  For holding the AA, I'd say Repair Kit (new) and "Advanced Gathering thingy" for increased repair amount and speed from energy orbs, respectively.

Depending on your playstyles (air or ground), you have a wider variety of options than are currently available.

Air: Air Dodge, Air 180, Gain fuel on hit, etc...
Ground: Deflectors, Repair Kit, "Speed increase on kill,"  "Speed increase under a certain health %"

Will some builds be better than others_  Sure, and as always there will be useless internals that won't see use in higher levels of play.  But that's part of what it means to be an above average player:  You've taken the time to understand and figure out what works best for each circumstance.

Every game I know of with competitive eSports viability has some elements or components that simply do not work.  DOTA 2 has a slew of heroes that see next to no playtime, yet it's one of the most competitively viable games in existence.

Edited by Xacius, August 28 2013 - 05:59 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Architect, on August 28 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Betraying a vision that was flawed to begin with to please a minority is the mistake they shouldn't have committed in the first place.

Can you prove, solidly, that their original vision was a mistake_

Quote

The game potentially becoming an eSport is exactly only a potential route, so I don't see why it should be pushed any more or less onto the game and things being kept out, because it somehow takes away from the eSport appeal. The game is already a FPS a unique FPS that has the pace and excitement that is required for a competitive eSport game. Excluding certain parts of a game to maintain that eSport feel is just plainly wrong as it become more a selfish view of the game. It is much easier to take away parts from a casual game for competitiveness then adding additional casual parts to a competitive game.

If you don't think things should be kept out, then why are you okay with the skill ceiling being lowered_ That keeps out the potential for higher levels of play.

And again, I feel the need to emphasis this.
Accessibility is not mutually exclusive with competitive viability.
There's no need to drop the skill floor and introduce mechanics that cater to the lowest common denominator (and therefor are open to extreme abuse by the highly skilled, which creates balance problems). A game doesn't need to be extremely dumbed down in order to be accessible.

And when you look at the competitive titles that spawned from casual games, it doesn't lend much support to your argument. CoD and Halo are complete jokes. If it wasn't for their overwhelming popularity among casuals, it's likely nobody would officially bother supporting them. As far as mechanics and balance go, they're pretty atrocious. Which differs from games like LoL and DOTA 2, where they have gone out of their way to make sure certain mechanics that would be extremely-casual friendly aren't implemented.

When you look at the really, truly successful competitive titles, old or new, you can see that they follow solid design paradigms that don't cater to the lowest common denominator of players. And with the newer ones, you can see that accessibility isn't a problem.

Quote

In regards to having niche games that do well for themselves is completely fine, but when you have a formula to potentially, become the next big thing on PC you have to take that chance and aim for as high as you can as I said it always much easier to scale down then grow.

I don't know what you've seen, but when I look around the web at what people are saying about Hawken, "the next big thing" is definitely not the impression I get.

I have never, ever seen an analysis of Hawken that presents it as even potentially being the next big thing. At least not by anyone who seems to have any substantial knowledge of Hawken that they haven't been spoon fed.

[N0stalgia]

Architect, on August 28 2013 - 03:48 PM, said:

I rarely post on here, but I keep up with as much info as possible. However, up on following this thread one thing that blows my mind is negative perception that CoD gets from people on here as if it is such a horrible game.

That game started of small and grew into a giant that everyone started to hate for reasons they love it when they first got introduced to it. Everyone expects some sort of revolution each time a new CoD is released and when they do add things to the game or switch stuff around quarter of the community goes ape sh*t, but that is the beauty of CoD as it has a place for everyone in the game; it might not be perfect for everyone or everyone's particular play style, but they are satisfied with it since they keep playing the game and that should be HAWKEN's first and foremost priority.

Once the game has a solid player base that varies in different play styles and experiences only then can the game start to grow. The input from the ALPHA and BETA is miniscule compared to the people, which will play once the game is out of open BETA and a lot of those players who have been testing the game are trying to push their own ideas of what this game should be like, when in fact the game needs to grow first and then let the people decided what they want the game to grow into, be it a more competitive edge to the game or a more casual approach. Right now the game might be heading in a causal approach as it needs to attract players first.

