311 replies to this topic

[ATX22]

I built my PC back in... I think near the end of 2009, and I'm still running on the same install of Windows that I had back then.  For me, speed issues usually came about from good old DRM that would survive an uninstall of the game that it was supposed to protect.. SecureROM, SafeDisc, TAGES, etc... scraping that crap off my PC (or most of it) usually sped things back up a bit.  That, and plopping 16GB of memory onto the MOBO, I need to upgrade so that I can slap 32 or more GB of memory in my PC....

 

As for the speed and atmosphere in Hawken.. I've posted my opinion on what I liked about Hawken and the direction I'd like for it to go.  That's ultimately up to Reloaded, who could take it in a completely different direction and still make Hawken better.  Hawken is a fun game to play when the planets align, piss poor for streaming, but for me, it's just not a good spectator game.  I saw those promo videos years ago, and those ancient videos are what got me interested in this game.  Even when I was playing ONLY Hawken, I just couldn't stand to sit through the videos gamers were throwing around outside of a very few.. which goes especially for the markiplier-wannabe got to jump-scare style scream like an idiot stuff I've recently come across.

[LabMaus]

Other side of the coin:

Fast is ok, but the game seemed to play better team wise when it was slower, more methodical IMHO. There was more than the single strategy of the run and gun it is now.

 

idk man i think its fine now and battles with players that have an mmr rating of 2400-2600 are pretty fuzzy bunnyng strategic cause theres no random rambo guys rushing in just to die

i just hope they add bigger maps in the future, bigger than lost eco which is currently the biggest one if im correct

with this bigger maps should come more players per team and a new game mode with more jump pads ! not just vertical jumps but horizontal that basically shoot you forward (think quake live or something) 

[Meraple]

idk man i think its fine now and battles with players that have an mmr rating of 2400-2600 are pretty fuzzy bunnyng strategic cause theres no random rambo guys rushing in just to die

There's certainly rambos and feeders in such matches.

[LabMaus]

There's certainly rambos and feeders in such matches.

 

oh hey meraple 

well you certainly have more experience than me when it comes to that but theres yet to be a match for me where two advanced groups just do stupid things like that 

[Superkamikazee]

A game is bound to develop a skill gap when it has a narrow audience and stays on the same patch for years.
 
Also, fast? Over the top? Chaos? Really? I mean, it isn't slow by any means, but it really doesn't have speed or chaos in greater quantities than any other contemporary shooters, and even then I remain unconvinced that that is bad. Even Call of Duty has bloody jet packs now.

The game has gotten faster over time, and it's tough to argue against that. It's clear movements been a major focus with every update up to the point the game was abandoned. And a big push was from a few vocal "top tier" players. Cue the hash tag campaigns. 
 

Part of Superkamikazee's point is made just by you comparing it to COD and other contemporary shooters (which I would argue have clearly all become clones of COD MW).
 
I think that what makes/made Hawken great was the fact that it was NOT anything like the other FPS twitch shooters that spawned from the overwhelming success of Modern Warfare.  Players like me, who despise MW/COD, are on the lookout for games that appeal to us because they are not like those.
 
I've never found justification in "well, everyone else is doing it that way..."

I was a little dramatic, but I think you got the gist of it. I preferred the slower, more methodical, weighted pace of versions past. Current Hawkens lost that, and watching higher MMR matches is off putting, and borderline unwatchable.
 

The point I was trying to make was that the pace is not prohibitive, and the skill gap is not a problem in itself.
 
Skill gap and chaos exists in CSGO, LoL, Starcraft, whatever, but what determines the approchability of those games is the size of the population on either side of the skill gap, not the size of the skill gap (or the pace).

Current Hawken is very poke, retreat gameplay, heavily focused on mobility. That's not what older footage is representative of, and if current Hawken was shown at trade shows as a new IP, I don't think it'd have resonated as well with audiences as the older versions did. There's enough systems in place, like heat generation, the repair mechanic, that twitch, speed, and low ttk don't need to take priority. With the current meta, a lot of weapons are pointless or clearly inferior. But that's really just my opinion of course.

[Silverfire]

The game has gotten faster over time, and it's tough to argue against that. It's clear movements been a major focus with every update up to the point the game was abandoned. And a big push was from a few vocal "top tier" players. Cue the hash tag campaigns. 
 

 

ironically, the game's movement actually got slower over time, since Alpha and even early Open Beta.

