27 replies to this topic

[Pelanthoris]

At this point pilot levels and mech ranks are a bit ... meh. They lock new items and internals and that's it. As I have understood, this forum has always been strongly against vertical progression (high level always beats low level) and so am I. There have been a few attempts for horizontal progression, I can talk only from beginning of open beta, but old beards can shed some insight to earlier days of Illal.

 

Pre-ascencion there was the skill-tree with braches for offence, defence and mobility. This was sort of vertical, but the buffs were quite small so they really didn't matter that much. Also, only few builds were good enough to make a difference.

 

During ascencion we got the optimization points, which allowed pilots to buff cenrtain abilities of their mechs. This led to drastically different instances of the same mech. Air-zerkers anyone? It was very difficult to know what you were up against.

 

I would like to see the optimization points restored to some extend. Maybe so that with levels you get tweak points, which aren't actually buffs, but would allow you to change one property to another, i.g. change armor to speed. So more levels/ranks would allow you to divert your mech more from the vanilla version. This would allow guite easy balance tweaks for devs as they could adjust, not just the base values for mechs, but the magnitude how much one tweak point would alter said value.

 

This is a rather raw idea, but post your own opinion, how progression should work! Or fill my gaps how things used to be, or comment my idea.

[Ninja_Goat]

Very difficult subject to do justice. 

 

Usually ends up with the same counter argument,  there's is always an Optimal build that emerges.  

 

This build is simply better than any other, and means that that unless you run it you are at a disadvantage.  High level players will always run it, but less experienced / knowledgeable players may not.

 

The old optimisation trees were like this too, movement was so much better. Same with just trying offence Vs defence,  Offence wins every time because DPS.

 

I do agree that levels don't mean much, and actually lock away items which places restrictions on builds until pre-requisite level is achieved.

 

The game needs a hook to keep people playing for the long term.  

 

For me it was achievements as they carried HC rewards that felt worth getting (EG 2,000 HC for 500 kills with a mech).  

 

By the time I got there, I had ground out more HC than that but it was the journey with a worthwhile goal at the end.  Also thinking about it, by the time I had done that, I was well on the way to affording the next mech, and so the cycle repeated.

Edited by Ninja_Goat, 24 April 2015 - 04:40 AM.

[Flight1ess]

I agree with the goat

[AsianJoyKiller]

Pre-ascencion there was the skill-tree with braches for offence, defence and mobility. This was sort of vertical, but the buffs were quite small so they really didn't matter that much.

lolwut?

 

That's not true at all.

[WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

Tuning points were available previously and they were rather pointless compared to simply developing mechs with purpose from the start. You mention the "Airzerker" -- this was a development pretty soon after the tuning points patch came in and since then, the Berserker has remained a powerful air-focused mech. There was a lot of focus in the community to develop optimal configurations. When we factored in that plenty of mechs already had strengths and weaknesses it worked out such that min-maxing was effectively the best option for p much all of the mechs. The culmination of the contextual factors was that tuning points created merely a facade of options. In the end, any player who was not playing the optimal configuration was gimping their gameplay.

 

In comparison to that situation, I think the present situation is a lot more stable and lets people focus less on numbers and more on the actual game strategy and tactics. The internals and items still provide a decent amount of customization, but throwing in the tuning points as well (as they were before) only created a complicated balancing act that people ended up exploiting (moreso than what we have now). It was not very fun, and the options available for tuning were only a subset of all stats mech stats.

 

It mostly created a lot of situations of frustration.

 

EDIT: Your suggestion for tuning points per level is pretty much exactly what happened in the tuning points patch. It was annoying because the grind had to be repeated over each mech.

 

I dislike this suggestion. I would prefer to work on original ideas.

Edited by WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW, 24 April 2015 - 08:46 AM.

[Pelanthoris]

Ok, so tuning is not it. So what is? Are there people around who would like to see more vertical progression? If not, how should horizontal be implememted? Because now I think there is no progression at all as I stated in my original post. Should the old internals with buffs and nerfs come back? More weapon choices? Weapon additions may quickly become gamebreaking. My suggestion wasn't that strong from the start, but rather a call for ideas. Bring 'em on!

