50 replies to this topic

[nepacaka]

HAWKEN should be 5 vs 5. like other classic shooter games. and another MMO as a whole.

 

Why? it is obvious to me. Game 6 by 6 is unplayable on many maps. And almost unplayable in all modes.
The biggest problem - Chaos. Extremely-Stupid-Chaos.
 

The game has long been no tactics, it comes down to:

1) The Siege - take more C-classes. Take the tech+inci for an infinite shooting and DPM. or use Zerg-rush. This is the rule.

2) TDM - Organize a death-ball an win. If you do not, you lose. This is the rule.

3) MA - ... 6 vs 6 working more or less normal. but you still can create a death-ball from A-class mech and rolling beetwen S1 and S3.

4) Deathmatch - Unplayavle mode, if 10 pesron play. you just die if focus after 1 sec. You should always walking on borderline of the map, or you will be shot from 2 sides.

Unable to play in DM mechs with HF and chargable weapons like Heat-cannon. you will never win against 10 players with sustained weapons, just because you slow. C-class is also very suffer, in this mode, they are not physically able to fight alone against a large number of enemies, which are easy to surround them, due to the speed.

 

current 7 vs 7 modes  - entirely composed from extremely stupid gameplay.

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Some more nice reason to rework all servers in "5 vs 5" mode.

 

1) Easier to collect players commands. Remember how often do you play in the siege 5vs6 half of the match. less unbalanced. nice result.

 

2) More tactical gameplay. Less superior of sustained weapons. i.e., 5 assault-rifles have less summary DPS than 6 assault-rifles. Just for example. Weapons like flak, heat, eoc, lose a lot of DPS with an increase in the number of players, when compared to the sustained weapons. for example, look at 6 Assaults and 6 Heat-infils DPS. or 6 Seeketers and 6 EOC-rockteers.

 

3) Creation of a larger number of games (or matches).

look, if 60 players play now, it is equal 5 (five) full "6vs6" matches. or 6 (six) full matches of "5vs5". After every fifth game we get another game is completely filled by players.

300 players - 25 game in 6vs6, or 300 players - 30 game in 5vs5. see?

 

4) Less Zerg-rush on AA. Now it is look like "a pile of meat", where each other die in agony. they are walking tergets which dying in focus-fire, and nothing more. I play in siege in 4vs4 and 5vs5 sometimes (before someone ruined balance and turn it into 5vs6 game) and it was beautiful matches. Many mechs is more playable in 5vs5 mode. like HEAT/EOC-rocketeer, bruiser, HEAT-gren, R2G2.

 

5) Less hell-fire on open maps... What? It is true!

 

 

----------------------------------------------

 

Map issues, and why big maps are stupid?

 

Also, now you can starting say very stupid thing like: "it's not a "6vs6" problem, we just need Biggest map!". No. Shut up and listen. problem are Not In Maps!

 

For example - Frontline and LostEco. It is a very nice and big map. But!

- both map have problem in Siege mode. in siege mode this maps Equal to Origin by size. 90% of maps never used.

- both map have problem in DM/TDM. unplayable for C-class. bored. stupid. actually, mostly bored.

- both map extremely bored in MA. 90% of gameplay is running.

So, Biggest maps - Biggest problems. Origin don't have this problems in any mode.

actually, Frontline and LostEco are worsest maps in game.

 

- also, frontline in TDM in 90% cases turning into "one place" figth. where 2 teams starting fight in a middle of map like "lefts" and "rights" from different sides. So, Fronline size has absolutely no importance, because basically there is no one leads the fighting. These areas are simply is always empty.

 

Origin, for example has the same area like Frontline, but placed on three floors. And all mech classes don't have a problem with this map. in any game mode.

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 12:52 AM.

[Elite_is_salty]

I'd take having a working VO-IP over limiting teams to 5 people.

[nepacaka]

I'd take having a working VO-IP over limiting teams to 5 people.

 

it is more about balance issues, and about game standarts. with voip, or without voip.

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 01:05 AM.

[Onebullit]

Why not balance the game by mech restrictions?

- 2 A's ,2 B's, 2 C's and....