 

https://docs.google....WylncLD3Dh_E_s/

 

I thought this was interesting at the very least.  The game seems faster with slower movement?

Edited by Silverfire, 11 January 2016 - 08:06 AM.

[Siamenis]

ironically, the game's movement actually got slower over time, since Alpha and even early Open Beta.

 

https://docs.google....WylncLD3Dh_E_s/

 

I thought this was interesting at the very least.  The game seems faster with slower movement?

Apart from speed, mechs' health pools have also been reduced, and this in experience actually feels as everything has been sped up. When you die more often in a match, it just feels everything moves at a faster pace.

Edited by Siamenis, 11 January 2016 - 08:34 AM.

[crockrocket]

ironically, the game's movement actually got slower over time, since Alpha and even early Open Beta.

 

https://docs.google....WylncLD3Dh_E_s/

 

I thought this was interesting at the very least.  The game seems faster with slower movement?

 

Dodge cooldown did get a little shorter. Still, interesting as you say

[Silverfire]

Apart from speed, mechs' health pools have also been reduced, and this in experience actually feels as everything has been sped up. When you die more often in a match, it just feels everything moves at a faster pace.

 

Quite honestly, I'm not dying any more often than before the health of the mechs were reduced.  The raw value of health may have been reduced, but the effective health of a mech hasn't changed much, imo. Less health doesn't mean you will die more during a match, it simply means that there is a smaller margin of error.  If anything, I'm surviving better now than before (admittedly, it's partially due to the drastic difference in skill from then compared to now).

 

This margin of error you are allowed to make has been reduced somewhat with the health reduction, but you can dodge far more often than before with a shorter dodge cooldown and the removal of the cost of fuel for dodging.  This raises your effective health because you have the potential to become more unpredictable.  I was playing some pre-Ascension patch Hawken recently and the fuel cost for dodging does hamper your play.  I felt much more vulnerable, no matter the amount of health I had, constantly getting hammered. If anything, it encouraged corner play and burst more than before because you know you are safe behind cover.  With the current movement system, it allows mechs to compete better out in the open (sustain strength is a discussion for another thread). It may just be a matter of adjusting to something that no longer exists in game, but it was an interesting experience.

Edited by Silverfire, 11 January 2016 - 08:43 AM.

[HugeGuts]

Apart from speed, mechs' health pools have also been reduced, and this in experience actually feels as everything has been sped up.

 

Also, over-simplified heat and fuel management, and orb-lording.

 

This margin of error you are allowed to make has been reduced somewhat with the health reduction

 

That's why so few people play Hawken now. The margin of error is too strict for most players. Sure, this margin isn't impossible to overcome. But there are literally thousands of games competing for attention. If players don't want to spend the time mastering a skill set that's applicable to only one game - Hawken's unique movement system, then players can, do, and will continue to find something else to play. And free-to-play just isn't a market that can survive exclusively on players who overcome all skill barriers.

Edited by HugeGuts, 11 January 2016 - 09:02 AM.

[StubbornPuppet]

Dodge cooldown did get a little shorter.

 

Dodges also now move your mech a greater distance.

Mechs also became "lighter" over time, so they jump faster, a little bit higher and fall slower.

[Silverfire]

Also, over-simplified heat and fuel management, and orb-lording.

 

 

That's why so few people play Hawken now. The margin of error is too strict for most players. Sure, this margin isn't impossible to overcome. But there are literally thousands of games competing for attention. If players don't want to spend the time mastering a skill set that's applicable to only one game - Hawken's unique movement system, then players can, do, and will continue to find something else to play. And free-to-play just isn't a market that can survive exclusively on players who overcome all skill barriers.

 

I still don't feel that the margin of error is the deciding factor though.  The margin of error is reduced, but compare it to literally most other FPSes out there, it's still vastly higher and your survive is arguably much higher than in other games.  Hawken gives you a chance to fight back. TTK is so much lower in other games, but yet are still vastly popular. So other games can have a significantly lower margin of error in terms of TTK and yet maintain excellent popularity, no matter if it's a well established AAA title or a new upcoming FPS.  It is this that leads me to believe that this margin of error in terms of your current in-game life is not as relevant.

 

In terms of spending time to mastering the skill set, or perhaps even having the opportunity to learn it, the game needs to do a better job teaching, plain and simple.  It's been said before and it's being said here.  Teach the players properly and they'll try to learn at the very least.  New players coming into Hawken, I talk to them all the time watching their streams, giving tips and tricks, seeing how they like it.  They like it.  They just know nothing about the game. The game does little to educate. 

