176 replies to this topic

[TheVulong]

Also, you kinda missed my point: when i was talking about Hawken becoming less of a mech game and more of an arena shooter, i was refering to stuff like non-existent heat and fuel management in the current build and your ideas about removing the radar and weapon raise delay.

[HugeGuts]

400/600/800?

 

I'm not sure of the significance of 400/600/800. I think those amounts can work, but not by themselves. Those amounts also need a slower secondary cooldown. In Steam patch videos, I notice cooldowns being fast enough to commonly use secondary weapons two times in a typical 1v1 fight. I'm sure being able to burst damage up to over half of a A's health and up to over a third of a B's health in three seconds is a huge contributer to the too-low TTK's.

Edited by HugeGuts, 29 March 2015 - 07:19 AM.

[Leonhardt]

Also, you kinda missed my point: when i was talking about Hawken becoming less of a mech game and more of an arena shooter, i was refering to stuff like non-existent heat and fuel management in the current build and your ideas about removing the radar and weapon raise delay.

 

I think you missed my point. Your basis for your argument hinges on Hawken becoming "less of a mech game" when the criteria you have used to distinguish a "mech game" from an "arena shooter" is entirely flawed since a "mech" could be anything outside of the bounds you have constrained unless we are talking about something that is purely your opinion on the matter in which case the entire point would be self admitted conjecture filled with no useful argument other than your clear dissenting opinion on the matter, which to be frank, we are all well aware of.

 

Edit: I also thought it would be relevant to clarify my position. I see no reason why the game is more or less of a mech game by changing mechanics to be something more or less like an arena shooter. As far as I can tell the two are not even related unless of course you have constrained the scope of your idea of what a "mech" or "mech game" is. Which again would be pure conjecture.

Edited by Leonhardt, 29 March 2015 - 09:23 AM.

[TheVulong]

Edit: I also thought it would be relevant to clarify my position. I see no reason why the game is more or less of a mech game by changing mechanics to be something more or less like an arena shooter. As far as I can tell the two are not even related unless of course you have constrained the scope of your idea of what a "mech" or "mech game" is. 

The terms "mech game" and "arena shooter" are related if we're talking about Hawken, as Hawken represents both genres. Let's distinguish what goes where:

-fuel, heat, radar, mech classes, internals, items and so on represent the "mech game".

-movement system and weapons represent the "arena shooter".

 

So, by simplifying or taking away something from the "mech game" row, you obviously reduce the accent on Hawken being a mech game.

 

P.S. Regardless, my message: don't change something that's not broken and don't simplify the game mechanics thinking that decreasing the utility of those mechanics will somehow raise the skill ceiling. Less gameplay depth = less skill required to reach the "bottom" of that gameplay. 

Edited by TheVulong, 29 March 2015 - 10:02 AM.

[LarryLaffer]

This dicussion about "mecha" and "non-mecha" reminded me one thing that nepacaka pointed out some time ago. Khang Le made really beautiful design concept of gloomy post-apocalyptic world

Spoiler

But now that atmosphere is lost, and Hawken has become like this

Spoiler

So I kinda agree with TheVulong here. Hawken will never be successful as Quake or UT. It simply doesn't have such depths, and even if it had it would be just another clone of UT, but worse. But it could be successful as unique mech game with elements of Arena FPS, the game of trade-offs and rapid fights.

Edited by LarryLaffer, 29 March 2015 - 10:29 AM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

The terms "mech game" and "arena shooter" are related if we're talking about Hawken, as Hawken represents both genres. Let's distinguish what goes where:

-fuel, heat, radar, mech classes, internals, items and so on represent the "mech game".

-movement system and weapons represent the "arena shooter".

 

So, by simplifying or taking away something from the "mech game" row, you obviously reduce the accent on Hawken being a mech game.

 

P.S. Regardless, my message: don't change something that's not broken and don't simplify the game mechanics thinking that decreasing the utility of those mechanics will somehow raise the skill ceiling. Less gameplay depth = less skill required to reach the "bottom" of that gameplay. 

As long as Hawken features axes as the focus of the game, it will be a mech game. They could literally bounce around like there's springs on their feet, while shooting bright pink bubbles, with giant cat ears mounted on top, and it would still be no less of a mech game.

 

You're falsely attributing certain elements (like fuel, heat, etc.) to "mech". But those are not features that define "mechs". Those are features that could also define cars, tanks, aircraft, cyborgs, etc. You cannot use them to define mechs, because they are not things that are specific to the quality of being a mech.

The only quality needed for a mech to be considered a mech is that it is a robot/machine that is controlled by a person/people. Size, shape, appearance, what fuels it, what sort of ammo it uses (if it even uses weapons), whether or not it is used for combat, whether it has a cockpit or is remote control, whether it moves like a tank or like a ballet dancer. None of those things matter. Just as long as it's mechanical and controlled by a person.

