288 replies to this topic

[burns1124]

ITT:

People who are obssessed with whack-job builds for the sake of being "different", those of you upset about tuning points not being user defined need to take a step back, learn that odd-ball sets like a never overheating Hawkins/Vulcan Brawler is still not as effective as the current most commonly used configuration of Flak Brawler.

Seriously, this is the best change to be announced since Ascension dropped.  Customization should never outweigh balance in a game that aspires to be competitivly viable/e-sport worthy.  This isn't a MOBA or MMORPG where whacky builds can and will succeed because no one expects them.  It's an FPS, and one that is struggling to retain players and had up until now, pissed off the older core players with changes NO ONE WANTED..  THe old system sucked just as much, because it wasn't really that effective (as Syl said it was a 2-5% boost was as effective as washing a elephant with a toothbrush).

Just wait for more news, we have maybe 5% of the information about Februrary's patch, wait for patch notes to start waving the pitchforks because you can't learn to manage heat.

[Exeon]

ShadowWarg, on January 12 2014 - 12:53 PM, said:

I think there is a misunderstanding. Although its true that they wanted to remove or lessen the power gap between level 1 and level 30 players (as per the  request of the community) That is not purely the reason why player tuning was removed. From my understanding player tuning was removed purely for the sake of balancing and to help define class roles, and is probably something that was done to cater to the more advance players more so than the lower level players, in order to help develop the game's competitive scene.

I honestly believe it was in the interest of lesser skilled players to remove the tuning points, why_ I believe that most if not all new players make poor choices in tuning options, they don't fully understand each stats strengths/weakness/effectiveness well enough. So not only are new players punished for lack of game knowledge/experience but they're also playing horrible versions of mechs compared to ones used by long time players. They even said they based tuning off of players choices somewhat, so lets hope they based it off of top players in their favorite mechs.

Edited by Exeon, January 13 2014 - 04:13 AM.

[Muffintrumpet]

if the list of available Internals did more than offer a standard set of three or four 'required' choices that system might have filled the customisation gap that removing Tuning will leave behind
2/3rds of those Internals need to be replaced with effects that change the way a mech behaves, and begone with the passives

[Leonhardt]

They are taking away tuning for 2 main reasons. First they realized that there are always optimal loadouts and not everyone was using them leading to a bad experience for the new user. Second it makes balancing mechs easier on their end since they set the final stats.

Also since they are switching back to horizontal progression this is the easiest way to transition.

Don't think for a second that this update is specifically for high teir players. Its a compromise at best, aimed at general improvement to a system that did not work as they intended.

[h0B0]

Leonhardt, on January 13 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Also since they are switching back to horizontal progression this is the easiest way to transition.

Hawken never had Horizontal prog.

Nor will the new system be horizontal prog. Vanashinkaku confirmed weapons unlock will still be in the game. Therefore the pay/grindwall will still be there and the fact that switching weapons midmatch can provide an advantage means that vertical progression will still be part of hawken, although at a smaller degree.

[Fstroke]

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Leonhardt, on January 13 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Also since they are switching back to horizontal progression this is the easiest way to transition.

Hawken never had Horizontal prog.

Nor will the new system be horizontal prog. Vanashinkaku confirmed weapons unlock will still be in the game. Therefore the pay/grindwall will still be there and the fact that switching weapons midmatch can provide an advantage means that vertical progression will still be part of hawken, although at a smaller degree.

Thats also implying that mechs unlock better weapons as they progress. For the most part the weapon options are sidegrades, ignoring a few balance issues.

If they truly remain not p2w, how do you expect them to drive the game economy if not p2g_ Not to mention the grind in this game is really not that bad.

[h0B0]

Fstroke, on January 13 2014 - 10:49 AM, said:

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 07:04 AM, said:

Leonhardt, on January 13 2014 - 06:50 AM, said:

Also since they are switching back to horizontal progression this is the easiest way to transition.

Hawken never had Horizontal prog.

