28 replies to this topic

[h0B0]

I have a similar philosophy to that of beemann. I do not take pleasure in pub stomping if it is all based on stats and not on skill.
On the other hand i do enjoy the "getting stronger" part or at least unlocking more customization for my mech.

[Hipnox]

The paradigm in gaming of rewarding the player that's already winning / more experienced by giving him further advantages over his competition is an obsolete and backwards concept.

If a player is more skilled and/or experienced, he/she doesn't need bonuses and advantages. He's already winning. The system is an ever tipping scale, constantly helping the "pro" while giving little or nothing to the "noob". The balance is thus broken, newer and casual players fell it's unfair and leave.

CoD, Counter-Strike, Combat Arms, tons of other games and practically any stat-based online game suffer from this "design".


A risk / reward system like the one Hawken is supposed to have helps keep unfair disadvantages to a minimum. Yes, you are still giving high level choices unavailable to low levels, but still, a choice with a tradeoff is better than a flat out bonus.

[Subdivision]

h0B0, on November 16 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I have a similar philosophy to that of beemann. I do not take pleasure in pub stomping if it is all based on stats and not on skill.
On the other hand i do enjoy the "getting stronger" part or at least unlocking more customization for my mech.

Sure, its always more gratifying to crush someone in a game through entirely your own abilities and not have an easier job in something stronger but the game will still need some form of progression system to engage less hardcore players. I think the changes implied by Saunders sound great. Keeping things level, yet more things to tweak and adjust to fit how you want it to be, to me at least, should be what a mech game is all about. (And yes, I know this isn't strictly a mech game/simulator!)

In response to the OP, I don't understand your apprehension and negativity towards the changes. I too don't mind the current system too much. I get by with it and only have the minor level balance quibble, but I still acknowledge there are much better ways to do things and for the long term benefit of the game, they are pretty necessary. You don't stop getting stronger. You make a trade-off with one statistic for another to tune a mech more towards what you would want from it. Say, faster boost but less fuel. To me, this will give us much more dynamic games as every mech will be tuned to a pilot's preference and so it may not be immediately clear what people may be capable of.

I hope you realise (and Ace4225 too) that by levelling the mech level balance issue, the 'noob' players you are complaining about 'QQ'ing will stop complaining about it. If all mech are roughly at the same level stats, then results are going to clearly be more about a player's skill than mech capabilities. I don't see why you are complaining about the solution to your problem.

I hope you will at least give it a try before you knock it. I can't stand it when someone refuses to try something for completely nonsensical reasoning.

[Beemann]

Subdivision, on November 16 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sure, its always more gratifying to crush someone in a game through entirely your own abilities and not have an easier job in something stronger but the game will still need some form of progression system to engage less hardcore players. I think the changes implied by Saunders sound great. Keeping things level, yet more things to tweak and adjust to fit how you want it to be, to me at least, should be what a mech game is all about. (And yes, I know this isn't strictly a mech game/simulator!)

The less casual players will also complain about being beat by someone with 10 levels on them, even if  those levels don`t really mean much
I mean... how many times do you see players complaining about the matchmaker basing their complaints on the levels of their opponents_ This even happened in Tribes: Ascend's Beta, where levels really didn't mean much at all. One could max out their gear in a couple matches, and even those bonuses wouldn't produce better combat results, they were just things like extra ammo or more vehicle damage

[h0B0]

Subdivision, on November 16 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

h0B0, on November 16 2012 - 06:13 AM, said:

I have a similar philosophy to that of beemann. I do not take pleasure in pub stomping if it is all based on stats and not on skill.
On the other hand i do enjoy the "getting stronger" part or at least unlocking more customization for my mech.

Sure, its always more gratifying to crush someone in a game through entirely your own abilities and not have an easier job in something stronger but the game will still need some form of progression system to engage less hardcore players. I think the changes implied by Saunders sound great. Keeping things level, yet more things to tweak and adjust to fit how you want it to be, to me at least, should be what a mech game is all about. (And yes, I know this isn't strictly a mech game/simulator!)

I am glad you agree with me

Quote

The paradigm in gaming of rewarding the player that's already winning / more experienced by giving him further advantages over his competition is an obsolete and backwards concept.

although i fully agree with this. i could not imagine it otherwise. th point of the system is to reward a player for his hard effort. I think a concept that would reward the least skilled player in order to encourage him is backwards and does not promote self growth.

[Beemann]

Hipnox, on November 16 2012 - 08:22 AM, said:

Counter-Strike

I forgot to address this before
CS is not one of the droids you're looking for
CS has progression in the same way that DotA and Starcraft have progression, and the same way that the ships in Siege have progression
It's a way of tipping the balance if one team pushes ahead in a very close match, or quickly ending what would otherwise be a long and slow steamroll
And not only is it limited to the match you're playing, but the game is somewhat built around it at higher levels.I find that eco rounds have some of the most intense fights I've ever seen, and I don't even LIKE CS

Edited by Beemann, November 16 2012 - 09:21 PM.

[Hipnox]

h0B0, on November 16 2012 - 08:24 PM, said:

Quote

The paradigm in gaming of rewarding the player that's already winning / more experienced by giving him further advantages over his competition is an obsolete and backwards concept.

although i fully agree with this. i could not imagine it otherwise. th point of the system is to reward a player for his hard effort. I think a concept that would reward the least skilled player in order to encourage him is backwards and does not promote self growth.

Not necesarily.

For example, Turismo Carretera races have a handicap system where the team (or driver, can't remember) that wins a certain number of times in a row starts getting dead weights attached to his car.

Another Example would be some versions of Counter Strike GunGame, where higher levels have the least powerful guns. The player that's doing well gets progresively less and less powerfull stuff.

Of course stuff like this would be inaplicable in most games and F2P progression demands some form of reward for time and money spent on the game.

[Beobachter]

Hawken is balanced as it is now. New players just have to learn the curves the hard way.

Just like mother Tiger releases her cub on the open field, I see no disadvantages at battling more experiencing players with their heavily tuned mechs AS LONG AS IT IS EARNED, NOT PAID. One should be able to improve themselves quicker.

Regardless of the game model, rewards for time spent are inevitable. What's there to enjoy when you've experienced everything, after all_

Edited by Beobachter, November 16 2012 - 11:35 PM.

[Subdivision]

Beemann, on November 16 2012 - 03:09 PM, said:

Subdivision, on November 16 2012 - 09:30 AM, said:

Sure, its always more gratifying to crush someone in a game through entirely your own abilities and not have an easier job in something stronger but the game will still need some form of progression system to engage less hardcore players. I think the changes implied by Saunders sound great. Keeping things level, yet more things to tweak and adjust to fit how you want it to be, to me at least, should be what a mech game is all about. (And yes, I know this isn't strictly a mech game/simulator!)

The less casual players will also complain about being beat by someone with 10 levels on them, even if  those levels don`t really mean much
I mean... how many times do you see players complaining about the matchmaker basing their complaints on the levels of their opponents_ This even happened in Tribes: Ascend's Beta, where levels really didn't mean much at all. One could max out their gear in a couple matches, and even those bonuses wouldn't produce better combat results, they were just things like extra ammo or more vehicle damage

Yeah I guess that's true. Haters gonna hate and all those clichés. I still think it may help with a couple of people. Then again the player base should grow substantially with open beta so that probably wont be noticeable. Well I'm just happy something is being done. Hopefully we can seek refuge in the upper echelons of the hawken pool!