13 replies to this topic

[Hipnox]

[ Devs, please read this ranting wall of text. It brings up one big design problem that makes progression and game in general less interesting and more boring ]

For a game that feels so fresh and innovative in gameplay, visual style and design, it is severely lacking in imagination and inovation regarding upgrades in general.

They are so boring and uninspired!


Most upgrades in the game are small %percentage bonuses, impossible to perceive in game. You got:

> 90% of the customization tree made up of small incremental percentage boosts

> Most internals internals are percentage boosts

> Weapon levels ( which are not implemented yet ) will probably be small percentage bonuses

> The sharpshooter ability gives a small damage bonus



Heck, most upgrades are so small the actually don't even have an impact on the game at all. Example:

1 Point on Damage reduction (0.5%) on an Infiltrator reduces the damage taken from a single sabot rifle shot from 180 damage to .. wait for it ... 179.1 damage!

Can you feel it_ i sure can't_

It also doesn't help that there actually are good skill points that are worth it (+75 armor) but are buried underneath a dozen wasted points on lame, boring and pretty crappy percentage upgrades. (and while we are on the subject, why is that health increment not a percentage_ it should be, seen as how it has a way bigger impact on light mechs than on heavy mechs)


It really hurts the feel of mech customization, badly.

I can't feel the difference between packing 'Armor Piercing Munition +5% damage' or 'Primary weapon loader +8% Primary Rate of fire ', but i know i have to take at least one internal. A boost is a boost after all and my opponents will likely have one too. Since i can't tell which is better and certainly can't feel their effect in game, i might as well pick one and to heck with it.

So i end up buying internals (which cost a lot of HP) to gain bonuses which i can't even feel while playing, just because the game tells me my mech will perform slightly better.

That's pretty lame.


Regarding weapon levels, Why are they here to begin with_ I can make them (slightly) better with internals and tech tree. Why do i need a third, obligatory boost_  In fact, its actually kind of funny that i can't even choose which gun gets the lvl bonus, so i ended up having my Sharpshooter's SA Hawkins upgraded to lvl 2, even though i always use the Slug rifle. I effectively gained NOTHING on that level up.





I'm going to throw some ideas out there:

1- Get rid of weapon levels entirely:
They have no place in this game. They are not really customization because they give you no choice at all. Everything they do can be accomplished via internals and tech tree.
All it does is give even more (albeit small) handicap to high level players, which hurts balancing.


2- Make a better, more balanced tech tree:
Current tech tree is unbalanced. Some percentage bonuses need to be bigger, health boosts need to be turned into percentage bonuses instead of flat numbers. With weapon upgrades gone, give tech points more evenly (1 or 2 per level)

Even better, have different tech trees for individual classes, A, B and C, each giving priority to mobility, firepower, and Damage soaking respectively


1- Get inventive and make more interesting internals. Make internals with both bonuses and penalties:
Choosing an Internals need to be a real choice. There has to be a tradeoff. Like in Team Fortress 2, new weapons are always a balance between pros and cons.

Make internals that look something like:

Offensive internal

High Caliber Primary

Trades increase heat for more damage

+10% Primary bullet damage

+15% Heat

Offensive internal

Experimental Feed mechanism

(For SubMachingun, Assault rifle or Vulcan only)

+25% Chance of firing 2 shots instead of 1

+10% Chance of not firing at all

Functional internal

Burst Afterburner

Sacrifices vertical capabilities for faster forward speed

+20% Forward jet speed

-10% Maximum Fuel

-80% Maximum Cieling

Functional internal

Vector Thrusters

Increase airborne mobility

Better forward and strafe response while flying

-20% Maximum Fuel

Yes, All of this have percentage bonuses and penalties, but the numbers are high enough both ways that they become real tradeoffs and most importantly, can be felt in game.

But maybe it's just me. If you have better ideas, please post them.

Edited by Hipnox, October 30 2012 - 12:36 PM.

[TemperWolf]

But that means they can't pull the tech tree from League of Legends and have to actually think of something new and original, and god forbid, Mech-like! Gasp!

But seriously, I would more appreciate a tech tree that was actually a system of going through and adjusting various portions of the mech itself like Armored Core. Often this mean you'd gain points and then invest those points into a given part, you could adjust wildly a lot of what that part could do --- even weapons!

