15 replies to this topic

[Kopra]

In Ascension patch (as horrible as it was) the items were on a cooldown that ranged from 20 seconds to over a minute. Less powerful items generally had faster cooldowns and more powerful items had longer ones. In addition the strength of the item was dictated by its tier, Mk1, Mk2 or Mk3, where Mk3 was usually twice as good as Mk1 (4 slots vs 2 slots) but there were exceptions like the Shield item.

I do understand why the strength variation was removed, as it made certain items OP at Mk3, and at Mk1 useless.

What I liked about the cooldown system was that if you did well (staying alive) you got your items back in a reasonable amount of time. The balance between HE Charge and Detonator was interesting, as while you couldn't remotely detonate the HE Charge, it did more damage and recharged faster. Risk vs Reward in action. So part of the balance was in the recharge timer. Do well and you can have another go sooner.

Now since you get only an X number of items, you only get one certain strength items and that's it. This favors items that have powerful effects like EMP that can disable an enemy or a group of them for 3 seconds, and almost useless items that aren't worth using tactically and rather feel like something you shoot willy nilly like the current Detonator and HE Charge. When compared to EMP, Repair Orb, Shield... they just don't compare. Their impact is minimal, unless you are going for a very specialized purpose like EOC + Secondary + Damage Item = Dead A-class, which could potentially shave off 1.5 seconds from TTK which is not bad, but you can only do that a few times and then you are fuzzy bunnied up vs. cookie cutter builds that don't need items to do well.

The current system punishes for doing well - staying alive. At the moment I find myself tactically suiciding to recharge my items in time for Siege AA pushing for example to have 3 orbs on point which is 510-637,5 extra armor depending on internals. If the focus is to make killstreaks less common, why do we have killstreak internals like Armor Fusor or Power Surger_ And killstreak skulls_ If someone is doing well, they should be rewarded for it.

I could hold dear onto my items and only use them when they are really needed, but since the game doesn't punish death very much (fast respawn, millenia long assist timer, item/ability refresh, composite armor), why should I since the only difference is that I get a worse K/D on my stats (OH NO MY STATS!1!).

It doesn't make sense conceptually (brb blowing up myself *boom*) and every other resource can be attained again - fuel comes back by not boosting/dodging, armor can be repaired by pressing C, abilites restore by time (and are balanced by recharge times too, less powerful abilities have faster recharges), heat decreases by waiting and ammunition is infinite. Whatever nano-bots are making those bullets and rockets out of nothing, should also conjure items back as well.

So in summary my opinion on the current limited item system:

• Punishes for doing well
  
• Removed an important balance parameter (recharge)
  
• Favors certain items too much
  
• Not making any sense given its environment
  
• Rewards dying
  
• Item Spam

I think the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 -system was a mistake and holding to it for the sake of holding to it (because players spent money on them) was a mistake. It's supposedly a Beta. You can tweak things and should tweak things while you still can even if it hurts someone's wallet (as long as they get something back, like a big pile of HC) if it's for the best.

Making a proposition for a new item system feels silly at this point.

Edited by Kopra, October 25 2014 - 04:02 PM.

[Zuurkern]

You make some damn good points here, Kopra.

Also: items are ridiculously expensive compared to internals, which are mostly active all the time.

Edited by Zuurkern, October 25 2014 - 03:47 PM.

[EM1O]

Rant:
and there's the proposal: no categories.  if bullets and rockets regenerate, so should bombs and dets. if fuel magically refills, so should emps, shields, juice balls, etc, etc.
or here's a simpler concept: get rid of them. all of them, items and internals.
get rid of Tech, or remove the C key. one or the other--i'd prefer keeping only the Tech, then that mech would truly become a crucially skill-based piloting niche. I enjoy working the Tech, but i'll forever remember a 40-kill SS that captured the current farce perfectly: my Tech's nose firmly rammed into an Incin's butt. and that's about all it is good for now.
Beef the armor back up, and balance it with buffed projectile weapons. the better the aim, the deadlier the shot (well, gee whiz!).
End Rant

[Evolwar]

I agree with you Kopra. I never like rewarded suicides in Hawken (to gain items and promotes yolo diving ) and I always enjoyed cool-down items (make it feel like you are not at a disadvantage if you use your items up). In a game with unlimited ammo why are items on a count and not bullets. Not saying I want limited items, I just want the items cool down back. Good points!