Edited by Silverfire, 11 January 2016 - 11:01 AM.

[crockrocket]

I was playing some pre-Ascension patch Hawken recently

Wat

[HugeGuts]

snip

 

If you mean FPS's like CoD/Battlefield/Halo, and similar, the TTK isn't a problem because the skill types you need to master to overcome the TTK are less in comparison to Hawken. Aiming quickly, accurately, and sticking with the best weapon/load-out available to you is pretty much all you need to at least begin competing. Those AAA FPS' don't have anything like Hawken's movement system, or restricted weapon selection preventing a best load-out.

Edited by HugeGuts, 11 January 2016 - 11:53 AM.

[Hyginos]

...

I preferred the slower, more methodical, weighted pace of versions past. 
...
Current Hawken is very poke, retreat gameplay, heavily focused on mobility. 

 

In my mind a poke and retreat maneuvering dance is a hallmark of methodical gameplay. Can you elaborate on what exactly you are looking for in Hawken? Just a slower walk/boost/refire speeds?

 

EDIT: I'd like to point out that a higher TTK will increase the skill gap, if only in perception, between newer players and the leet and milge among us.

Edited by Hyginos, 11 January 2016 - 11:20 AM.

[HugeGuts]

EDIT: I'd like to point out that a higher TTK will increase the skill gap, if only in perception, between newer players and the leet and milge among us.

 

It would increase the skill gap if just old health values returned, sure. That's why how heat and fuel used to work needs to come back as well. And slower secondary reload speeds to compensate for dodging using fuel again.

 

But old heat and fuel resource management is the most important, as it's one more thing players can take advantage of when fighting an enemy. Even a full-health top-tier player could be in trouble against a newb if that newb caught the top-tier with low fuel and/or high heat.

Edited by HugeGuts, 11 January 2016 - 11:35 AM.

[DallasCreeper]

The margin of error is too strict for most players. 

*coughs* Planetside 2 *coughs*

[Superkamikazee]

In my mind a poke and retreat maneuvering dance is a hallmark of methodical gameplay. Can you elaborate on what exactly you are looking for in Hawken? Just a slower walk/boost/refire speeds?
 
EDIT: I'd like to point out that a higher TTK will increase the skill gap, if only in perception, between newer players and the leet and milge among us.

Boost speed and walk speed have increased over time, which made the already small maps feel even smaller. I mean in Halo 5 the midship remake map, it has longer hallways, and is in general larger. Reason for that being the increased mobility in halo 5 vs halo 2.

The dodge and poke mechanic's always been in Hawken, but with the shift in focus to mobility, that mechanics taken precedence over system management. I also feel the slower pace allowed players to manage systems better.

A lower TTK encourage reaction time. Before with different systems in place (NO AC), and higher TTK I felt it wasn't so much about how good you were at an FPS, reaction time, but if you were any good at system management. Both have skill gaps, just of different kinds. I'd argue Hawken filled that gap where someone who's average at an FPS could still succeed in Hawken if they had their wits about them. One could argue which could have the wider appeal. I have my opinion.

I hope that better explains my argument.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 11 January 2016 - 12:50 PM.

[Silverfire]

Wat

 

yeah

[ATX22]

ironically, the game's movement actually got slower over time, since Alpha and even early Open Beta.

 

https://docs.google....WylncLD3Dh_E_s/

 

I thought this was interesting at the very least.  The game seems faster with slower movement?

 

much dodging takes place in the air now, odds of running into a holy-**** good at this game players weren't as high either back when everyone was still learning.

[Silverfire]

much dodging takes place in the air now, odds of running into a holy-**** good at this game players weren't as high either back when everyone was still learning.

 

Regardless, there were still some very good people by the time Open Beta rolled around, capable of taking advantage of the movement.  I remember being absolutely rekt early on, yeah it was some inexperience, but by the time I got a hang of it, I still saw excellent, excellent players.

[Hyginos]

yeah

 

No. I'm not going to let you just not answer that.

[Superkamikazee]

ironically, the game's movement actually got slower over time, since Alpha and even early Open Beta.

https://docs.google....WylncLD3Dh_E_s/

I thought this was interesting at the very least. The game seems faster with slower movement?

Thanks for posting that. If that table can be trusted and is accurate, very interesting information.