Another thing I don't understand is the cry for a competitive approach to this game. The game isn't even out of BETA yet people want to build it in some sort of eSport giant, which is competently unrealistic as it has never been done before.

All the best competitive games that we know in the eSport scene, which include games such as CS, Halo, Quake, CoD, SC, LoL, and DOTA weren't build for eSports it was a afterthought once people asked for it and they slowly grew into eSports, but their main objective always stayed the same, which was to get as many people as they can to play their awesome game. What illogical studio would intentionally build a game that centers around some 200+ people that want to play competitively and leave out thousands up on thousands of potential players, because they want to compete in each freaking game.

That is just well said, sir. Well said.

[GodsHolyMember]

Gunmoku, on August 28 2013 - 04:56 PM, said:

AsianJoyKiller, on August 28 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

The major problem I have with dumbing down the game is this:
It's not necessary.
You can have a game be accessible to casual players without dumbing everything down.
And although it's less attractive from a business point of view, it's not necessary to try and make a game that pleases everyone. Niche games have their place, and can be relatively successful, without making huge sacrifices by trying to be a game that pleases everyone (which is an impossible task anyway).

Duralumi, on August 28 2013 - 03:57 PM, said:

I notice this has been an increasing trend lately ever since MOBAs gained popularity. Many people seem to keep trying to make something the "next big eSport" the moment it becomes accessible to the public. Rather than letting it develop natrually.
Firefall is an example of this. They just kept screaming ESPORTS ESPORTS ESPORTS while making a hybrid PvE/PvP game and now it's just an undesirable mess.

I'd actually argue that Firefall is in the best place it has ever been.

The PvE is fairly fun and varied (though lacking in content), and the PvP (especially Jetball) is in a fairly good place too, now that all traces of vertical progression don't affect it.

But at the same time, when you develop a game with the potential to become an E-Sport, would simplicity be at the forefront of your overarching design choices rather than a super-deep customization system that's the equivalent of a Master's Thesis in combinations_  I'd think the better thing to do is streamline everything to a point where it's easy to adjust everything, but still leave enough meat on the bone for lots of theorycrafting to go on in a forum (i.e Right here).

That's really the biggest problem involving Hawken is that it's hard to find that perfect balance between complexity and simplicity without trimming too much fat and we get "Call of Doody Syndrome" where we end up too generic without having that "it factor" that makes the game something different.

That's why I like Firefall so much, they're striking this excellent balance between complexity with a simple approach while the PvP experience is rock-freaking solid.  It's just that I think that Red5 made a slight mistake by cracking the Beta this wide-open this quick without fully realizing their vision until recently (the Omnicon Patch is the closest to their original pitch of Firefall as of right now).  Hawken is much more hard to criticize on that front because it's much more PvP oriented while Firefall is more a "Jack of All Trades" in the MMO-game market.

Ideally for competitive play Hawken needs to be more about adding nuance to the combat and metagame and less about customization.

Mech games seem to always fall into the trap of feeling like they need to go crazy with stats and custom loadouts for all sorts of wild variations.  The problem is that this is typically almost impossible to balance or make useful.  And furthermore, the progression mechanic and the risk that there will be certain optimum loadouts and gamebreaking variables means that competitive play will be detrimented because less-than-optimum builds will give arbitrary disadvantages while optimum-builds will give arbitrary advantages.

Simplify the choices for the players to select from but expand the depth to which each selection is either filling a niche, or providing some sort of flexibility and you improve the formula.

[N0stalgia]

You talk about the advantages or disadvantages certain builds might offer, but I would argue that this is part of the strategy in competitive play. Keep tweaking your mechs until you 'get it.'

[GodsHolyMember]

N0stalgia, on August 28 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

You talk about the advantages or disadvantages certain builds might offer, but I would argue that this is part of the strategy in competitive play. Keep tweaking your mechs until you 'get it.'

In an ideal world, all of the different varieties of internals, tweaks and items are not upgrades but simply side-grades that alter a mech's performance in a material way without improving its overall effectiveness.