Nor will the new system be horizontal prog. Vanashinkaku confirmed weapons unlock will still be in the game. Therefore the pay/grindwall will still be there and the fact that switching weapons midmatch can provide an advantage means that vertical progression will still be part of hawken, although at a smaller degree.

Thats also implying that mechs unlock better weapons as they progress. For the most part the weapon options are sidegrades, ignoring a few balance issues.

If they truly remain not p2w, how do you expect them to drive the game economy if not p2g_ Not to mention the grind in this game is really not that bad.

I never implied weapons get better if you unlock them. The advantage comes from the versatility available. In a similar sense that vanguard pre ascension provided paying users with a side grade that non VI did not have.

As for the game economy it is a topic i have been debating about writing a full post about or not. But in essence there is no economy in hawken. Hawken has an ingame monopoly. HC and EXP are tools used by HWK to help them survive in the real world economy. The mechanics of HC and EXP only serve to dilute the content of the game, provide an artificial sense of progression and generate a skinnerbox esque psychologic effect in the consumer. Their main goal is to provide more incentive for the player to spend money on the game.

If you want me to provide you with my insight on the real world economy of hawken: making cosmetics their entire source of revenue is a viable alternative. Their team is mostly comprised of artist, they have stated that they have several chassis on standby, the skins are so easy to make they can be ripped right off of google image search. The resource is there. However that being said, its a monetization scheme that has very little historical background. Companies will be unwilling to venture in such a risky enterprise, especially when they have to been backed by multimillion dollar investments like hawken has.

If money really is a problem in hawken, and many signs would indicate that it is( increase in grindyness, multiple waves of layoffs, increase in price ). They should consider opening their game up to a wider audience by potentially partnering up with steam. They should also consider a different server provider. It has been demonstrated on the forums int he past that amazon doesn't provide the best prices. Lastly they should see what investments would bring in more revenue and reconsider their expenses. For exemple asian and oceanian servers are mostly empty, i'm not advocating for the removal of the region in its entirety but reducing the amount of total servers would save them a considerable amount of money. Furthermore i can understand their transmedia scheme, but a little advertising was never a nuisance, furthermore what audience are you targeting with a board game_

@leonhadt Nice ad hominem.

[Daronicus]

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

@leonhadt Nice ad hominem.

Not to derail this topic, but can people please look up the definition of ad hominem_  Saying that you are nitpicking has little to do with your character and everything to do with the importance of your argument (he is saying your post is mostly inconsequential to his point).  If anything, the fallacy he's guilty of is appeal to ridicule.

I tire of internet arguments devolving into "You committed this logical fallacy that I learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"  "Well, you're committing that fallacy I also learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"

Can we all just stop using pointing out fallacies as an arguing tool_  Half of the time, it's merely a red herring anyways.

Edited by Daronicus, January 13 2014 - 01:07 PM.

[N0stalgia]

Good things, good things.

[h0B0]

Daronicus, on January 13 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

@leonhadt Nice ad hominem.

Not to derail this topic, but can people please look up the definition of ad hominem_  Saying that you are nitpicking has little to do with your character and everything to do with the importance of your argument (he is saying your post is mostly inconsequential to his point).  If anything, the fallacy he's guilty of is appeal to ridicule.

I tire of internet arguments devolving into "You committed this logical fallacy that I learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"  "Well, you're committing that fallacy I also learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"

That might very well be the case.

Either way his statement about hawkens history of horizontal progression is wrong, so i correct him.

I also took the opportunity to share my 2c concerning the upcoming changes.

Personally i don't mind people pointing out the fallacies in each others statement, it provides people with a chance to learn about their mistakes. What i do mind is when people avoid the entirety of the comment in question.

[Leonhardt]

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

That might very well be the case.

Either way his statement about hawkens history of horizontal progression is wrong, so i correct him.

I also took the opportunity to share my 2c concerning the upcoming changes.