[deidarall]

Wind Walking:

 

also think its fine as is. like others have said it intoduces new planes and trajectorys of fire to be mindfull of other than just "left right left right". like having x,y z cordinates and then taking out z. some mechs really need it too compete too. rockateer is an obvious example. that mech is ded meat if you can get into a cqc with it. having the ability to atleast retreat and shoot is a huge bonus not to mention being able to dodge over peoples heads. G2-assualt really benefits too. that mech HAS to have los to do damage. in a game where splash dmg and remote det is king. atleast with wind walking you can approach from other angles and get better poke dmg. also again being able to dodge over people is a huge plus. if that happens to you sorry but you were in the wrong positon and got wind walked all over.

 

 

 

 

While wind walking is fine on hell-fire mechs, and certain other mechs for the purposes of balancing in my view having wind walking be so wide spread is a issue.

 

It rewards too much and leads to a sort of static duel a lot of the times. When I feel under pressure in my HEAT Gren without thought I just sort of tap space and float around with HEAT cannon. Is it the best tactic? Likely not. But it is rewarding enough that cause it is so simple to use I can sort of just use it to back up and fire, and I do not have AC or anything. SA Hawkens Brawler uses it, nearly every substantiated mech can. You see at that point it is not just "Some mechs need it." it is just central to the game. A ton of mechs can use it in some way to get a very simple advantage without much issue in a defensive static manner, changing the pacing of duels and play-styles. 

 

Mechs that just should be balanced on the ground are just using it all the time. I think ground work needs be made more central, there are more visual cues in that sort of fighting, it does not so often hit a elevation or depression stopper limit that people abuse.

 

Anyway having wind walking be this central and simple to use is silly,  it quite simply puts a ton of pressure on the ground player to push up, and yet he lacks the tools to do so with the tools he has, and then there is the fact that pressing space and backing up are wide spread and happen all the time for a ton of mechs. There was no way to just do this before, and in my view it is just ruining the pace of the game. Instead of it being regulated to the mechs that actually might need such tools to be viable. 

[TheVulong]

As long as Hawken features axes as the focus of the game, it will be a mech game. They could literally bounce around like there's springs on their feet, while shooting bright pink bubbles, with giant cat ears mounted on top, and it would still be no less of a mech game.

 

You're falsely attributing certain elements (like fuel, heat, etc.) to "mech". But those are not features that define "mechs". Those are features that could also define cars, tanks, aircraft, cyborgs, etc. You cannot use them to define mechs, because they are not things that are specific to the quality of being a mech.

The only quality needed for a mech to be considered a mech is that it is a robot/machine that is controlled by a person/people. Size, shape, appearance, what fuels it, what sort of ammo it uses (if it even uses weapons), whether or not it is used for combat, whether it has a cockpit or is remote control, whether it moves like a tank or like a ballet dancer. None of those things matter. Just as long as it's mechanical and controlled by a person.

...k, got it. 

[Leonhardt]

The terms "mech game" and "arena shooter" are related if we're talking about Hawken, as Hawken represents both genres. Let's distinguish what goes where:

-fuel, heat, radar, mech classes, internals, items and so on represent the "mech game".

-movement system and weapons represent the "arena shooter".

 

So, by simplifying or taking away something from the "mech game" row, you obviously reduce the accent on Hawken being a mech game.

 

P.S. Regardless, my message: don't change something that's not broken and don't simplify the game mechanics thinking that decreasing the utility of those mechanics will somehow raise the skill ceiling. Less gameplay depth = less skill required to reach the "bottom" of that gameplay. 

 

See if you are talking about what you feel will increase or decrease the skill ceiling through the use of mechanics changes then we have an actual argument to work with here. That is all I am pointing out. If you feel that changing mechanics into something that in your point of view simplifies the game would cause something like a loss of depth to the skill curve then that is something we can actually talk about. How you feel a "mech game" should play has no bearing on the argument.

 

In regards to your feeling that some of the ideas about game mechanics being thrown around would "simplify" the game I do not agree, but you see from here we can have an actual discussion about the topic since it is not entirely based on opinions about a fictional story.

[TheVulong]

See if you are talking about what you feel will increase or decrease the skill ceiling through the use of mechanics changes then we have an actual argument to work with here. That is all I am pointing out. If you feel that changing mechanics into something that in your point of view simplifies the game would cause something like a loss of depth to the skill curve then that is something we can actually talk about. How you feel a "mech game" should play has no bearing on the argument.

 

In regards to your feeling that some of the ideas about game mechanics being thrown around would "simplify" the game I do not agree, but you see from here we can have an actual discussion about the topic since it is not entirely based on opinions about a fictional story.