In reality, the more variables one adds, the more likely that there will both be optimum builds for each mech to best exploit the simplistic combat mechanics or exacerbate imbalances as well as the presence of useless and low-value items that will sound attractive, but turn out to be little more than a gimmick that's easily negated by medium/high skill players and only attractive for newbies.

I doubt that the HWK has found the holy-grail of balancing-algorithms that let's them compute optimum limits on each variable so that no one build (either complete or partial) is better than any other build.  In all likelihood, people will continue to push hard into mobility and RoF and will probably tweak a little bit between item/health replenishing modifiers or low-health/high-mobility modifiers.

I'm intrigued to see how this makes the game evolve, and it will be fun to see how even skilled players are forced to re-learn certain mechanics...but like RTS games before people memorize the build-orders and standard tactics, eventually the dust will settle and we'll be either neck deep in game-breaking loadouts, people maxing out their garage with every possible optimum build they need to switch to during a match, or little will change and we'll be back to speccing in mobility and offensive power takes a backseat because casual players hate games with a short TTK.

Edited by GodsHolyMember, August 28 2013 - 06:00 PM.

[Architect]

AsianJoyKiller, on August 28 2013 - 05:20 PM, said:

Architect, on August 28 2013 - 04:52 PM, said:

Betraying a vision that was flawed to begin with to please a minority is the mistake they shouldn't have committed in the first place.

Can you prove, solidly, that their original vision was a mistake_

Quote

The game potentially becoming an eSport is exactly only a potential route, so I don't see why it should be pushed any more or less onto the game and things being kept out, because it somehow takes away from the eSport appeal. The game is already a FPS a unique FPS that has the pace and excitement that is required for a competitive eSport game. Excluding certain parts of a game to maintain that eSport feel is just plainly wrong as it become more a selfish view of the game. It is much easier to take away parts from a casual game for competitiveness then adding additional casual parts to a competitive game.

If you don't think things should be kept out, then why are you okay with the skill ceiling being lowered_ That keeps out the potential for higher levels of play.

And again, I feel the need to emphasis this.
Accessibility is not mutually exclusive with competitive viability.
There's no need to drop the skill floor and introduce mechanics that cater to the lowest common denominator (and therefor are open to extreme abuse by the highly skilled, which creates balance problems). A game doesn't need to be extremely dumbed down in order to be accessible.

And when you look at the competitive titles that spawned from casual games, it doesn't lend much support to your argument. CoD and Halo are complete jokes. If it wasn't for their overwhelming popularity among casuals, it's likely nobody would officially bother supporting them. As far as mechanics and balance go, they're pretty atrocious. Which differs from games like LoL and DOTA 2, where they have gone out of their way to make sure certain mechanics that would be extremely-casual friendly aren't implemented.

When you look at the really, truly successful competitive titles, old or new, you can see that they follow solid design paradigms that don't cater to the lowest common denominator of players. And with the newer ones, you can see that accessibility isn't a problem.

Quote

In regards to having niche games that do well for themselves is completely fine, but when you have a formula to potentially, become the next big thing on PC you have to take that chance and aim for as high as you can as I said it always much easier to scale down then grow.

I don't know what you've seen, but when I look around the web at what people are saying about Hawken, "the next big thing" is definitely not the impression I get.

I have never, ever seen an analysis of Hawken that presents it as even potentially being the next big thing. At least not by anyone who seems to have any substantial knowledge of Hawken that they haven't been spoon fed.

I was quoting you and your assumption of a betrayal of a vision that you saw at the begging to what their approach is right now with the new patch. For them to change their approach they must have had a change of heart and decided to scrap the initial vision and proceed with a different vision for the game one you don't agree with and consider a betrayal.

Skill ceilings don't do jack in FPS games it is all about accuracy, reflexes, and most importantly team work/communication. At the end of the day if this game does go towards an eSport way it will be team based and at that point the skill ceiling will disappear. You also mention that "Accessibility is not mutually exclusive with competitive viability" yet then mention how Halo and CoD are complete jokes competitively and only became competitive, because they are extremely popular so obviously there are exception and why shouldn't HAWKEN take the chance and see if that route works out for them.