Personally i don't mind people pointing out the fallacies in each others statement, it provides people with a chance to learn about their mistakes. What i do mind is when people avoid the entirety of the comment in question.

I made a light hearted joke. I did not know it would be taken so seriously. Next time I will remember that this is a no fun zone.

Spoiler

[Requiem132]

This is hawken... SERIOUS BUSINESS!!

Edited by Requiem132, January 13 2014 - 04:05 PM.

[ropefish]

Leonhardt, on January 13 2014 - 03:48 PM, said:

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

That might very well be the case.

Either way his statement about hawkens history of horizontal progression is wrong, so i correct him.

I also took the opportunity to share my 2c concerning the upcoming changes.

Personally i don't mind people pointing out the fallacies in each others statement, it provides people with a chance to learn about their mistakes. What i do mind is when people avoid the entirety of the comment in question.

I made a light hearted joke. I did not know it would be taken so seriously. Next time I will remember that this is a no fun zone.

Spoiler

leon, remember sensei's  words :3

[ghostryker]

I find the loss of tuning points to be quite disturbing.
Customization is very popular in pvp these days and the extent of this change was not required to achieve balance.
If the goal was to solve the balance problem created by the differences between players with different numbers of tuning points then the obvious and most direct solution was to simply give everyone all of the tuning points right out of the gate.
That way, everyone is working with the same number of tuning points.
Balance is achieved, the customization tuning points brought is retained.

So far no mention of what (if any) sort of replacement to that part of customization is coming to fill the gap.

I am very displeased.

[fingerknitter]

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 01:52 PM, said:

Daronicus, on January 13 2014 - 01:05 PM, said:

h0B0, on January 13 2014 - 12:07 PM, said:

@leonhadt Nice ad hominem.

Not to derail this topic, but can people please look up the definition of ad hominem_  Saying that you are nitpicking has little to do with your character and everything to do with the importance of your argument (he is saying your post is mostly inconsequential to his point).  If anything, the fallacy he's guilty of is appeal to ridicule.

I tire of internet arguments devolving into "You committed this logical fallacy that I learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"  "Well, you're committing that fallacy I also learned about by skimming Wikipedia!"

That might very well be the case.

Either way his statement about hawkens history of horizontal progression is wrong, so i correct him.

I also took the opportunity to share my 2c concerning the upcoming changes.

Personally i don't mind people pointing out the fallacies in each others statement, it provides people with a chance to learn about their mistakes. What i do mind is when people avoid the entirety of the comment in question.

In that case, know that you did use the term ad hominem incorrectly.

I personally see the removal of the individual mech rank "gates" as making life easier for a player who doesn't invest into a few mechs, but gets several of them to see what the game is about. I didn't get any use out of the free maxed out awarded mech except for the predator, because I had lots of mechs, and spread my time between them. Getting past those gates is more expensive than simply buying another mech, and for a new player to have to choose between upgrading their mech abilities and ranks or getting a new mech is really harsh in my eyes. Especially now that there are no achievement bonuses.

[Madara_Uchija]

Hola, buenas noches.
Soy de Perú. me gustaría que agreguen al juego lo siguiente:

01. CHAT:
-Hablar con cualquiera (no necesariamente que esté agregado como amigo).
-Que en la "lista de amigos" figure el nivel del piloto.
-Que los mensajes que dejan tus amigos, no se borren.
-También que por medio de un "comando" (puede ser F1, F2, F3, etc) se habra la ventana de dialogo.
-Y que la ventana de diálogo se coloque en el lado inferior de la pantalla.
02. CLAN:
-Que cualquier piloto tenga la opción de crear un CLAN y así reclutar un escuadrón.
-Que el Clan tenga un logo ó insignia.
-Que realicen enfrentamientos PVP ó guerra de Clanes con la ventaja de ganar mas "experiencia".

03. NIVEL DEL PILOTO & MECHA:
-Que los Administradores de HAWKEN agreguen mas niveles para los pilotos & mechas(+ de 30)
-Cada vez que un piloto pase de nivel (de lvl 19 para pasar al lvl 20 ó del lvl 29 para pasar al lvl 30) relicen una prueba de "ascenso" para que el juego se ponga mas interesante.

