Jump to content

Photo

Back when we could create our own mechs.

- - - - -

  • Please log in to reply
30 replies to this topic

#1
Luaq

Luaq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

My friend found this video and reminded me how we could actully change the chassis and or weapons configuration.
Take whatever weapon we want. For me that has always been something I didn't like about how hawken became. Forced to choose from "pre" builds... When sometimes hawken shows some potencial to in depth customization, in the end it always feels as half costumization. Total freedom of customization for players can be done and cleverly balanced by the devs. It just need to be a focus point. I'm really stressed about what's that 2016 update going to be... I shouldn't expect to much.

Though I do cheris Hawken for what it was aiming for in the beginning. I Hope 2016 will bring some fresh "user experience" liberty and customs...


Edited by Luaq, 26 January 2016 - 01:13 PM.

  • DeeRax and minefake like this

#2
Sylhiri

Sylhiri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

They couldn't even balance pre builds let alone full customization. I don't think we will ever have that amount of customization due to the backend needing to be rebuilt and the sheer amount of testing that would be required to even attempt to balance something like this would slow production to a crawl. It's fun to dream but not realistic for Hawken.


  • IronClamp likes this

#3
americanbrit14

americanbrit14

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 440 posts

We can only hope, and if Capn' Josh and his team don't get it right by the end of 2016 we can all feel free to pack our fuzzy bunny and bail


  • claisolais likes this

VfuS0qE.png?1

contracted by 

 

??

INDUSTRY


#4
Luaq

Luaq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

between us three, I'd wish something in between and think it's possible. More ways* to use customization that we have now but I don't expect hawken to get to that* point.


Edited by Luaq, 25 January 2016 - 01:50 PM.


#5
Sylhiri

Sylhiri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

between us three, I say something in between. More customization that we have but I don't expect hawken to get to that* point.

 

Like Ascension customization?


  • Dew likes this

#6
Coboxite

Coboxite

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 69 posts

There was a time when any load out could be made. It sucked from what I heard. With out restrictions,  you could create an absolute best mech, rendering the whole customization aspect completely pointless.


  • Odinous, EM1O and -Tj- like this

#7
nepacaka

nepacaka

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 2058 posts

it probably required balance all weapons to 1vs1 system. (current balance more like a "rock-paper-scissors") so, if devs can do this, i deal with it.

but if not, we just see bunch of different mechs with vulcans, mini-flaks, sabot and TOWs. probably, nobody never plays with HF, even rocketeer will play with TOW...wait, if you free with customization, why you need useles rocketeer if you have C-class gren with "damage" ability? wait, why you need gren, if you can equip it with flak+tow and gain faster brawler with +% to damage!!! :D
also, incinerator and his weapons be a problem (like always, if you are trying to change core gameplay :D)

just joke. but seriously it really required change "everything", and change all abilities, all weapons stats, economics and game interface, and probably core gameplay.

 


Kompotka 3000. 2D ha?ken game: https://community.pl...ve/?hl=kompotka

Interceptor, B-Class mech concept: https://community.pl...itdefence-mech/

Challenger, C-Class mech concept: https://community.pl...ccepted-thread/

G2-Brawler, C-class mech concept: https://community.pl...pacaka-is-here/

Kinetik, B-class mech concept: https://community.pl...ass-shotgunner/

Melter, A-class mech concept: https://community.pl...-class-support/


#8
ShadowWarg

ShadowWarg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

In the beginning, I had the same thought. "I want my custom mechs back". Now, I think things are better this way, and actually kind of conform to reality. When machines are built, there is very few customization options, just variations on the same machine.

 

I think it would actually be better to dive deeper into prebuilds, and diversify the current line-up and older mechs more. For example giving each mech a unique secondary weapon, or at the very least change the values of repeat secondaries so they fit the mech its attached to.

 

Racketeer Missile launcher gets multi-lock function (lower damage)

vs

Bruiser Missile launcher fires 2 homing missiles at one target (higher damage)

 

Infiltrator Grenade launcher grenade has a longer life span after coming to a rest (lower damage)

vs

Grenadier Grenade launcher grenade has larger blast radius, slow flight time (higher damage)

vs

Vanguard Grenade launcher grenade stays as is

 

Berserker Tow launcher has fast fire rate (lower damage)

vs

ETC

vs

ETC

 

and so on.


  • Odinous and DeeRax like this

#9
n3onfx

n3onfx

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 511 posts
It's better the current way imo.

Although I won't lie I'd kill for Raider weapons on a Scout chassis.

t

t

DWEH3ZP.png   CRITICAL  RqKpxHn.png    ASSIST   VDNrFxD.png

t

t


#10
HugeGuts

HugeGuts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
snip

 

According to the "Un-implemented assets" topic on the Suggestions Board, there were/are alternate secondary weapons in the works.