- Never the same mech within the classes. (may not be necessary)

[nepacaka]

Why not balance the game by mech restrictions?

 

 problem in a quantity, not in quality.

 

- Never the same mech within the classes.

 

1) too small players for it

2) everyone want play on tech+inci. you always be in fight 2 vs 2 :D

 

 

- 2 A's ,2 B's, 2 C's and....

 

it doesn't matter. problem in chaos on battlefield.

 

try playing 5vs5, and you see how game turn into more interesting. i make matches like this sometimes, and it is just better.

 

also, 3 vs 3, may be an interesting game mode. but tech ruined it. 2+tech are very strong against 3 mechs w/o tech. without tech 3 vs 3 can be a nice mode with mind-games and other interesting stuff.

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 01:50 AM.

[nepacaka]

At least, "Reloaded" can make some "5 vs 5" servers for test. people play in it and tell their opinion.

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 01:53 AM.

[dorobo]

Id even take 3v3 servers.. Thats where the strategy and skill can shine and you feel more relaxed in those more space to breathe.

[nepacaka]

strategy and skill can shine

 

more space to breathe

 

thats what i'm talking about!

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 05:59 AM.

[Kopra]

3v3 siege for competitive format

 

I've also found smaller games to generally be more enjoyable.

[eth0]

Why not balance the game by mech restrictions?

- 2 A's ,2 B's, 2 C's and....

- Never the same mech within the classes. (may not be necessary)

I'm guessing at least half of the games that I play and feel are unbalanced or un-fun are a result of class stacking in size or by mech.

A ranked/hardcore queue could implement this if it's too much to force everyone into. Of course exceptions are made for players who have no other mech.

[KaylaClaire]

Hawken is a fast paced game, it is supposed to be chaotic and keep you on your toes.
Frankly I would like (and I rather did enjoy) the 12 vs 12 servers. They kept me busy busy busy, always on my toes.
Though I'd rather like to see more interesting game modes but... to each their own I suppose
 

[nepacaka]

the 12 vs 12 servers.

 

12 Assaults can kill brawler in 0.3 sec. in 0.5 sec even with tech. if everyone make only 3 shots from AR. (1 bullet = ~20 dmg)

lol

it's very paced gameplay. so much skill and tactics required. just shoot at near target.

 

this mode (12v12) completely ignore all hawken best features. instead nice shooter with mindgames u just gain assault based gameplay, where mechs with noautomatic weapons is completely weak, and team who have more sustain weapons always win.

but actually most of weapons nice balanced in 1vs1 (with some exceptions, maybe), but than more players in team, then more unbalanced between sustained and burst.

 

it's probably not bad in TDM, where you can maneuvered throughout the map (unless you forget about death-ball, which constantly pursues you, but nonetheless), but it does not work during the Siege. When after a shot you have nowhere to hide, cuz u should stand on AA, and you will just killed during reloading. for example, if you play 3 vs 3, you have alot of place to maneuver and hiding even on small AA.

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 07:55 AM.

[StubbornPuppet]

I like the 6v6 and I like the 7v7... and I like the 12v12 matches.  Each of these variations changes the dynamic of the game mode being played and I appreciate that.  I like being forced to change my tactics to come into line with the best practices for the number of players.

If there are fewer than 10 players in a match, it feels empty and boring to me.

 

Those are my opinions.

 

Everyone likes different styles of gameplay.  Stating otherwise to be "problems" with the game is a narrow view.

[nepacaka]

Everyone likes different styles of gameplay.  Stating otherwise to be "problems" with the game is a narrow view.

 

you probably never play in siege. where you always play 5vs6 half-time of match. and when score is 3000 / 400, you get a new player and starting play 6vs6 in last 5 minutes.

don't tell me that it never happen, cuz it happen always :D

i suggest a nice way to change it. and added more depth in gameplay.

 

on current moment, it is problem. not only for me. play 5 vs 6 - it is not a normal. if you know a more "wide" way to solve the problem...

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 08:17 AM.

[StubbornPuppet]

you probably never play in siege. 