But something to consider. Some of the values were tuned values, so that needs to be accounted for, but also dodge and air speeds need to be looked at closely.

Dodge distances have increased, dodge speeds have increased, and air speeds have increased. Combine all that with the AC, and a lower TTK, and right there is the massive change in the games pacing. Everything during an engagement is exponentially quicker with all those changes stacked up.

I'm curious how heat gen stats compare as well, that would also change pacing quite a bit. I'm assuming heat gen was lowered to speed up engagements as well.

[Hyginos]

Thanks for posting that. If that table can be trusted and is accurate, very interesting information.

But something to consider. Some of the values were tuned values, so that needs to be accounted for, but also dodge and air speeds need to be looked at closely.

Dodge distances have increased, dodge speeds have increased, and air speeds have increased. Combine all that with the AC, and a lower TTK, and right there is the massive change in the games pacing. Everything during an engagement is exponentially quicker with all those changes stacked up.

I'm curious how heat gen stats compare as well, that would also change pacing quite a bit. I'm assuming heat gen was lowered to speed up engagements as well.

 

IIRC the heat gen stayed about the same. The delayed quick-vent heat system would be the biggest heat change.

 

I'm starting to think the mobility feel you're talking about may have come more from the acceleration values. Mechs used to take a good bit to get moving from a dead stop, and falling any distance would functionally root your mech for a bit. You had to be a lot more careful about your wasd, or you would find yourself at a dead stop.

[Superkamikazee]

IIRC the heat gen stayed about the same. The delayed quick-vent heat system would be the biggest heat change.

I'm starting to think the mobility feel you're talking about may have come more from the acceleration values. Mechs used to take a good bit to get moving from a dead stop, and falling any distance would functionally root your mech for a bit. You had to be a lot more careful about your wasd, or you would find yourself at a dead stop.

That could def be part of the equation.

A little OT for a sec. I wonder if the devs have considered the games pacing with the recent developments in the VR space. Oculus just sold out preorders, and Vive is due for preordering in Feb. Basically what I'm getting at is, there's going to be some seriously hungry VR consumers looking for software to play. Hawken is a cockpit game, perfectly tailored to the first wave of VR experiences, and it was one of the first titles to support the Rift early on. Perhaps that could be an angle to take at getting more players in the game and to keep them around. Adjust pacing accordingly to make the VR experience decent, the game doesn't need to be stupid slow by any means, and really tighten up controller support. Oculus comes with a Xbox one controller. I never played the "old" Hawken in VR, I wonder how that versions values translated to the VR experience. Regardless, if I was working on this game, I'd be seriously looking into VR, thats all that's talked about at every single tech and gaming trade show, consumer headsets are selling out, and consumers will be hungry to play quality games in VR.

[TheButtSatisfier]

A little OT for a sec. I wonder if the devs have considered the games pacing with the recent developments in the VR space...  if I was working on this game, I'd be seriously looking into VR, thats all that's talked about at every single tech and gaming trade show, consumer headsets are selling out, and consumers will be hungry to play quality games in VR.

 

First, I didn't realize that Hawken supported the Rift (at a basic level) until you mentioned it in your post.

 

I think it's safe to say that the developers have no plan in place to provide VR support for Hawken within the next three years. Hawken is currently on life support with some very basic updates coming soon, and they'll gauge further development priorities after the updates are released. If Hawken proves itself worthy (read: profitable) of something like VR integration by that time, then that's when a real plan would probably be developed.

 

Also, if I had it my way, I'd use two of those Rift controllers (or equivalent) so that I could independently control my left and right guns as opposed to having them permanently pointing straight forward (despite being strapped on to my mech's arm-looking appendages). I don't care if it's way less accurate because GUN KATA MOTHERFUKER BLAM BLAM BLAM

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 13 January 2016 - 01:43 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

First, I didn't realize that Hawken supported the Rift (at a basic level) until you mentioned it in your post.

I think it's safe to say that the developers have no plan in place to provide VR support for Hawken within the next three years. Hawken is currently on life support with some very basic updates coming soon, and they'll gauge further development priorities after the updates are released. If Hawken proves itself worthy (read: profitable) of something like VR integration by that time, then that's when a real plan would probably be developed.