04. SALA PARA EMPEZAR EL JUEGO:
-Que el piloto tenga la opción de pasarse al equipo contrario.

05. OTROS:
-Que los Administradores de HAWKEN agreguen un servidor para los LATINOAMERICANOS, ya que algunas personas (me incluyo) no hablamos mucho el inglés y casi no nos entendemos entre todos los pilotos que se encuentran en tu equipo.
-Que cuando el equipo contrario tiene menos gente (pilotos) PORFAVOR NO NOS PASEN SORPRESIVAMENTE AL EQUIPO CONTRARIO (creo que en la pantalla sale press F12) ya que da un poco de cólera.

Fuera de eso, pues quisiera desearles muchos éxitos con este nuevo proyecto que es HAWKEN, ya que a mi parecer es uno de los mejores juegos que he probado en toda mi vida.

Saludos.
Madara_Uchija

[Moderator03]

Please keep all posts constructive to the topic and inviting to other members. Thank you.

[Silverfire]

ghostryker, on January 13 2014 - 05:00 PM, said:

I find the loss of tuning points to be quite disturbing.
Customization is very popular in pvp these days and the extent of this change was not required to achieve balance.
If the goal was to solve the balance problem created by the differences between players with different numbers of tuning points then the obvious and most direct solution was to simply give everyone all of the tuning points right out of the gate.
That way, everyone is working with the same number of tuning points.
Balance is achieved, the customization tuning points brought is retained.

So far no mention of what (if any) sort of replacement to that part of customization is coming to fill the gap.

I am very displeased.

That would not solve balance. We might have more choice, but it's really an illusion as I see it because there are a few optimal builds that you would be stupid not to use.  Anything other than these optimal builds, and you're not as effective as you could possibly be. I'll quote somebody who said it just right IMO.  It just so happens to be Xacius, the top player in Hawken.

Xacius, on January 13 2014 - 04:34 PM, said:

The problem with the current tuning system is that most mechs have an "optimal" build.  Regardless of your playstyle, if you aren't using this "optimal" build, chances are you're not contributing as much to your team as someone else who is using the optimal build.  

Let's explore the Raider, for instance.   The Raider has access to hydraulics, boost thrusters, fuel tank, and fuel generator, as well as the three primary tuning options (weapons loader, heatsinks, armor).  

No Raider in their right mind is going to forsake boost thrusters in favor of another tuning option.  It's simply the best option.  Hydraulics is debatable, but faster walk/run speeds are almost as important as faster boost speeds.  Through the same logic, we can assume that no Rocketeer in their right mind is going to forsake Air Dynamics.  It's simply the best option for the class.  

The tuning system gave players the idea that they had some sort of control over how their mech performed.  When closely examined, it was clear that players with the "optimal" setups were able to perform better than players using their alternative "preferred" setups.  This led players to think that "Oh, I can build my Berserker like my Infiltrator and still do just as well," while in reality the two mechs function entirely different from one-another.  This new system, coupled with proper mech advertisement, will give players a clearly-defined role for the mech that they're choosing to buy/play.  Zerkers will be great for air combat.  Scouts will be fast on the ground. etc...

By removing tuning from our control, it makes mechs easier to balance overall because then the devs don't have to account for the thousands of different combinations of tuning points that could throw off a preset balance or role that a mech is supposed to have.  Balance is certainly possible with the variations of tuning points, but it's very inefficient to try to balance every single different tuning combination for all the mechs; it can't really be done in a reasonable amount of time.  To remedy this, they are removing the choice of tuning and presetting it so mechs will be more balanced, and rounds will be determined moreso by skill rather than a mere tuning build.

[Rioter]

So do I save up my newbie cash and buy a new expensive mech now, or after the patch_

[Beefsweat]

^ Save your cash. New mechs are coming very soon.