[DerMax]

It was done exactly for that reason — to make people die faster, so that they don't form deathballs. Back when the change was introduced, people complained about them all the time. Replenishing items kept the deathball rolling on and on. With this system, however, it runs out of steam and breaks down, because items give those who died an edge.

[Ker4u]

DerMax, on October 26 2014 - 12:18 AM, said:

It was done exactly for that reason — to make people die faster, so that they don't form deathballs. Back when the change was introduced, people complained about them all the time. Replenishing items kept the deathball rolling on and on. With this system, however, it runs out of steam and breaks down, because items give those who died an edge.

invent fuzzy bunny  game mechanic to fix other fuzzy bunny game mechanic

[RozerMahbub_]

as we don't have limited ammo for primary and secondary.....we need unlimited Item

[MomOw]

I'd like cooldown for items, this could be a great way to balance them and change the meta, the hollow deserve a quick cooldown, EMP a slower.
The Tiers could be used to lower the cooldown or allow them them to be used more than once but this could lead to spamming, but "buff" could also be hard to balance, and just removing them ... why not making items tiers the same as weapons : restrict access to items and add options when the mech level increase (a good way to control the meta, but this may lead to player whining).

[off topic]
My opinion is that what favors most the deathroll is the fuzzy bunny respawn system, group spawning players from the same team, add some "free fuel" for a few seconds or stuff like that..
Maybe voice chat could help, but with russian, german, italian and french this could be rather difficult, just add some more beacon options : "help", "ennemy sighted" are OK, but I'd rather like "attack", "wait", "retreat"...
[/off topic]

[WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

I liked your post because it points to the overarching balance issues and patterns I feel have long plagued Hawken. However, I disagree with your points made.

Kopra, on October 25 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

So in summary my opinion on the current limited item system:

• Punishes for doing well
  
• Removed an important balance parameter (recharge)
  
• Favors certain items too much
  
• Not making any sense given its environment
  
• Rewards dying
  
• Item Spam

I think the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 -system was a mistake and holding to it for the sake of holding to it (because players spent money on them) was a mistake. It's supposedly a Beta. You can tweak things and should tweak things while you still can even if it hurts someone's wallet (as long as they get something back, like a big pile of HC) if it's for the best.

Making a proposition for a new item system feels silly at this point.

1) I had a similar thought to this as well some time before I quit Hawken but this point is false. Doing well is its own reward. By doing well, you are avoiding downtime insisted by spawning away from action an the respawn timer in Siege. By doing well, you are adding to your team's score exactly as dictated by your given resources your strategy and tactics.

The old recharge system amplified player skill. Your resources were limited to a floating variable instead of a fixed constant. The floating variable was time, which was multiplied by player skill. The new stock system provides a framework that is does not amplify player skill by time. This is actually an improvement in balance overall and forces skilled players to work as hard as anyone else at all times. There is no longer systematic nepotism that effectively obscures how skilled a player really is.

2) This is misrepresentation of the situation. The balance parameter was removed and a new one was added: limited stock. The balance paramater's place of enumeration was replaced, not removed.

3) This is a problem with the items wrt the stock system. Furthermore, if you assume that the items are imbalanced as they are now, then under the previous sytem, because they could recharge, their imbalanced features would be invoked infinitely depending on player life time instead of only 1 to 3 times in a player life time.

In other words, the longer a match goes, the more of an impact a skilled player will make artifically through the items. Items will be even more imbalanced compared to the stock system. Teams that are even slightly more skilled than another team can improve their chances to winning to 100% simply by staying alive. This is no longer possible under the stock system, wherein resources are finite.

4) Lore is a highly manipulable, aesthetic variable not useful in balancing. It can easily be asserted that the items require special materials or elements not readily available by the systems that also provide bullets and fuel.

5) This issue needs more analysis. In both systems, dying replenishes resources. Previously, I can die and respawn in a shorter amount of time than it would take for resources to recharge, hence, I can always be reesource-ready. Presently, when I die my resources are restored to a constant, hence, I can always be resource-ready up to a constant. Dying has always rewarded the dying player.