What I have seen in this game to believe that it could potential become the next big thing is two very important pieces. First of all its the graphics I am fairly certain it is the best looking F2P game and certainly one of the Top PC games in general graphic wise. The second thing it has is that it is a FPS the most popular genre of competitive gaming. The final piece this game need now is balancing the game for the masses.

And also if I am not mistaken I have read that yourself said this game had potential to be awesome and your still around to see if they can fulfill that potential. Once the game comes out and they see the reaction from the players will we get a better picture of where the game is heading. Slating them over things you don't like and disagree with is very selfish as you have no idea what the other people will like and making decision and forcing your opinion on others isn't really fair.

Criticism is acceptable, but you seem to shoving your view of how you want the game to be onto everyone with every post you make. Maybe your just an avid fan and don't want the game to go sh*t, but you got to let the game take its course.

Edited by Architect, August 28 2013 - 06:08 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Architect, on August 28 2013 - 06:08 PM, said:

I was quoting you and your assumption of a betrayal of a vision that you saw at the begging to what their approach is right now with the new patch. For them to change their approach they must have had a change of heart and decided to scrap the initial vision and proceed with a different vision for the game one you don't agree with and consider a betrayal.

It's not an assumption. It is fact.
Go look at their old posts. What they have done contradicts what they said they do.

Quote

Skill ceilings don't do jack in FPS games it is all about accuracy, reflexes, and most importantly team work/communication. At the end of the day if this game does go towards an eSport way it will be team based and at that point the skill ceiling will disappear.

You don't seem to understand how skill floors and ceilings work.
They don't just magically disappear.

When you push a mechanic to its limits and you can do no more with it, that is the skill ceiling. That doesn't just go away once you start playing competitively or in a team environment.

Skill ceilings are a constant, the result of mechanics. In order for a skill floor or ceiling to go away, the associated mechanic would have to be removed.

Quote

You also mention that "Accessibility is not mutually exclusive with competitive viability" yet then mention how Halo and CoD are complete jokes competitively and only became competitive, because they are extremely popular so obviously there are exception and why shouldn't HAWKEN take the chance and see if that route works out for them.

Because that means turning Hawken into a more generic, less interesting game.
The "less interesting" is subjective, but the "more generic" isn't.

Quote

What I have seen in this game to believe that it could potential become the next big thing is two very important pieces. First of all its the graphics I am fairly certain it is the best looking F2P game and certainly one of the Top PC games in general graphic wise. The second thing it has is that it is a FPS the most popular genre of competitive gaming. The final piece this game need now is balancing the game for the masses.

First off, advanced graphics mean jack-!@$#. Unless you're pushing like Crysis did, it's not going to do much, even with a f2p title, where I have literally seen remarks that are like, "It looks pretty good... for a free to play game."

Please tell me which FPSs are currently more popular competitive titles than LoL, Dota 2 or SCII.

Quote

And also if I am not mistaken I have read that yourself said this game had potential to be awesome and your still around to see if they can fulfill that potential. Once the game comes out and they see the reaction from the players will we get a better picture of where the game is heading. Slating them over things you don't like and disagree with is very selfish as you have no idea what the other people will like and making decision and forcing your opinion on others isn't really fair.

Criticism is acceptable, but you seem to shoving your view of how you want the game to be onto everyone with every post you make. Maybe your just an avid fan and don't want the game to go sh*t, but you got to let the game take its course.

If you weren't mistaken, you'd also know that I was talking about earlier builds, and a return to those mechanics, at least in part.
If you weren't mistaken, you'd realize that I've said at this point I'm just sticking around to see how HAB turns out, and that my outlook is pessimistic.

Also, I'm not holding gun to anybody's head and telling they must agree with me or they'll die.
If people don't agree with me, they can disagree. But I have every right to tell them that I think they're wrong and point out why I think they're wrong. If people don't want me to give them their opinion, they don't have to engage with me or read my posts. I can't jump through my computer, strap them to their chair and tape their eyes open while showing them my posts.

I believe some individuals have put me on ignore. If someone doesn't want to hear from me, then they should do the same, because I'm not about to shut up or be less opinionated any time soon. That'll happen about the same time pigs fly or my cat decides he's not going to step on my keyboard while I'm playing games. In other words, not ****ing soon.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, August 28 2013 - 06:38 PM.