I fear the creators of this game just like the appearance of mechs, but don't really want to get into the complex nitty-gritty that most Mech-Sim games have as that would dramatically increase the development cycle. I'm pretty positive they'll release things just they way they are now and just shrug off your suggests and feedback for "Future Titles". But your feedback is sound. Maybe you're just like me and this game isn't for you.

Edited by TemperWolf, October 30 2012 - 09:25 AM.

[Elix]

I'm not invalidating or arguing with your post, Hipnox. But I'm just going to say, remember that this is beta content, and there probably will be a much bigger variety of options once the big problems are out of the way and balance playtesting is now most important. What you see right now isn't final.

This game is an FPS, not a sim. It has mechs in it, but it isn't a sim. The devs are very clear to promote this game as a "mech-based F2P FPS".

That being said, imagine a single-player campaign-based mech sim based off of the core of Hawken, but adapted for a campaign sim. I'd buy that. However, we're now talking about two completely different games.

[Immie]

Good post, some great points in there.

• While I don't like weapon leveling either, they are being monetized with xp boosters, so I'm afraid they're probably not going anywhere
  
• Agreed completely; here's my thread on the subject
  
• Amazing suggestion here. Internals are incredibly boring right now, they're just better, expensive versions of optimizations. Giving them much stronger bonuses adding negative effects to balance them would be much, much better. Not too keen on the random bullet feed thing, but the general idea is good

[Conquistador]

I personally really like the current tech tree build. The ability to build a fairly Tanky and mobile A-class is always a nice surprise for the enemy, with the tradeoff being really weak weapons.

I would rather they didn't adjust the armor bonuses on the A-class, but rather define chassis-specific stat trees. Right now, all stat trees are identical. The stat tree of a b-chassis and c-chassis much should be radically different from That of an a-class much.

It makes sense that you can't put the sane kind of armor on a tank that you can on an ifv or even a light transport.

Custom stat trees unique to each much class would also add to the customisation aspect of the game.

Edited by Conquistador, October 30 2012 - 09:34 AM.

[WALSRU]

A big +1 on your internals idea. Would absolutely love to see bigger boosts with tradeoffs to suit my playstyle.

[Hipnox]

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

I'm not invalidating or arguing with your post, Hipnox. But I'm just going to say, remember that this is beta content, and there probably will be a much bigger variety of options once the big problems are out of the way and balance playtesting is now most important. What you see right now isn't final.

I know you like to play the "Beta Card" Elix, but it doesn't hurt to voice our complaints about the current build either. I have not idea what the game is gonna look like upon realease. All i know is what i see before me, and what i see is a game that has potential, but also a lot of (non-technical) problems.

Better to voice our opinions now during the beta, when things can still radically change, than after release when it's already to late.

Elix, on October 30 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

This game is an FPS, not a sim. It has mechs in it, but it isn't a sim. The devs are very clear to promote this game as a "mech-based F2P FPS".

The fact that it isn't a sim doesn't mean that it can't have depth. My proposed internal component ideas are based off the Team Fortress 2 style of weapon upgrades, which is a FPS. The amount of variety and originality in that game is huge, and it's just a team based FPS.

Because of Hawken's mechanical approach and vertical gameplay capability, it's potential is much much greater. But for some reason it's just not getting there. Not even close.

Immie, on October 30 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Good post, some great points in there.

• While I don't like weapon leveling either, they are being monetized with xp boosters, so I'm afraid they're probably not going anywhere
  
• Agreed completely; here's my thread on the subject
  
• Amazing suggestion here. Internals are incredibly boring right now, they're just better, expensive versions of optimizations. Giving them much stronger bonuses adding negative effects to balance them would be much, much better. Not too keen on the random bullet feed thing, but the general idea is good

1- Still, i could see them removing them in favor of a better tech tree and still profit from XP boosters. After all, you need XP to get more Tech points.

2- I read your post, which inspired me to take a closer, more critical look on the tech tree.

3- The random bullet thing was just me goofing around with possible "original" effects when i remembered Borderland's gunslinger perk.   My point still stands that you can do a lot of interesting things as long as it has a proportioned negative tradeoff.

Conquistador, on October 30 2012 - 09:32 AM, said:

The stat tree of a b-chassis and c-chassis much should be radically different from That of an a-class much.

It makes sense that you can't put the sane kind of armor on a tank that you can on an ifv or even a light transport.

Very much agreed. Edited OP to include this suggestion.