[AsianJoyKiller]

Ok, so tuning is not it. So what is? Are there people around who would like to see more vertical progression? If not, how should horizontal be implememted? Because now I think there is no progression at all as I stated in my original post. Should the old internals with buffs and nerfs come back? More weapon choices? Weapon additions may quickly become gamebreaking. My suggestion wasn't that strong from the start, but rather a call for ideas. Bring 'em on!

There is a decent amount of vertical progression in the game, despite what you feel, though lowered somewhat by the introduction of the newbie Assault loadout.

[Pelanthoris]

There is a decent amount of vertical progression in the game, despite what you feel, though lowered somewhat by the introduction of the newbie Assault loadout.

Maybe so, but low level smurfs are still a pain in the ass for casual players of significantly higher level/rank, which IMHO contradicts your statement somewhat.

Edited by Pelanthoris, 26 April 2015 - 01:55 AM.

[Grollourdo]

I like these suggestions... Tho bizarrely, I see right in each propersition... They all make sense and are all good ... ... Idk ... XD

[AsianJoyKiller]

Maybe so, but low level smurfs are still a pain in the ass for casual players of significantly higher level/rank, which IMHO contradicts your statement somewhat.

Logically that doesn't make sense.

[Dedhed]

I'd like more progression as well. As I suggested in another thread, having internals in offense, defense and movement rows vs one row for all might work. Unlocking an alternative secondary is another possibility. It'd be great if I could add paints to unlocked chassis parts.

 

Speaking of progress, I find that giving some sort of explanation and/or alternative when I disagree with someone tends to help much more than not doing so.

Edited by Dedhed, 26 April 2015 - 12:08 PM.

[Pelanthoris]

From my viewpoint conversation goes like:

Ajk: There is a decent amount of vertical progression in the game
Pel: Maybe so but, "Level 1 smurf (but pro) beats level 10 (really) player, I think you are wrong."
Ajk: Logically that doesn't make any sense.
Pel: "?"

And by vertical progression I mean how things are in most of mmorpg. Level 1 loses to level 10. Despite actual player skill involved.

Sorry for poor output.

Edited by Pelanthoris, 26 April 2015 - 10:19 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

From my viewpoint conversation goes like:

Ajk: There is a decent amount of vertical progression in the game
Pel: Maybe so but, "Level 1 smurf (but pro) beats level 10 (really) player, I think you are wrong."
Ajk: Logically that doesn't make any sense.
Pel: "?"

And by vertical progression I mean how things are in most of mmorpg. Level 1 loses to level 10. Despite actual player skill involved.

Sorry for poor output.

It doesn't logically make sense because the issue of smurfing doesn't contradict anything I said.

 

You're comparing a well-experienced player to a new player. That doesn't deny the truth of what I said. I know plenty of MMOs where I can beat significantly higher level opponents as long as they are incompetent enough. That doesn't mean there isn't vertical progression or that it's insignificant. That just means I'm more skilled. When determining if there's vertical progression you compare players of equal skill, and then you compare the advantages of the better outfitted player vs the lesser outfitted player.

 

Are you going to sit here and tell me that between two players of equal skill, the one with no items or internals is on equal standing with someone who has a full loadout? That there's no advantage to having access to tier 3 items and internals over the default ones?

[KilleR_OrigiNs]

Redacted.

Edited by KilleR_OrigiNs, 30 April 2015 - 09:53 PM.

[Silverfire]

I think the stagnancy of matches comes from a reliance and promotion of defensive gameplay more so than anything else. There might not be "defensively oriented" mechs but all mechs sure as hell can play defensively. Defensive gameplay is rewarded much more than offensive play in a team setting.

And if anything, these 3 types of mods in addition to stock, makes it sound and feel very rocks-papers-scissor-y, something that shouldn't be in Hawken. The difference in how a player wins shouldn't be based on the gear/mods they bring but how well they can utilize the mech to the best of his or her ability. I shouldn't be forced into playing a certain type of mod in order to win against x opponent because he was using y mod.