Wrong.  I almost exclusively play in Siege.  I don't like DM, yawn.  I don't really like TDM - no objective.  I like MA, but there's been almost no matches for weeks now.

 

Yes, there is a problem with the matches never making it to 6v6 until close to the end - but I see that as the opposite of the problem you do.  We simply have a low player base right now and people's impatience leads them to start Siege matches with 2v2.  The solution, as I see it, is that we need fewer open servers when the online player count is low so that more players end up in full matches.  We also could use for the matches to not start until we have at least 3v3 or 4v4 - to help with balancing - which keeps players happy and encourages them to stay at the end of the match in hopes that the next match will be as epic.

[Panzermanathod]

Nepacaka, you should be mindful of how you use hyperbolic statements.

 

Just saying.

[KaylaClaire]

The thing is, when you cut it down to say... 3 v 3, that kinda limits (especially how sizable some of the maps are) it to a stealthy type game. Unless you boost all the time, giving away your position. it is supposed to be a "mixed" teamwork oriented game, like... if your team is engaged in a standstill fire fight, 1 or 2 (A-class) should break off to either flank or lure some or all of the opposition. albeit this game would function far better with in-game voice.
 

[Nept]

Prefer 6v6 myself.  I don't find most maps cramped, personally.  Certainly don't find them unplayable. 6v6 also affords teams more strategic options - especially during league play.

[comic_sans]

YOU'RE ALL WRONG

 

WE NEED 3v3v3 AND MY PERSONAL BRAIN(less)CHILD, 6v6v1.  That's right, one guy who just lives to mess it up for others.  That's me.  I want on that "team".  Crion remnants or somesuch, I don't care.

Edited by cosmic_spand, 01 July 2015 - 09:50 AM.

[JeffMagnum]

I'd like a handful of 3v3-5v5 servers, but I definitely think the default should remain 6v6 since it's pretty good at balancing the impacts that individual skill and overall team coordination can have on a match's outcome. It also gets harder for a high-MMR player to absolutely ruin a game as the number of total players goes up due to heat management and complete team wipes before anyone on the other side can get there to help both becoming more difficult. 

 

H4) Deathmatch

Unable to play in DM mechs with HF and chargable weapons like Heat-cannon. you will never win against 10 players with sustained weapons, just because you slow. C-class is also very suffer, in this mode, they are not physically able to fight alone against a large number of enemies, which are easy to surround them, due to the speed.

 

While I think there are valid criticisms of how some game modes encourage class and mech stacking, I really think your impressions of the DM meta here are off. HF mechs are bad overall so I'm ignoring that part, but pretty much every other class barring Tech and G2A can do very well in high-skill DMs. I regularly run Scout, Zerker, Infil, Reaper, Assault, SS, Pred, Raider, Brawler, Gren, and G2R in DM without any issues against 2400+ MMR players, so tbh I think your idea that nothing but non-C sustained mechs are viable is likely due to a personal lack of experience more so than the other mechs being flawed. From my own experience, DM is a lot more flexible than other game modes when it comes to mech choice. 

[nepacaka]

how you use hyperbolic statements.

This happen in random every time. I don't understand where I tell something wrong.

I play more time, and I find when I play with less players, hawken is totally different. It's like play in duel. It is a very interest mode, where you can fight free.
And, in current reality, where player start matches 2vs2 (cuz nobody don't love wait), or with few player base. Or other problems. In any case, 5vs5 can help with some of this problem. Especially now, when Reloaded experiment with this.

It can be a nice experience for player. Make a some servers, and look how people play on it. What if it will be better? What if it will be better in siege, cuz easily collect all players?
Yeah, I know the next question: "what if is not?" :D

[DM30]

Honestly, I don't see switching from 6v6 to 5v5 changing much. Most of the things listed in the OP as 'problems' with 6v6 games happen with less players too.

 

Deathballing in TDM? The other day I played a string of TDM games in a row where neither team ever got above 5 players. Most of the time it was 4v3. Guess what the team with 4 players did? Deathball. Just because there were less players, people didn't magically start branching out and playing more flexibly. It isn't the number of players, it's just the general player mindset that deathball = win.