Further: previously, deaths also rewarded the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to replenish her resources and insisting her foe respawns. Now, deaths reward the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to use up her resources and insisting the foe respawns.

The major difference is that there is now a limit to how much power a given life has. Power no longer correlates with life time. When players decide to suicide into the enemy, they are making the strategic decision that the resources with which they respawn outweigh the loss of time. Otherwise, power is achieved by staying alive, and the game devolves into a competition to see who can stay alive the longest regardless of game mode.

6) Item spam is a consequence of short cooldown times and item imbalance, not systemic imbalance.

[Arevizz]

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, on October 26 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

I liked your post because it points to the overarching balance issues and patterns I feel have long plagued Hawken. However, I disagree with your points made.

Kopra, on October 25 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

So in summary my opinion on the current limited item system:

• Punishes for doing well
  
• Removed an important balance parameter (recharge)
  
• Favors certain items too much
  
• Not making any sense given its environment
  
• Rewards dying
  
• Item Spam

I think the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 -system was a mistake and holding to it for the sake of holding to it (because players spent money on them) was a mistake. It's supposedly a Beta. You can tweak things and should tweak things while you still can even if it hurts someone's wallet (as long as they get something back, like a big pile of HC) if it's for the best.

Making a proposition for a new item system feels silly at this point.

1) I had a similar thought to this as well some time before I quit Hawken but this point is false. Doing well is its own reward. By doing well, you are avoiding downtime insisted by spawning away from action an the respawn timer in Siege. By doing well, you are adding to your team's score exactly as dictated by your given resources your strategy and tactics.

The old recharge system amplified player skill. Your resources were limited to a floating variable instead of a fixed constant. The floating variable was time, which was multiplied by player skill. The new stock system provides a framework that is does not amplify player skill by time. This is actually an improvement in balance overall and forces skilled players to work as hard as anyone else at all times. There is no longer systematic nepotism that effectively obscures how skilled a player really is.

2) This is misrepresentation of the situation. The balance parameter was removed and a new one was added: limited stock. The balance paramater's place of enumeration was replaced, not removed.

3) This is a problem with the items wrt the stock system. Furthermore, if you assume that the items are imbalanced as they are now, then under the previous sytem, because they could recharge, their imbalanced features would be invoked infinitely depending on player life time instead of only 1 to 3 times in a player life time.

In other words, the longer a match goes, the more of an impact a skilled player will make artifically through the items. Items will be even more imbalanced compared to the stock system. Teams that are even slightly more skilled than another team can improve their chances to winning to 100% simply by staying alive. This is no longer possible under the stock system, wherein resources are finite.

4) Lore is a highly manipulable, aesthetic variable not useful in balancing. It can easily be asserted that the items require special materials or elements not readily available by the systems that also provide bullets and fuel.

5) This issue needs more analysis. In both systems, dying replenishes resources. Previously, I can die and respawn in a shorter amount of time than it would take for resources to recharge, hence, I can always be reesource-ready. Presently, when I die my resources are restored to a constant, hence, I can always be resource-ready up to a constant. Dying has always rewarded the dying player.

Further: previously, deaths also rewarded the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to replenish her resources and insisting her foe respawns. Now, deaths reward the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to use up her resources and insisting the foe respawns.

The major difference is that there is now a limit to how much power a given life has. Power no longer correlates with life time. When players decide to suicide into the enemy, they are making the strategic decision that the resources with which they respawn outweigh the loss of time. Otherwise, power is achieved by staying alive, and the game devolves into a competition to see who can stay alive the longest regardless of game mode.

6) Item spam is a consequence of short cooldown times and item imbalance, not systemic imbalance.

That`s a lot of words.

[Kopra]

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, on October 26 2014 - 05:32 AM, said:

I liked your post because it points to the overarching balance issues and patterns I feel have long plagued Hawken. However, I disagree with your points made.

Kopra, on October 25 2014 - 01:36 PM, said:

So in summary my opinion on the current limited item system:

• Punishes for doing well
  
• Removed an important balance parameter (recharge)
  
• Favors certain items too much
  
• Not making any sense given its environment
  
• Rewards dying
  
• Item Spam

I think the Mk1, Mk2, Mk3 -system was a mistake and holding to it for the sake of holding to it (because players spent money on them) was a mistake. It's supposedly a Beta. You can tweak things and should tweak things while you still can even if it hurts someone's wallet (as long as they get something back, like a big pile of HC) if it's for the best.