[Xacius]

Yeah! You tell that cat who's boss!

Edited by Xacius, August 28 2013 - 06:55 PM.

[Goyo]

Sylhiri, on August 28 2013 - 04:18 PM, said:

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 04:11 PM, said:

66666

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 04:03 PM, said:

... Hawken is built to kill stuff with big Fkn mechs. ...  just enjoy it for what it is.

So...casual FPS_

Pretty much.  

Do you think they can change/limit how the engine handles .ini's and the players  ability to customize them, mech hit-boxes that allow you to do full damage even if a minuscule portion is protruding from cover, and servers that span regional differences for netcode/lag without a LAN option in place_

My perception is that I see no development that moves in the direction of a platform for any sort of competitive esport environment.

So I have accepted the fact that they are not developing in that direction.

[Sylhiri]

N0stalgia, on August 28 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

You talk about the advantages or disadvantages certain builds might offer, but I would argue that this is part of the strategy in competitive play. Keep tweaking your mechs until you 'get it.'

Isn't that the same thing we have now_ Movement Tree > Everything Else. Could make it more confusing for new players so they don't "get it" as quickly as the more advanced players.

They said long time ago that we would be able to use sidegrades to customize our mechs to our play style. If we have cookie cutter builds then that kind of loses the meaning in that.

[Goyo]

Sylhiri, on August 28 2013 - 07:11 PM, said:

N0stalgia, on August 28 2013 - 05:46 PM, said:

You talk about the advantages or disadvantages certain builds might offer, but I would argue that this is part of the strategy in competitive play. Keep tweaking your mechs until you 'get it.'

Isn't that the same thing we have now_ Movement Tree > Everything Else. Could make it more confusing for new players so they don't "get it" as quickly as the more advanced players.

They said long time ago that we would be able to use sidegrades to customize our mechs to our play style. If we have cookie cutter builds then that kind of loses the meaning in that.

So what do they do_  Remove the movement tree options from all mechs.

Doesn't sound like a fix to me but a workaround.

What do programmers do when they cannot fix functionality_  They remove the functionality.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Xacius, on August 28 2013 - 06:55 PM, said:

Yeah! You tell that cat who's boss!

He ignores me and then knocks things on my desk over.

[Sylhiri]

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

So what do they do_  Remove the movement tree options from all mechs.
Doesn't sound like a fix to me but a workaround.
What do programmers do when they cannot fix functionality_  They remove the functionality.

Ummm...ok_

*backs away slowly*

[Goyo]

Sylhiri, on August 28 2013 - 07:22 PM, said:

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 07:13 PM, said:

So what do they do_  Remove the movement tree options from all mechs.
Doesn't sound like a fix to me but a workaround.
What do programmers do when they cannot fix functionality_  They remove the functionality.

Ummm...ok_

*backs away slowly*

Should I comment out what I you and I just said_

[HugeGuts]

I wonder if reminding everyone of what the game used to look like will do to the conversation_ After all, it is this Hawken that drew everyone in. Not the World of Warcraft blob fest it is turning into.



For me, a lite version of Armored Core comes to mind when watching this.

I still think Hawken can work though. However, the only way is to create more differences between weight types beside health and movement. Weapons, at least. Ideally, each type would have unique movement techniques as well.

[Sylhiri]

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Should I comment out what I you and I just said_

Dunno, it's hard to make out what your saying. Looked like you shoved words in my mouth or something, lol.

"The movement tree beats everything else we have now"
"Oh yah, then why don't we just remove it. We removed it and it didn't do anything, we can't fix it so we removed it. Good idea to remove it buddy."

[Goyo]

Sylhiri, on August 28 2013 - 07:31 PM, said:

Goyo, on August 28 2013 - 07:27 PM, said:

Should I comment out what I you and I just said_

Dunno, it's hard to make out what your saying. Looked like you shoved words in my mouth or something, lol.

"The movement tree beats everything else we have now"
"Oh yah, then why don't we just remove it. We removed it and it didn't do anything, we can't fix it so we removed it. Good idea to remove it buddy."

I was not suggesting they do it.  I was voicing my displeasure that they already did it.