 

Siege I can see an argument for since it focuses players into one spot, but the idea that having smaller servers would limit unbalanced games like 5v6 is just wrong. I've been in plenty of siege games that are 5v4 or 4v3, and they're just as frustrating as a 6v5 is. There is nothing about the 6 player limit that makes unbalances more common. It's a symptom of the game starting with lobbies that aren't full yet, nothing more.

 

MA - I have absolutely no problem with it with 6 players per team. If a team has 6 players all grouped up going from point to point, all it takes is a little coordination to flip the tables on them and hold two points while they run around trying to hold on to one. (Yes, coordination can be hard to come by in pubs, but again that's not a problem related to server size)

 

Deathmatch - I don't play it enough to have a very strong argument on it, but in my experience whether there's 10 players or 4, it plays out pretty much the same way: the player that's best a dealing damage and not throwing their life away pointlessly will usually win.

 

In my experience, it isn't the number of players that determines what a game will be like, it's the players themselves. People who know how to take full advantage of maps and positioning will lead to a dynamic, flexible battle even with a full 12 players. Most games with fewer players that I see are just as chaotic as ones with 12. The chaos just happens in a smaller area with a bit more downtime in between.

 

 

None of this is to say that I would be against putting in some 10-man servers just to try it out and see what happens. I just don't see the main complaints being made in the OP being truly related to player count.

Edited by DM30, 01 July 2015 - 10:30 AM.

[nepacaka]

I think your idea that nothing but non-C sustained mechs are viable is likely due to a personal lack of experience more so than the other mechs being flawed.

 

yes, i play in random, agains other players, newbies, or nice-players, but i'm very often have a 1 place. I play very often in DM (almost all times) before Ascension (cuz early more peoples play in DM, it was fun).

i have more win than loses in DM. so, i have normal exp in DM. and many mech just "uncomfortable" for this mode. especially C-class. most of problem - focusing / big maps.

 

Also, you can be very effective at brawler (just for example) in DM on Frontline. kill more/die less. But in the same time Assault or Scout can beat you by score, even if he play worse than you. He just can to overcome the whole map in 10 seconds, while you trying catch someone on Brawler, Deal more damage, get more score, and win. They just use Zerg-rush (kill - die - kill - die - etc.)

I remember matches, where players with high-score on Scout just ignored me and runaway on LostEco. They win by score, and never kill me. it was awful :D

 

it's good, that you don't have a problem in 2400+ games with your friends. But don't remember - it is Random. it is place where majority/ordinary people play. people like me. and it is problem based on my expirience with random. it's happened all the time.

 

 

I just don't see the main complaints being made in the OP being truly related to player count.

 

it is not complaints, it is suggestion. due small player base, and more comfortable gameplay.

 

 

None of this is to say that I would be against putting in some 10-man servers just to try it out and see what happens.

 

I suppose it is not very difficult. If they could make a 7vs7 ...and no required tonnes of code

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 10:38 AM.

[Panzermanathod]

This happen in random every time. I don't understand where I tell something wrong.
 

When you exaggerate is the issue.

[nepacaka]

exaggerate

 

I see it every day on EU servers.

[Badtings]

I don't agree, I find 6v6 and 7v7 enjoyable.

 

I do find 12 v 12 to be too crowded, especially on Bunker. 

[JeffMagnum]

yes, i play in random, agains other players, newbies, or nice-players, but i'm very often have a 1 place. I play very often in DM (almost all times) before Ascension (cuz early more peoples play in DM, it was fun).

i have more win than loses in DM. so, i have normal exp in DM. and many mech just "uncomfortable" for this mode. especially C-class. most of problem - focusing / big maps.

 

Also, you can be very effective at brawler (just for example) in DM on Frontline. kill more/die less. But in the same time Assault or Scout can beat you by score, even if he play worse than you. He just can to overcome the whole map in 10 seconds, while you trying catch someone on Brawler, Deal more damage, get more score, and win. They just use Zerg-rush (kill - die - kill - die - etc.)