Also, if I had it my way, I'd use two of those Rift controllers (or equivalent) so that I could independently control my left and right guns as opposed to having them permanently pointing straight forward (despite being strapped on to my mech's arm-looking appendages). I don't care if it's way less accurate because GUN KATA MOTHERFUKER BLAM BLAM BLAM

I know Hawken is on life support, its been like this for some time lol. But what I meant was that for Hawken to have a comeback, the easiest route would be to embrace VR and push that to get some cash flow. Easiest may not be the right word, but logically VR will have a pretty serious push within a few months. Steam VR is a feature built into Steam, and you can bet money on the fact that once the Vive hits, Steam will be showing that product on the front page, along with VR games to promote the Vive. To me its a no brainer to really take VR integration in Hawken very seriously.

If Hawken is the first competent shooter offering a good VR experience during the Consumer Launch of VR, thats good just good business.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 13 January 2016 - 01:55 PM.

[TheButtSatisfier]

I know Hawken is on life support, its been like this for some time lol. But what I meant was that for Hawken to have a comeback, the easiest route would be to embrace VR and push that to get some cash flow. Easiest may not be the right word, but logically VR will have a pretty serious push within a few months. Steam VR is a feature built into Steam, and you can bet money on the fact that once the Vive hits, Steam will be showing that product on the front page, along with VR games to promote the Vive. To me its a no brainer to really take VR integration in Hawken very seriously.

 

I think that the risk-reward ratio is way safer for the devs to clean up the existing UI, clean up the maps so I don't get stuck running past a wall, balance some of the basics, and doing a massive marketing push. Hell, just the news that Hawken got acquired gave Hawken's population a (relatively) healthy boost for around a month - and there was no dev work involved besides getting the new forums and bringing some old servers back online. Keep in mind that the system requirements for an Oculus-ready rig are much higher than what most people are playing Hawken with now, so if the devs put all their eggs in that basket then they'd essentially be coding for a much smaller market than the one they're catering to now. From a business standpoint, going balls-to-the-wall on VR development would be wildly risky, and I don't think that Reloaded would go for that.

Edited by TheButtSatisfier, 13 January 2016 - 02:02 PM.

[Sylhiri]

I know Hawken is on life support, its been like this for some time lol. But what I meant was that for Hawken to have a comeback, the easiest route would be to embrace VR and push that to get some cash flow. Easiest may not be the right word, but logically VR will have a pretty serious push within a few months. Steam VR is a feature built into Steam, and you can bet money on the fact that once the Vive hits, Steam will be showing that product on the front page, along with VR games to promote the Vive. To me its a no brainer to really take VR integration in Hawken very seriously.

If Hawken is the first competent shooter offering a good VR experience during the Consumer Launch of VR, thats good just good business.

 

I'm not sure that you can plan for a comeback on a monitor helmet that costs $600 USD (for oculus) and potentially higher (one website suggested $1500) for Vive.

Edited by Sylhiri, 13 January 2016 - 02:32 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

I think that the risk-reward ratio is way safer for the devs to clean up the existing UI, clean up the maps so I don't get stuck running past a wall, balance some of the basics, and doing a massive marketing push. Hell, just the news that Hawken got acquired gave Hawken's population a (relatively) healthy boost for around a month - and there was no dev work involved besides getting the new forums and bringing some old servers back online. Keep in mind that the system requirements for an Oculus-ready rig are much higher than what most people are playing Hawken with now, so if the devs put all their eggs in that basket then they'd essentially be coding for a much smaller market than the one they're catering to now. From a business standpoint, going balls-to-the-wall on VR development would be wildly risky, and I don't think that Reloaded would go for that.

At the least, Hawken used to work with the Rift, some of that framework must be in tact. I guess if it wasn't too much work, I still feel it would be worth the effort for the exposure. And having the attitude that "VR is too demanding", why make games period that push PC's at all? In 2012, Hawken was a reasonably demanding game to run at max settings. And investing in VR is by no means "eggs in one basket". Gamers without VR would still, and always have been, able to play Hawken. Adding decent VR support would only broaden Hawkens appeal, it would attract gamers that can afford a $600 headset which could mean they have disposable income.

And if you are a game dev why not just make games around the most popular gpu's being used by gamers http://store.steampo...rvey/videocard/

If that were the case, we'd be playing games built around intel on board graphics exclusively.

Directx 11 gpus, the 970 is a very popular gpu. Higher adoption than even the 750ti, and 960, both considered entry level gpu's. Just food for thought. The 970 is the recommended gpu for VR.
 