Making a proposition for a new item system feels silly at this point.

1) I had a similar thought to this as well some time before I quit Hawken but this point is false. Doing well is its own reward. By doing well, you are avoiding downtime insisted by spawning away from action an the respawn timer in Siege. By doing well, you are adding to your team's score exactly as dictated by your given resources your strategy and tactics.

The old recharge system amplified player skill. Your resources were limited to a floating variable instead of a fixed constant. The floating variable was time, which was multiplied by player skill. The new stock system provides a framework that is does not amplify player skill by time. This is actually an improvement in balance overall and forces skilled players to work as hard as anyone else at all times. There is no longer systematic nepotism that effectively obscures how skilled a player really is.




2) This is misrepresentation of the situation. The balance parameter was removed and a new one was added: limited stock. The balance paramater's place of enumeration was replaced, not removed.


3) This is a problem with the items wrt the stock system. Furthermore, if you assume that the items are imbalanced as they are now, then under the previous sytem, because they could recharge, their imbalanced features would be invoked infinitely depending on player life time instead of only 1 to 3 times in a player life time.

In other words, the longer a match goes, the more of an impact a skilled player will make artifically through the items. Items will be even more imbalanced compared to the stock system. Teams that are even slightly more skilled than another team can improve their chances to winning to 100% simply by staying alive. This is no longer possible under the stock system, wherein resources are finite.

On some maps where the travel time from the base to the AA is short, like Last Eco or Origin, the downtime is irrelevant to the amount of power you gain from items. This is of course, a problem with how big of an impact the items have on the game and map balance. While from a gameplay point it's a system of risk & reward; should I stay alive without items or gib myself and come back much stronger_ My argument here is that gibbing yourself should be a penalty, not a reward. In the current system I can get Ascension's 4 minutes worth of items and use them in less than 1 minute, die while doing something useful and then repeat. It does not amplify player skill over time but instead is front-loaded and I think this is a problem. The stock is limited, but not really, when dying is such a minor obstacle.

I wouldn't want the old system back as it was, as it had its glaring flaws, but I believe there should be a way to restock your items without dying.


4) Lore is a highly manipulable, aesthetic variable not useful in balancing. It can easily be asserted that the items require special materials or elements not readily available by the systems that also provide bullets and fuel.


True. It still breaks the continuity as a gameplay mechanic with the other systems present.


5) This issue needs more analysis. In both systems, dying replenishes resources. Previously, I can die and respawn in a shorter amount of time than it would take for resources to recharge, hence, I can always be reesource-ready. Presently, when I die my resources are restored to a constant, hence, I can always be resource-ready up to a constant. Dying has always rewarded the dying player.


Further: previously, deaths also rewarded the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to replenish her resources and insisting her foe respawns. Now, deaths reward the killing player by giving her the time-opportunity to use up her resources and insisting the foe respawns.

The major difference is that there is now a limit to how much power a given life has. Power no longer correlates with life time. When players decide to suicide into the enemy, they are making the strategic decision that the resources with which they respawn outweigh the loss of time. Otherwise, power is achieved by staying alive, and the game devolves into a competition to see who can stay alive the longest regardless of game mode.

Dying has indeed always rewarded the dying player with a fresh stock of items, ability and armor. Previously you could catch up to the winning player before his items had recharged, and have a slight advantage. Now it's almost destined that you will go down by the sheer power of items that add to the losing enemy's ability, thus item spam.

It can be flipped the other way round too, that the winning player is only winning because of the items. Which further dictates that there exists a problem with the item system, when they are not a supplement but rather the catalyst.

Now the power goes down the longer the match goes on. While this is fairer for the loosing player, all it does is induce the winning players to cut the negative feedback loop by tactically dying in moments where it has minimal impact on the base performance, for example in the waiting phase that is in between delivering the last EU and launching the ship.


6) Item spam is a consequence of short cooldown times and item imbalance, not systemic imbalance.

I'm talking about the tendency to use up all your items before dying. Because you can't always be sure when it's going to happen, most will use up items in every opportunity presented, which leads to item spam. The old system wasn't particularly good at this either: between item A and B uses there was a 2 second delay. So it was 2 items in short succession. Now it's potentially 4 (or 3) items with 7 (or 5) second intervals (depending on if you have the item regenerator). If the player's lived long enough, they could match the front-loaded system of today and exceed it.