 

Using these alternates, how about giving all classes multiple secondary choices from one weapon family? And changing primary weapons to only use choices from one weapon family. Example:

 

~ Brawler ~

- Primaries -

Flak Cannon

T-32 Bolt

Breacher

 

- Secondaries -

TOW V1 - Standard TOW

TOW V2 - Faster moving rocket with lower damage and proximity detonation instead of remote detonation.

TOW V3 - Three low damage rockets in quick succession.

 

Though I assume the secondary stats would stay the same between each mech, you're at least - on paper - guaranteed to not have every Brawler run the same secondary. Giving all classes only one primary type also further diversifies classes.

 

You can even go further and restrict weapon types to certain weight types for balance and flavor.


  • Luaq and DeeRax like this

#11
-Tj-

-Tj-

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 285 posts

While I agree that the freedom to completely customize a build would likely cause a massive amount of bad balance, and result in a handful of optimal builds, I wouldn't mind seeing a little more freedom in terms of loadout customization. For example, instead of letting me only choose between the three primaries on my Infil to pair with my grenade launcher, how about give me a few unlockable choices for my grenade launcher as well? I'm not talking about swapping a GL for a TOW launcher or anything funky like that; I'm thinking more variety in the same vein, like a sticky grenade launcher that doesn't bounce, but still detonates after a short time after wall contact (or player contact... that would be FUN! Sticky an enemy, watch him take it to his mates, or sticky a friendly and let them do the dirty work), or maybe even a Flak grenade or something that has a much smaller splash radius but randomly-spread shards that do more damage up close, but can be evaded is luck on your side... it'd be like the "skillz" grenade.

 

Or, how about a TOW launcher that you can actually steer, trading power and splash radius for control? Or a TOW that doesn't have mid-air det, but does more damage and splash? More skillz!! Oh man, just thinking about it I'm getting a raging Hawken bon... err... bonfire... here. Lighting that bonfire... yes.

 

Anyway, not a bad idea to have more customization. Yes, new weapon varieties would need balancing, but I think players would love it. I know I would.

 

Hell, even mech-specific variants of existing weapons would be grand. Brawler TOW variants: direct-hit TOWs drop extremely low HP orbs (like 8HP), or TOWs that air-det into Reflak-like shards to do some damage around corners. Pred EOC-P variants: lower damage mines that ping friendly radar when an enemy mech or enemy weapon triggers it but doesn't actually reveal the location of the enemy, just where the mine was that got detonated, or lower power mines that cause sub-second distortions to the enemy HUD (like in the order of 200-250ms... enough to annoy, but not enough to really be more than an annoyance). SS Sabot variants: reflectable rounds, or lower-power penetrator rounds that do less damage than normal sabot on direct hit, but can do damage through to other mechs (maybe 1 more, and less damage than the Breacher). These are just examples, btw. Some of these would probably not be terribly fun to fight against, but I would love me some variety.

 

:)

 

Edit: OMG ninja'd by EVERYONE. Ah well. still got my bonfire going.


Edited by -Tj-, 25 January 2016 - 05:50 PM.

  • Luaq, DeeRax and ShadowWarg like this

#12
dorobo

dorobo

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 990 posts

With total customazation freedom you could just change match start procedure.. let there be some kind of limiting factors of what mechs can be picked or every player picks mechs one by one that way motivation to win will balance things out. Maybe inntroduce stats on match start screen like total HP of the team or total DPS.. and just let players decide how to even things out. 



#13
Hecatoncheires

Hecatoncheires

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 171 posts

As appealing as this concept is, I think it really only works in a game like Robocraft where everything's relative to a standard building unit (which for Robocraft is the cube). Either you go with complete customize-ability or class-restriction because balance isn't efficient otherwise. If you want more freedom to customize in this game, it would be healthier to work with its other effective layers of choice other than the weapons, such as more diverse/capable internals (which has already been a popular suggestion in the past) or non-redundant items.


  • Luaq likes this

What the Heca-


#14
SparkyJJC

SparkyJJC

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 379 posts
I believe at some point, the TOW would follow the user's crosshair so that you could fly it where you wanted, similar to how the SRAW works in Battlefield 4. For something like this, you could go with HugeGuts' suggestion to offer alternative secondary weapons with different functionality, or give the user choices on what types of rockets they load into the TOW in the garage. Of course, the variations would need some tradeoffs to make it balanced.
  • Luaq likes this

AXgnWyr.png


#15
ticklemyiguana

ticklemyiguana

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1257 posts

Are we all really going to just ignore that English language peanut butter and jellyfish sandwich that is the title of this thread?

All of my opinions have been voiced, and I had been hoping that in their voicing, someone might have taken the time to politely point that out, but now you've left it to me, and I've nothing significant to contribute to this thread that hasn't already been stated!

Goodness, you people.