 

I'm not sure that you can plan for a comeback on a monitor helmet that costs $600 USD (for oculus) and potentially higher (one website suggested $1500) for Vive.

Part of the comeback. How much do GTX Titans cost, how much do 980 Ti's cost? A lot, and people buy them, they buy a lot of them. I don't even consider myself a huge pc master race kinda guy, and I have two gaming pc's, one that's ready for VR.

Vive will not cost $1500. Many of the major components are comparable to the Rift, and the Vive tracking towers aren't that expensive to make either. The Vive will still be more expensive than the Rift, but not close to $1500.

http://youtu.be/CAwXhbYM-UE?t=18m32s

Edited by Superkamikazee, 13 January 2016 - 07:55 PM.

[Sylhiri]

 
Part of the comeback. How much do GTX Titans cost, how much do 980 Ti's cost? A lot, and people buy them, they buy a lot of them. I don't even consider myself a huge pc master race kinda guy, and I have two gaming pc's, one that's ready for VR.

 

Graphics cards are different then a monitor headset, the better comparison is people buying 3D monitors. It's a luxury item, especially in the beginning stages.

[TheButtSatisfier]

At the least, Hawken used to work with the Rift, some of that framework must be in tact. I guess if it wasn't too much work, I still feel it would be worth the effort for the exposure.

 

Sure, if it's not a lot of effort then the risk-reward balance makes more sense. I suppose you and I are just presenting examples across a spectrum of possibilities regarding a whole host of development-related factors, (what past development work is salvageable, how much effort it'd take to develop whatever's left, etc) and my example is situated on the pessimistic side of that range.

 

To flesh out my thought a bit more: I think that there are some plainly obvious improvements to Hawken that can be implemented with what I (maybe incorrectly) assume is far less development effort than supporting VR. Not only that, but I think that those sensible, incremental improvements would  guarantee some healthy population growth if executed properly. From a business standpoint, I believe it's smarter to take that route, especially since I don't think that Reloaded could afford to gamble with tossing a (what I assume is a) lot of money on early adoption of a very new and different technology. Reloaded wouldn't stand much to lose by waiting for AAA game developers work out those first big kinks and then enter the VR market with a more mature base and platform.

 

And that there is my bestest armchair video game playing opinion I have on the matter.

[ATX22]

Regardless, there were still some very good people by the time Open Beta rolled around, capable of taking advantage of the movement.  I remember being absolutely rekt early on, yeah it was some inexperience, but by the time I got a hang of it, I still saw excellent, excellent players.

 

I remember CB2 and really started playing in earnest by CB3, yeah, there were excellent players, but either I wasn't constantly running into them or they were nowhere near as good as they've gotten after all these years (which, if one is to believe that they too improve their "skills" over time, they've not always been as good as they are now).

 

Adding air dodge, tweaking ttk, messing with weapon balancing, further tweaking overall movement by ADH has added extra levels of frustration for new players in Hawken in addition to the super-good players exploiting all that these have to offer to their advantage against new players.  If I were a gamer that's never played Hawken before that's fresh out of CoD, CS:GO, TF2, etc. how approachable do you think Hawken would be?  What's the current average?  3 days?

 

Hawken then was fun and all, but over time failed to build a following outside a very small group of us gamers, it got peppered with a few content additions and a boat load of tweaks before being neglected and sold off all while slowing dying off.  Hawken then was "OMG THIS LOOKS AWESOME, GOT TO PLAY THIS!"  Hawken today is "Wow.. Is that game still alive?"... 

[Superkamikazee]

Graphics cards are different then a monitor headset, the better comparison is people buying 3D monitors. It's a luxury item, especially in the beginning stages.

 

 

Or gsync monitors, ultra wide monitors, multi monitor setups, 4k monitors, or OLED monitors. Graphics cards aren't too different, especially once you start talking about higher end cards. People buying those cards are enthusiasts in this hobby, and they'll probably be willing to buy into VR as well.

 

Sure, if it's not a lot of effort then the risk-reward balance makes more sense. I suppose you and I are just presenting examples across a spectrum of possibilities regarding a whole host of development-related factors, (what past development work is salvageable, how much effort it'd take to develop whatever's left, etc) and my example is situated on the pessimistic side of that range.