I remember matches, where players with high-score on Scout just ignored me and runaway on LostEco. They win by score, and never kill me. it was awful :D

 

I mean I'm not going to deny that some mechs are easier to win with than others in DM, but it's less of an issue than with other game modes. Map and enemy awareness, movement knowledge, and accuracy for quick and clean vulches are all far more important than mech choice when it comes to winning DMs reliably. You have to adjust your playstyle depending on the strengths and weaknesses of the mech you're in to aim for approximately the same SPM--for example, Scout is forced to retreat all the time due to its tiny armor pool, while Brawler can use the time that a Scout would be wasting to repair to mop up another enemy.

 

And running away from people who take too much time to kill is actually a very important DM strategy since the skill of your enemy isn't taken into consideration when points are given out. The basic general way to win DM is to get to where the most people are fighting as quickly as possible, kill the people there who are about as good as you while they're distracted with other players, and then work your way around killing whoever has the most armor unless everyone there is significantly worse, in which case it's usually better to kill the people who have the lowest armor first so you can get more points overall. That works for basically every mech. 

Edited by JeffMagnum, 01 July 2015 - 11:56 AM.

[Anichkov3]

Given as examples a very silly game 5/6.

you probably never play in siege. where you always play 5vs6 half-time of match. and when score is 3000 / 400, you get a new player and starting play 6vs6 in last 5 minutes.

don't tell me that it never happen, cuz it happen always :D

i suggest a nice way to change it. and added more depth in gameplay.

 

on current moment, it is problem. not only for me. play 5 vs 6 - it is not a normal. if you know a more "wide" way to solve the problem...

 

Given as examples a very silly game 5/6. You probably never played matches 4/5 or 3/4. Let's do then all matches 2/2. It will be a lot of free space on the map, and great pleasure from battles with the enemy. Are you trying to justify matches 5/5, referring to the numerical imbalance of players - very stupid.

 

Yes, it is possible in some modes - TDM, DM can decrease the number of players. But in the modes of missile assault and siege, it is unacceptable - for they are on the map 3 important points, which are guaranteed by the battle. Yes, it is possible in some modes - TDM, DM can decrease the number of players. But in the modes of missile assault and siege, it is unacceptable - for they are on the map 3 important points, which are guaranteed by the battle. In these modes, you can watch as the teams spread out across the map and battles take place in different parts of the maps. And just do not need to whine that all Siege battles are on AA. Fierce battles occur in energy stations.

 

PS. I played matches siege 2/2, 3/3, 4/4 - it was the most boring matches in my life.

Edited by Anichkov3, 01 July 2015 - 11:49 AM.

[Pelanthoris]

I think it's a good suggestion worth trying. Not sure if it would fix things, but it wouldn't be difficult to try. It would ease up things with the small playerbase IMHO.

Combine this with a filter for matchmaker. Select gametypes/player numbers you'd like to play. It's sometimes annoying to pick between TDM/siege if you don't want to use server browser. It would be rather easy to implement, I think.

Edited by Pelan, 01 July 2015 - 12:01 PM.

[DieselCat]

I would hopefully like to see in the sometime near/far future, custom servers, where the player starting that server can create the match rules.

 

i.e. number of players on a team, what mechs are allowed, what items and internals are allowed, time, which map will be used and any other limitations or non-limitations.

 

Maybe even have an option of more than 2 teams such as 2v2v2..3v3v3 etc. or even allow unbalanced teams such as a 3v2 or 4v3...whatever. This may even open up for more and varied game modes.

 

Have it either wide open to any player's skill lvl or make it limited to a certain mmr grouping.

 

As it stands now aside from some of the inherent issues with maps vs. # of players on teams / mech stacking etc. etc....I don't have a problem with the 6v6 or even the 7v7.

 

What I do have issue with is the unbalance team starts and players coming and going during a match which I think is a direct result of currently too many empty servers against a too small player base to fill those servers at this time causing skill imbalances more often than not.

 

But, I personally would like to see some sort of custom server options with replays and (guest view cam) ? Forgot what it's called  

 

*+  

[nepacaka]

Given as examples a very silly game 5/6. You probably never played matches 4/5 or 3/4. Let's do then all matches 2/2.