Edited by Silverfire, 26 April 2015 - 06:14 PM.

[Pelanthoris]

It doesn't logically make sense because the issue of smurfing doesn't contradict anything I said.

You're comparing a well-experienced player to a new player. That doesn't deny the truth of what I said. I know plenty of MMOs where I can beat significantly higher level opponents as long as they are incompetent enough. That doesn't mean there isn't vertical progression or that it's insignificant. That just means I'm more skilled. When determining if there's vertical progression you compare players of equal skill, and then you compare the advantages of the better outfitted player vs the lesser outfitted player.

So, as usual there was misunderstanding. In my opinion game with vertical progression discloses players with different levels to totally different domains of gameplay. In terms of DPS or armor for example. I haven't done the math and you are free to correct me, but two instances of same mech type with same weapons can't usually vary very much (<10%?), or at all in their stats.
If I'm correct, in your opinion equally skilled players with inequal levels (and therefore loadouts) are inequal. That is totally true, but they can still compete in same server.

As for horizontal progression, I think a game with it offers alternative ways of playing, i.g. different weapons, but in such manner that none of them is inquestionably better than the ones availeable before them.

Are you going to sit here and tell me that between two players of equal skill, the one with no items or internals is on equal standing with someone who has a full loadout? That there's no advantage to having access to tier 3 items and internals over the default ones?

God, I would never say such thing, BUT it's a real possibility for the barebones to kill the full loadout.

[AsianJoyKiller]

In my opinion game with vertical progression discloses players with different levels to totally different domains of gameplay.

Then your opinion is wrong. Vertical progression is simply advantages given based on progression. How significant those advantages are is irrelevant. The issue of having vertical progresion is binary. A game either has it, or it doesn't.

 

 

God, I would never say such thing, BUT it's a real possibility for the barebones to kill the full loadout.

Possible, but not likely. Fact is, the outfitted mech will win a majority of the time. Remember, you have to assume equally skilled players.

[Pelanthoris]

There is a *decent amount* of vertical progression in the game, despite what you feel, though *lowered* somewhat by the introduction of the newbie Assault loadout.

Totally binary.

Also, from first article on google about "vertical progression", http://www.engadget....al-progression/
sry, on phone again.

"Vertical progression places an emphasis in strengthening the equipment at your disposal rather than applying the equipment differently or using alternative gear or abilities to succeed at various scenarios."

So, I don't say you're wrong, but I disagree with you. Could you define horizontal progression for me?

Edited by Pelanthoris, 27 April 2015 - 09:48 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

 

There is a *decent amount* of vertical progression in the game, despite what you feel, though *lowered* somewhat by the introduction of the newbie Assault loadout.

Totally binary.

 

I don't know why I have to explain this again...

 

How significant those advantages are is irrelevant.

 

Which does, in fact, mean that it is totally binary.

Either it is or it isn't, and the degree to which it is/isn't does not matter.

How severe the vertical progression is? That is a different issue.

 

Again, either you have vertical progression, or you do not have vertical progression.

How significant the vertical progression is, is a separate topic.

 

Hawken has vertical progression. End of story.

Just because it's not as powerful as it is in other games, does not mean it does not have vertical progression.

 

When discussing whether or not vertical progression exists in a game, it does not matter how much of an advantage progression gives, only that it gives an overall advantage.

 

Is that clear enough?

It is the same thing, said several different ways.

 

 

Also, from first article on google about "vertical progression", http://www.engadget....al-progression/
sry, on phone again.

"Vertical progression places an emphasis in strengthening the equipment at your disposal rather than applying the equipment differently or using alternative gear or abilities to succeed at various scenarios."

 

So what? All that proves is that the author has a fundamental misunderstanding of what vertical progression is.

Vertical progression is advantages increased the more you progressed. It doesn't matter if it's via equipment, or the raising of a characters base stats every time they level. If gaining access to any advantages is gated by the need to progress, then it is vertical progression.