TemperWolf, on October 30 2012 - 09:24 AM, said:

I fear the creators of this game just like the appearance of mechs, but don't really want to get into the complex nitty-gritty that most Mech-Sim games have as that would dramatically increase the development cycle. I'm pretty positive they'll release things just they way they are now and just shrug off your suggests and feedback for "Future Titles". But your feedback is sound. Maybe you're just like me and this game isn't for you.

I actually fear the same thing myself. There so much potential here, but i can't tell for the life of me if it's going to be an epic game, or just another forgettable F2P.


I really really want to see this game turn into pure awesome, but i have mixed feelings about a lot of things in it at the moment.

[Brave_Sir_Robin]

I like your third point the most. I would prefer a system similar to TF2 where the internal item you select has both a measurable, positive benefit and a measurable, negative trade-off. It allows the player more sustained customization (i.e. a pilot of a Class-A mech can choose items that promote more boost/maneuverability benefits while trading off damage and/or defense).

Will the devs take a look at this_ Maybe. Will any of these points be up for discussion or consideration_ Highly doubtful, but there is always hope.

[[HWK]Vitquay]

Thanks for the posts and feedback. We are trying to make Hawken better and constantly improve. We do try to look over and consider all the suggestions and really appreciate all the great feedback. Although we may not get everything in that we would like, we will try our best to do so.

[Rooslin]

i personally like the current optimizations and internals thats the way i feel a mech game should be

i think the movement optimization tree is extremely powerful but then again i guess it depends on the mech and the player

[defekt]

Alternative weapon levels approach discussed here: http://community.pla...__20#entry80850  Same method; more interesting sidegrade options instead of repeat flat buffs.

[Hipnox]

Vitquay, on October 30 2012 - 12:19 PM, said:

Thanks for the posts and feedback. We are trying to make Hawken better and constantly improve. We do try to look over and consider all the suggestions and really appreciate all the great feedback. Although we may not get everything in that we would like, we will try our best to do so.

That is good to know. I know player and Developer interests are not always aligned. All we can do as players is say what we would like the game to be.

[The_Ulf]

I support this thread.

I don't mind the optimizations/internals as they stand now, but there's certainly room to make them more interesting and have greater impact.  What I'd caution against is taking any radical steps too far, though - as neither optimizations nor internals have any visual read in-game, and in a game of quick skirmishes you don't really have the opportunity to analyze your opponents and estimate just what spec'ing they've done if its going to have an incredible or unintuitive effect on the fight.

League of Legends, for example, can afford some fairly extravagant masteries due to the fact that you'll be given about 45 minutes to engage your opponents and learn what they're doing, can actually select and check stats of enemies, and their characters are locked in and can't change once the match begins.

With Hawken and the ability to swap between different mech builds on the fly on every respawn, not to mention the rapidity of combat and the nature of FPS's not really allowing for all that much estimated analysis of enemies outside of visual identifiers, there's danger in optimizations internals becoming too radically game-changing.

In other words, you never want to not know why you lost a fight.

[Hipnox]

The_Ulf, on October 31 2012 - 11:04 AM, said:

I support this thread.

I don't mind the optimizations/internals as they stand now, but there's certainly room to make them more interesting and have greater impact.  What I'd caution against is taking any radical steps too far, though - as neither optimizations nor internals have any visual read in-game, and in a game of quick skirmishes you don't really have the opportunity to analyze your opponents and estimate just what spec'ing they've done if its going to have an incredible or unintuitive effect on the fight.

League of Legends, for example, can afford some fairly extravagant masteries due to the fact that you'll be given about 45 minutes to engage your opponents and learn what they're doing, can actually select and check stats of enemies, and their characters are locked in and can't change once the match begins.

With Hawken and the ability to swap between different mech builds on the fly on every respawn, not to mention the rapidity of combat and the nature of FPS's not really allowing for all that much estimated analysis of enemies outside of visual identifiers, there's danger in optimizations internals becoming too radically game-changing.

In other words, you never want to not know why you lost a fight.

This is true, and could be considered a design flaw.

Not counting the Tech Tree, every mech can pack 6 items, yet none of them is visually represented on the mech.

Even worse, mechs can change their outer looks to match any other mech in their weight class all the while retaining their unique weapons and abilities.

This allows a Berserker to change it's visual appearance to that of the infiltrator, while gameplay-wise, it's still a berserker.

gauging your enemy's offensive/defensive capabilities is already a problem even with the current small internal bonuses.