 

when you start it like 2vs2, people mostly start came in game after 1-2 minutes. yes, 2vs2 in siege is bored, and mostly, if one players control AA, and he is better, opponents never can get AA. Your sarcasm is misplaced. Besides, I mentioned why the 3vs3  mofe can be unbalanced. I never offered to make a 3vs3 Siege. You gives your words of mine.

 

Are you trying to justify matches 5/5, referring to the numerical imbalance of players - very stupid.

 

and not only. there is a whole range of reasons "Why?". Few amount of players, Mech-stacking, More games (despite few players), Faster collect player in games, More based on player skill...and other. Many reasons, not because i'm thinking that 5vs5 "is unbalance...". u read not all text.

 

But in the modes of missile assault and siege, it is unacceptable - for they are on the map 3 important points

 

siege, actually have only one points - AA.

 

In these modes, you can watch as the teams spread out across the map and battles take place in different parts of the maps.

 

lol, no.

If you team spread across the map, you actually already lose in Siege. tactics where 6 players go on small AA just better. there no need tactics, just go on AA in death-ball, than stand in front of AA and push enemies on their own base. this is how siege look like in random. and this scenario always happen.

 

4/4 - it was the most boring matches in my life.

 

it's just because u play on rocketeer. try use air-compressor, i hear, it is make your life funny.

 

i play 3vs3 and 4vs4 siege on frontline 20 min ago. it was not bad. we just fight 3vs3 on AA. and you cann't beat it with zerg-rush. u should stay together to beat 3 another guys on AA. it probably required more tactics for win. and probably harder without mic.

 

 

 

with replays

 

oh, my dream...

Edited by nepacaka, 01 July 2015 - 02:37 PM.

[Pelanthoris]

I would hopefully like to see in the sometime near/far future, custom servers, where the player starting that server can create the match rules.

When someone mentions highly customizable servers, I see it this way. It's a problem if our tiny playerbase divides to different "styles" of hawken.

Spoiler

[DieselCat]

When someone mentions highly customizable servers, I see it this way. It's a problem if our tiny playerbase divides to different "styles" of hawken.

[spoiler]

[/spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, I agree with that...I did mention that was one of the main issues, the small player pop vs. too many empty servers.

 

btw...the spoiler is  :thumbsup:

 

 

 

*+ 

[OdinTheWise]

It should stick to 6v6

[Pelanthoris]

It should stick to 6v6

Care to elaborate?

[nepacaka]

I forgot interest fact.

early (when devs was ADH) when  i play 6v6 i have 120 ping. but when i play on the same servers 2vs2, i have 80 ping. I don't know why, but it is working, then less people play with me, then less my ping.

it is very noticeable if you play at Uptown. i don't know why is this happening.

Edited by nepacaka, 03 July 2015 - 03:13 PM.

[Urban_Sword]

They could restrict size of teams to certain maps. If they created more maps..

[Moeaswordusrex]

Sorry, I haven't bothered to read the previous comments, but I would just like to say I belive there should be a varience in servers with different numbers. I think a smaller amount would suit me, but will not suit others. Just my thoughts. Also sorry for bad spelling and grammer.

[Jelooboi]

YOU'RE ALL WRONG

 

WE NEED 3v3v3 AND MY PERSONAL BRAIN(less)CHILD, 6v6v1.  That's right, one guy who just lives to mess it up for others.  That's me.  I want on that "team".  Crion remnants or somesuch, I don't care.

yo that actually sounds pretty cool. 3 teams against each other would be frickin badass

[ATX22]

Wouldn't lowering the server size to 5 vs. 5 just exacerbate the skill imbalance problems when you have new and verteran players in a server?  Wouldn't this also drive up the costs for running server instances as each instance would host fewer players when full?

 

 

 

I forgot interest fact.

early (when devs was ADH) when  i play 6v6 i have 120 ping. but when i play on the same servers 2vs2, i have 80 ping. I don't know why, but it is working, then less people play with me, then less my ping.

it is very noticeable if you play at Uptown. i don't know why is this happening.

 

 

This could be related to your Internet connection, the server's connection, or server performance; fewer people in a server, the less CPU time needed and less data that needs to be transmitted between the server and your PC.