 

 

So, I don't say you're wrong, but I disagree with you. Could you define horizontal progression for me?

 

Horizontal progression provide variety, but not a power advantage.

 

For the sake of the example, mechs can only carry 1 item.

Vertical progression is 3 health orbs always being better than having one. In general 3 of any item is better than having a single item.

 

Horizontal progression is 3 EMPs providing their own strengths and weaknesses compared to 3 health orbs.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, 27 April 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Pelanthoris]

Ah, I think I got it now what rubbed you the wrong way.

Because now I think there is no progression at all

I never meant to say there is absolutely no (vertical) progression, of course there is. I just felt it's rather insignificant. It was a major overstatement, my bad.

But honestly, I really would like if this thread would get back on suggestions for horizontal progression. The kind that rewards people with choices without making them intrinsically stronger in numeric terms.

[KilleR_OrigiNs]

Redacted.

Edited by KilleR_OrigiNs, 30 April 2015 - 09:53 PM.

[WWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW]

At present, predetermined weapons are unlocked at predetermined levels. Instead, players should be permitted to unlock the weapon of their choice from a predetermined set at predetermined levels.

The current prices for nexus is entirely different for entirely arbitrary reasons. Mech prices need to be normalized to something reasonable under 10k HC.

The prices for internals and items need to be reasonable. They should be unlocked based on player choice as the player progresses through levels, not by unlocking predetermined sets of internals.

More mechs, items, and internals would increase the scale of existing mechanisms of horizontal progression.

Some sort of stat exchange system similar to the closed beta (or open beta?) had for internals would be a interesting. However, this is always problematic since almost always across nearly all games, there is a strong tendency for mobility to be the most useful tool. Very little else can beat a mechanic that simultaneously improves offensive capabilities and defensive ones I find. I still don't see this happening given all the times this has failed for HAWKEN.

[Panzermanathod]

Every time 32W posts the forum goes through Horizontal Progression.

 

As much as I like alterable stats, I also wonder how viable it would be here. And a stat system here so be more customization over optimization in method.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Every time 32W posts the forum goes through Horizontal Progression.

 

As much as I like alterable stats, I also wonder how viable it would be here. And a stat system here so be more customization over optimization in method.

On the one hand, I would love alterable stats.

 

On the other hand, I know how insanely hard it is to balance such a system, and I can't remember the last time I played a game where it didn't end up with clear best builds.

[Panzermanathod]

The closest I've seen to a game without clear best builds would probably be, I dunno, Front Mission 3 (speaking strictly about mech builds, not any abilities).

 

I'd say Armored Core but for the most part the best builds were usually light/normal bipeds that I've seen. And FM basically had a much more basic version of what AC offered. You had various parts (although groups of them were, barring abilities, very similar, almost to the point of interchangability), as well as weight and power limits. You had the high powered, high HP melee types, the fragile, high accuracy snipers, and a fairly decent grey area between them, not to mention mix and matching. Also, there were different defenses for different types of weapons.

 

But as an RPG not all the customization of FM would translate well into Hawken. But still, if there were to be such customization options, I think Hawken needs more content overall first.

[AsianJoyKiller]

But as an RPG not all the customization of FM would translate well into Hawken. But still, if there were to be such customization options, I think Hawken needs more content overall first.

You really don't want to be adding a system like this in after-the-fact. It has all sorts of unforseen interactions with the balance that was previously in place.

I mean, we've already seen this sort of thing happen with every major build change that Hawken went through under ADH.

 

So the longer you wait to put a system like that in place, the more problems you're going to end up with.

Edited by AsianJoyKiller, 28 April 2015 - 10:13 AM.

[Panzermanathod]

True. Although I'd hate to kinda agree that, when it comes to stats, it's probably better to not have customizable stats. At this point one might as well build another game.

[KilleR_OrigiNs]

Redacted.

Edited by KilleR_OrigiNs, 30 April 2015 - 09:53 PM.