 

To flesh out my thought a bit more: I think that there are some plainly obvious improvements to Hawken that can be implemented with what I (maybe incorrectly) assume is far less development effort than supporting VR. Not only that, but I think that those sensible, incremental improvements would  guarantee some healthy population growth if executed properly. From a business standpoint, I believe it's smarter to take that route, especially since I don't think that Reloaded could afford to gamble with tossing a (what I assume is a) lot of money on early adoption of a very new and different technology. Reloaded wouldn't stand much to lose by waiting for AAA game developers work out those first big kinks and then enter the VR market with a more mature base and platform.

 

And that there is my bestest armchair video game playing opinion I have on the matter.

 

Also, let's not dismiss that putting any effort into revitalizing Hawken isn't a risk, it's actually a HUGE risk. Making new maps, mechs, balance changes, server improvements, hiring a staff, marketing the game eventually, all that is a huge cost and risk. The chances of Hawken becoming a success after what's transpired are actually quite slim. But yes I agree with you, if VR support (Oculus Rift) is too difficult to implement right now, then maybe it's not worth the effort. But if the back bone for VR support is still there, and salvageable, I truly believe it's a smart decision to push that development. 

 

With some work, this could be an incredible experience in VR, and tbh I can't believe the new devs haven't looked into or contacted the Facebook / Oculus team for support to make this happen. FB / Oculus are looking for software, software will sell their headset and push VR. 

 

 

Hawken is the definitive VR experience. The gameplay, cockpit view, and potentially a slower pace if updated accordingly, this could be the game to play for early VR adopters. To ignore that or be dismissive of that is entirely foolish, it's a huge opportunity. 

Edited by Superkamikazee, 14 January 2016 - 05:46 AM.

[HugeGuts]

Hawken needs to be a game many people actually want to play waaaaay before Hawken VR becomes a thing.

 

A tiny dev team spending time and resources on anything but the actual game is one of the big reasons why Hawken failed the first time.

Edited by HugeGuts, 14 January 2016 - 07:16 AM.

[Hyginos]

It would seem to me that the later changes to HWK indicate that ADH had given up on the whole VR thing to some degree, instead choosing to compete in a space closer to TF2 and the like. With that said, I don't think the pace has to slow down for VR to work:

 

It might be a good hype train to ride, but success in that area will hinge on the popularity of Oculus and other similar products. 

 

Does anyone know if DK1 still works with the current build of Hawken?

[Superkamikazee]

Hawken needs to be a game many people actually want to play waaaaay before Hawken VR becomes a thing.

 

A tiny dev team spending time and resources on anything but the actual game is one of the big reasons why Hawken failed the first time.

 

There's a difference between spending money on a comic book series, a card game, and supporting VR. But I get what you're saying. I was being optimistic, if the devs are currently making changes to Hawken, keeping quiet about them, I hope they are making considerations with those changes with VR in mind. 

 

It would seem to me that the later changes to HWK indicate that ADH had given up on the whole VR thing to some degree, instead choosing to compete in a space closer to TF2 and the like. With that said, I don't think the pace has to slow down for VR to work:

 

It might be a good hype train to ride, but success in that area will hinge on the popularity of Oculus and other similar products. 

 

Does anyone know if DK1 still works with the current build of Hawken?

 

p.s. have you actually seen gameplay of this game? lolololololol

 

 

One of the big obstacles with VR is motion sickness, I can't see any VR supported game in the immediate future (first few years of VR) having gameplay as fast as that "Promo Trailer" you posted. lol

[Hyginos]

p.s. have you actually seen gameplay of this game? lolololololol

 

A fair point, but the game hasn't had 3 years for dedicated gamers to poke around the movement system. Hawken is actually pretty slow in servers filled with new players. The pace of the footage you linked actually looks quite similar to that of Hawken as played by someone with 0-10 hours in.

 

I was trying to point out that marketing a fast(ish) VR mech game is not intrinsically an issue in any way, though I personally consider VR to be well out of feasible range for HWK barring some massive player influx or cash infusion. 

[CraftyDus]

I'd be for a proper spectate feature first, over the terribad idea that devs should pursue vr for hawken in our lifetimes

[Superkamikazee]

Who's going to be watching? Lol If any feature could be considered a waste of time, it'd be a spectator mode.

At least opening up the VR option, there's a known install base that will be looking for software to play. And going forward more and more people will be picking up VR.

I'm not seeing a very big comp scene in Hawken outside the small bubble here. But hey, what do I know. Pipe dreams, it'd be a long shot to see anything substantial happen, and a miracle if Hawken becomes even moderately popular.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 14 January 2016 - 10:48 AM.