 

Luaq, dear, "are" is a conjugation of the verb "to be". The word you're looking for is a possessive of similar sound - namely "our". (Not to revel in linguistic pedantry here, but if you're going to be taking this all into consideration, I may as well point out that in this case, the plural of the word "mech" would be more appropriate based on context.)


Edited by ticklemyiguana, 26 January 2016 - 01:09 AM.

  • dorobo, DerMax and Guns_N_Rozer like this

Spoiler

LGdSqzD.png


#16
Dew

Dew

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 147 posts

Like Ascension customization?

 

Ascension customization was good and I personally had a ton of fun building wacky off-color fuzzy bunny (like armor zerker without AC or air dynamics vanguard). Most people just couldn't be bothered to experiment.


Edited by Dew, 26 January 2016 - 12:57 AM.

  • DerMax and Guns_N_Rozer like this

#17
HugeGuts

HugeGuts

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 101 posts
You can even go further and restrict weapon types to certain weight types for balance and flavor.

 

I do not have large concerns about balance as long as this happens alongside with what other people are suggesting.

 

A's having access to "heavy" weapons - Flak Cannon, Heat Cannon, Vulcan - has been the bane of balance since 12/12/12. It's a little better now with lower A survivability and the Heat Cannon nerf into oblivion, but aaalllll the complaints we still see from newbies about A pub stomping clearly shows the problem isn't close to even "barely acceptable."

 

Future A weapons need an exclusive focus on sustainability. No more burst or close range face grinders (Vulcan)**. To compensate for the lower damage, A weapons will also have a focus on additional functionality beyond damage i.e. debuffs or special damage types. For example, A's will have exclusive access to the "Redox" weapon family (debuff), and that Lightning Gun speculated to be of the "Chain" variety (special damage type.) A's will give battlefield options to a team in contrast to a C's raw strength.

 

**So far, I'm okay with A's having the Mini Flak. Though it has the same DPS as the Vulcan, its significantly lower RoF makes it more challenging to maximize its damage potential.


Edited by HugeGuts, 26 January 2016 - 02:03 AM.


#18
Bergwein

Bergwein

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 491 posts

Infiltrator Grenade launcher  (lower damage)

 

Are you ... fuzzy bunnyng serious?



#19
Pleasure_Mortar

Pleasure_Mortar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts

I really enjoy the limitations we have now.

I don't even need altenrate secondaries.



#20
ShadowWarg

ShadowWarg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Are you ... fuzzy bunnyng serious?

I like how you ignored the rest of what was said and completely took it out of context. At first no, I was making a possible suggestion, but now yes, I am very serious.

 

 

With total customazation freedom you could just change match start procedure.. let there be some kind of limiting factors of what mechs can be picked or every player picks mechs one by one that way motivation to win will balance things out. Maybe inntroduce stats on match start screen like total HP of the team or total DPS.. and just let players decide how to even things out. 

Other games with customization systems like this have other resources and restrictions that Hawken doesn't, and that wont change the practice of people making optimum cookie cutter builds. Games like Mechwarrior, have heat, energy, weight, just to name a few that limit someone from putting on the most OP combination (and as I don't play MWO, I don't know if it works) Elite Dangerous does the same thing, where you have manage heat, mass, energy, speed, etc. Reloaded would have to completely rewrite the structure of Hawken's mech, everything from how mechs are put together to adding in management restrictions, and that could take more time resources and money than they have or even want to spend. (That's not including the pain of revers-engineering someone else's code)



#21
Pleasure_Mortar

Pleasure_Mortar

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 361 posts

Can't speak for MWO but Mechwarrior 4 had some OP builds, even though the weapon slots had certain limitations. In general if you could get 4 extended range large lasers and 2 gauss rifles or substitutes in and fill the rest up with heat sinks and ammo and you were golden.

In the end MW4 Mercenaries had over 200 weapons and almost as many mechs, but in competitive play it always boiled down to the heaviest 100 to mechs with a  mix of extended ranger large lasers, extended range particle projector canons, gauss rifles or if the slots allowed it even heavy gauss.



#22
IronClamp

IronClamp

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 11 posts

First things for an Ascension style Hawken:

  1. Weapons would need to be balanced on a rock-paper-scissors (yes, Nepaka) scale, rather than being one v one. Reason being? So that new players aren't getting smushed by experienced players all the damn time (I assume most of you know about the "noob tube" in CoD, an prime example of allowing new players to feel stronger).
  2. Smaller pool of weapons, which will make balancing the weapons easier. The original halo multiplayer was designed with only 3 weapons in mind, the pistol, shotgun and sniper rifle (the origin of the rock-paper-scissors balancing), and we know how well that turned out.
  3. Mech classes would need to be abolished, but mech types (A, B, and C) would remain.These types would need to have specific stats that defined each (rather easy), with the choice of chassis and other parts (legs and thrusters) augmenting those stats within a small margin.
  4. Mech powers would need to be removed entirely.
  5. We could keep internal upgrades and such, but limit their scope (such as no air dodge and no reducing/cancelling fall damage), so that certain players don't gain obtuse advantages in combat.

