31 replies to this topic

[KellAset]

Irrelevant said:

I think people are suggesting small sizes because it makes your mech more important (in 32v32 your team could win without you even contributing) The more important your mech is, the more that tactics and team work matter.

In Battlefield 2142 (64 players) teams and tactics also matter, rambo players die fast hehe    teamplay is encouraged by things like additional exp for fighting near team members and you can spawn near team leader. Maps are big, very big but players gather around objective points to defend/attack them. 1 player on each side can play as commander, he can issue orders to team leaders while looking at the map of entire level.

Anyway I'm a bit afraid that with smaller number of players in game, 1 skilled player can easily overpower few less experienced players during a match and make to big of a difference. Smth like that happens for example in Front Mission Evolved(4vs4) but that game is rather obviously unbalanced   .

[3leggedFreak]

Kell Aset said:

Anyway I'm a bit afraid that with smaller number of players in game, 1 skilled player can easily overpower few less experienced players during a match and make to big of a difference.

I don't see a problem in that. If I get kicked in the ass too often I practice and become better_

[KellAset]

Too many times I have seen newbies rage quitting, to never see them back in game again.
Anyway I just wish to see big battles of mechs in game at last, battles that not only will be big but will feel big, not like bar brawl, what else I can say heh   .

[Irrelevant]

Do most people play tactically in that game_ What did the developers do to encourage this_
I don't think that this the case, the small amount of health you have coupled with a short respawn time means that if you have the skill you could get enough enjoyment out of it, it all depends how sparce the maps are.
Point is,
if you want bigger maps to engage in battles with more enemies,

That means that there is inherently less strategy involved because its easy for sheer numbers to win over strategy(specially if the game is designed so that everyone is equal.)

[Dem]

Irrelevant said:

Do most people play tactically in that game_ What did the developers do to encourage this_
I don't think that this the case, the small amount of health you have coupled with a short respawn time means that if you have the skill you could get enough enjoyment out of it, it all depends how sparce the maps are.
Point is,
if you want bigger maps to engage in battles with more enemies,

That means that there is inherently less strategy involved because its easy for sheer numbers to win over strategy(specially if the game is designed so that everyone is equal.)

Ah, but if you throw in some sort of squad organization component, it would orient the game towards team-play and thus more strategy.

[The_Silencer]

8vs8 seems enough cool to me at this moment.

[urthpainter]

I wouldn't be surprised if it was as small a 3 vs 3, and I would be surprised it it was bigger than 5 vs 5.  Exactly how the targeting works will be huge in team strategy.  6 on 6 in chromehounds would get crazy because there was no targeting difference between friend and foe.  You actually had to tell by sight, making team paint schemes a must.  If targeting can clearly differentiate friend and foe (which in this type of action game I would assume you can), large scale team battles will benefit.

[3leggedFreak]

It all depends on the maps.

They said the map loadout, small but for a small dev it's expected, would be diverse, so we will find out what works. If they ship the game with the editor we could quickly expand the number of maps too. If people want large scale battles we build big arenas, if people want tight frag fests we build small arenas.

I have built maps for UE before so I would not hesitate if I got the chance.

[da_smiter]

3leggedFreak said:

It all depends on the maps.

They said the map loadout, small but for a small dev it's expected, would be diverse, so we will find out what works. If they ship the game with the editor we could quickly expand the number of maps too. If people want large scale battles we build big arenas, if people want tight frag fests we build small arenas.

I have built maps for UE before so I would not hesitate if I got the chance.

i just got the udk kit and if  they give us a map maker im going to have to put in some O.T if u know what i mean :}

[vesper1]

I've been playing a 15v15 game for quite a while now (World of Tanks), with maps 1000x1000 meters, and the scale works only because of the speed (mostly slow), game mechanics (there are one shot kills, especially if a heavy cannon rips your light tank apart or the artillery dudes spot you) and environment (great map design).

Hawken seems to be a bit faster, definitely more of a 3D game (flying mechs), and with weapons that will require smart choices and flexibility. Perhaps similar to Shattered Horizon_ (which reminds me, I should give that another go ).

I think that map size is king when deciding the maximum team size (think UT99).

[The_Silencer]

It all depends on the maps.

[Dahdah]

As important as map size is the player count, its equally important to factor in the TYPE of gameplay Adhesive employs. The choice to use a respawning mechanic (which I gather most people here are assuming) is critical is defining match size. Personally, I wouldn't mind seeing NO respawns in objective type matches, ala Chromehounds.

It definitely adds tension and demands tactics (both large and small scale) when you know that you only have a limited health quota to work with. Matches will tend to start slow, but individual combat can be very heated, depending on map configuration and player style. Allowing respawns rewards the lone wolves while turning an objective game into strictly a kill fest. That type of play is best left for TDM.

As far as match size, the bigger the better, with constraints of map size taken into account. For the size/style of map shown in the vids, I would think at least 6v6, maybe up to 10v10 might be workable.