All in all my argument is that there shouldn't be an incentive to die unless it's a very tactical objective not related to resource gain on spawn. Sacrificing your life to take out a key player is ok in my book, but tribes-esque (there even was a key to gib yourself to save the trouble) suiciding to reset your power level just feel wrong on so many levels, especially in a game whose one of the strongest points is (or was) immersion.

[Milithistorian]

I think at the very least items should be cheaper, as a full set can sometimes cost as much as a new mech.

[WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

Quote

All in all my argument is that there shouldn't be an incentive to die unless it's a very tactical objective not related to resource gain on spawn. Sacrificing your life to take out a key player is ok in my book, but tribes-esque (there even was a key to gib yourself to save the trouble) suiciding to reset your power level just feel wrong on so many levels, especially in a game whose one of the strongest points is (or was) immersion.

There will always be an incentive to die under the current mechanisms. The only way I can see to offset this without creating a new system or using another large change is to implement harsher death penalties. You're right about different maps providing little-to-no downtime.

The front-loading of items likely wouldn't be a problem if respawns were finite per discrete interval of time for all players, a la Counter Strike GO, or other round-based shooters. This is a systemic change though.

There isn't a negative feedback loop to my knowledge. You'll have to point it out.

Blowing one's resources as you suggest is typically not intelligent play. If the present conditions facilitate it though (not as far as I know, but I don't follow comp Hawken, if it's still alive at any rate), then that suggests more heavily that a harsher death penalty is necessary.

[Kopra]

WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, on October 27 2014 - 07:23 AM, said:

There isn't a negative feedback loop to my knowledge. You'll have to point it out.

I could be using the wrong term here, but here's how I understand it.

Player A and player B fight, while A is only slightly better than B.

Player A defeats player B, both used resources to a high degree. (B's resource usage forces A to use up resources as well)

Player B comes back and defeats player A thanks to his plentiful resources.

Player A comes back and uses significantly less resources to defeat player B because B had less resources.

Player B comes back and might win or lose because while A has less resources, the difference in resources might not be enough for B to win A, but let's assume it's a slight advantage to A most of the time.

So this will slowly make A get ahead of B long term, despite the back-and-forth fashion short term. This would actually be positive feedback in the long term and negative feedback in the short term. (Again, as I understand it)

Your input has put me thinking and I've actually changed my mind on this subject and to some degree agree that it's not absolutely bad that way (stock being the balance paremeter), because in a recharge system a slight advantage "explodes" when the slightly better player wins significantly more often (if items are allowed to recharge so that we get to the initial condition every time or even a decent amount of time) creating a great performance difference between two players even when the actual skill difference is minimal. So some negative feedback is good.

Where the "cutting the negative feedback loop" comes in is pacing. In Siege you first have to win the EU tree, and then you have to win the AA. Losing the EU tree most of the time isn't bad as long as you win the AA, but winning the EU tree is important to win the game in a reasonable time. Because the pacing is focused on the trees and the AA, staying alive during the "grey phase" doesn't contribute to the important fights as much.

It isn't an intelligent tactic to blow out your resources, but if the enemy is especially vulnerable to resources (C-classes to EMP) then in the current system, to win the game you must have the resources, and the only way to have them is to either save them for the AA fights or kill yourself.

Changing the death penalty would be in order at least in Siege (it's a little higher there than on other modes but still quite short). In the deathmatch modes a short timer makes more "sense" as I see it as a fun bloodbath mode. MA is a whole different animal, playing out very different depending if it's a triangle map or with bases, but so far I don't find myself tactically yoloing on that mode so on a personal level that mode is fine. Someone else with more thoughts on it can chime in on that subject.

Edited by Kopra, October 27 2014 - 09:14 AM.

[Fulano2]

I think Items are so limited to prevent abuse. For example, some guys that keep EMPing the others and running, just to annoy (no offense intended to anyone). I think it would be good to limit some items, such as EMP, HE charge, Detonator and radar scrambler, as well as radar scanner.

[phed]

It's there to help diminish the defender's advantage and prevent complete steamrolls.

It helps.