To put it simply, Hawken wouldn't be the Hawken people know, and like for that matter, if we were to revert to a 'sandbox' customization. The game would suddenly become skill-independent (except in matches populated only by veteran players), as opposed to skill-dependent. This change would also warrant a removal of the MMR system since skill becomes irrelevant in that scenario. Also, you could get rid of primary and secondary weapons (enable duel wielding), because in practicality there would be some weapons that it didn't make sense to duel wield, such as TOWs or Sabres, sheerly due to balancing (however, skilled players might be able to make some duel wield combinations work).

 

If you wanted a more skill-dependent Hawken with a deeper customization system, then you could go with buying a mech system (ie a Pred system or a Brawler system), that has a defined weight class and ability, then limit the pool of weapons you could choose from and allow certain chassis to give marginal stat boosts, but not change the overall intent of the mech. For example, if someone made a pred that shared the weapons and chassis of a raider, the pred would still be a stealth mech, but instead of sabotage, it would opt for an assassination/ambush role.

 

The idea here though is that your not asking for just a rework of a single system in Hawken, but rather an entirely different game.


Edited by IronClamp, 26 January 2016 - 12:11 PM.


#23
Luaq

Luaq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts
Spoiler
The only problem I see is that it was originally advertised as a game with so much liberty as to customization. And that changed pretty quickly. And a lot of people quit because of that, putting a side many other reasons.

When there's this 2016 update, They should make a patch trailer saying where hawken is heading to and general view of whats happening and what path the devs are taking..
 

 

Spoiler


Nice indeed


Spoiler

YUP I REMEMBER THAT TOO! Was SO nice!

 

Spoiler


Ugh that tone...  I did a grammatical mistake partly because my first language is not English and partly because of lack of concentration due to ADD and the phonetic resemblance between are and our which aren't the same but sound sound similar... with all that considered* gimme a break. But thanks i'll change it. Usually I don't make that mistake, such as your and you're... SO sorry my mistake was such a nuisance.


Edited by Luaq, 26 January 2016 - 01:29 PM.


#24
Luaq

Luaq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

sorry double post.


Edited by Luaq, 26 January 2016 - 01:15 PM.


#25
Sylhiri

Sylhiri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

If you have access to the old forums you could see a **** ton of internal suggestions that would effect movement and even weapon functionality, there was a few large lists dedicated to them.



#26
ticklemyiguana

ticklemyiguana

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 1257 posts

Ugh seriously, I did a grammatical mistake partly because my first language is not English and partly because of lack of concentration due to ADD and the phonetic resemblance between are and our which aren't the same but and don't sound as much as the same but with all that considered* gimme a break. But thanks i'll change it. Usually I don't make that mistake, such as your and you're... SO sorry my mistake was such a nuisance.


Nuisance? Nonsense. I know your first language is French. The nuisance was that no one else had submitted the correction in a post that was actually relevant to the discussion.

Spoiler

LGdSqzD.png


#27
ShadowWarg

ShadowWarg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

If you have access to the old forums you could see a **** ton of internal suggestions that would effect movement and even weapon functionality, there was a few large lists dedicated to them.

You mean this: http://hawken.mirror...y-depth-thread/

 

and this: http://hawken.mirror...gameplay-depth/


Edited by ShadowWarg, 26 January 2016 - 01:40 PM.


#28
Sylhiri

Sylhiri

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 403 posts

 

Pretty much. They would have to be modified for the current build of Hawken, at a quick glance I saw "doubles fuel used in dodging".



#29
EM1O

EM1O

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 764 posts

and it would just get back to the tedious result of if you didnt have this much armor, this much fuel, this much cooldown capacity, exactly this weapon firing speed, you got assraped. so everyone learned to build that one OP loadout, and if you didnt, you paid dearly for it. immediate stagnation in the vet corp, and whining in the noob ranks because these were all progression linked. hence the locked-in rigs we have now.


#:  chown -R us ./base

nRJ1C9n.png

"...oh great Itzamna, you shall know Us by the trail of Dead."


#30
Luaq

Luaq

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 311 posts

Nuisance? Nonsense. I know your first language is French. The nuisance was that no one else had submitted the correction in a post that was actually relevant to the discussion.

 

Didn't get your tone right. My bad



#31
ShadowWarg

ShadowWarg

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 27 posts

Pretty much. They would have to be modified for the current build of Hawken, at a quick glance I saw "doubles fuel used in dodging".

So much nostalgia, makes me wonder, should I import it over to the new forums?

 

I liked that dodging required fuel back than, but I can see how the no fuel requirement improved the pacing a bit.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users