Ok, since you actually understood me, let's throw the "more/less of a mech game" talk away and focus on what matters. You got it right: i do feel like some of the changes - even small ones - that you guys suggested may/will have a big impact on how the game feels and plays, and my concern is that not everyone might enjoy these changes for a variety of reasons. And when people stop enjoying the game as a result of these changes, at some point they say "i can't deal with this anymore" and just leave. I know a bunch of players like that(can give names if necessary) who left shortly after the Ascension patch landed. So my point is that this game's playerbase might be too small to survive another meta change and i don't think that the game even needs it in the first place. Once again, one of the reasons Hawken was losing it's players is because the devs couldn't decide what the meta should be and kept changing it. So i'd say: tweak some numbers here and there, fix the bugs, fix the grind, fix the maps, fix the Tech/Incin, make AC universal(because it's still too good of an internal) and after that focus on adding new content. IMO that's all there needs to be done in order for Hawken to finally wipe out the Open Beta/Early Access tags and start gaining players again. 

Edited by TheVulong, 30 March 2015 - 03:09 AM.

[Houruck]

I think Vulong means that managing heat and fuel is something you usually have to do in simulators (including mech sims) even if they are just a little bit different from managing ammo and stamina. These are mechanics that are associated with the genre and they facilitate immersion.

[Leonhardt]

I think Vulong means that managing heat and fuel is something you usually have to do in simulators (including mech sims) even if they are just a little bit different from managing ammo and stamina. These are mechanics that are associated with the genre and they facilitate immersion.

 

I understand that, but what I am trying to point out here is that those mechanics are immersive in some mech games while in others it has no place in the immersion. Does that make those games any less of a mech game or immersive? That could be considered a matter of opinion as far as immersion is concerned and I have played plenty of mech games with mechs far faster than Hawken in its current state. However, I think TheVulong understands what I was trying to get across. I merely want to focus on the actual issue here, that being the mechanics, and stay away from subjective personal thoughts such as immersion because that argument has very little use since it is an opinion of each individual person.

 

 

@TheVulong: Your post is very long and I currently don't have the time to read it, however when I do (hopefully later tonigh) I'll post a reply.

[Superkamikazee]

See if you are talking about what you feel will increase or decrease the skill ceiling through the use of mechanics changes then we have an actual argument to work with here. That is all I am pointing out. If you feel that changing mechanics into something that in your point of view simplifies the game would cause something like a loss of depth to the skill curve then that is something we can actually talk about. How you feel a "mech game" should play has no bearing on the argument.

 

In regards to your feeling that some of the ideas about game mechanics being thrown around would "simplify" the game I do not agree, but you see from here we can have an actual discussion about the topic since it is not entirely based on opinions about a fictional story.

 

 

Actually it does. For example dodging, or side stepping, not consuming fuel doesn't make any sense. It makes the game "FEEL" a bit silly, and you lose that immersion which is part of a mech games "FEEL". Watching old videos shows how stupid the game looks in action using dodge to continue moving forward in order to conserve.

 

Still can't believe this game wasn't considered fast, or have a high enough skill ceiling lol.

 

Oh yes how could I forget, the skill ceiling was raised with the replacement of fuel and heat management with the inclusion of air compressor. 

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 01:45 PM.

[Nept]

 

 

Still can't believe this game wasn't considered fast, or have a high enough skill ceiling lol.

 

Oh yes how could I forget, the skill ceiling was raised with the replacement of fuel and heat management with the inclusion of air compressor. 

I mean, you thought that Tribes was a "twitch" shooter.  Not super surprised that you don't understand some things re: skill ceiling.

[Superkamikazee]

I mean, you thought that Tribes was a "twitch" shooter.  Not super surprised that you don't understand some things re: skill ceiling.

 

From the horses mouth, so yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Wipe that egg off your face sir, but keep your chin up.

 

 

 

"People have maybe forgotten about the adrenaline rush of the old school shooters like Quake, Unreal Tournament and, of course, Tribes." Executive producer on upcoming free to play shooter Tribes: Ascend, Todd Harris, misses the twitch shooters of old.

http://www.pcgamer.c...rm-development/

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 02:17 PM.

[Xacius]

From the horses mouth, so yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah. Wipe that egg off your face sir, but keep your chin up.

 

http://www.pcgamer.c...rm-development/

 

Using a PCGamer article as justification for an opinion is liking using The Onion News Network as a credible source for a political debate.  Except, the PCGamer article is worse because they're actually trying to be serious.  

Edited by Xacius, 30 March 2015 - 02:30 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

Using a PCGamer article as justification for an opinion is liking using The Onion News Network as a credible source for a political debate.  Except, the PCGamer article is worse because they're actually trying to be serious.  

 

Note that you failed to see that they were quoting the exec producer of the game, it wasn't an opinion piece from the writer, it was the game producers opinion on his game lolololololololol. Oh you guys, I mean I get it, you have to back up your boy but come on.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 02:55 PM.

[Nept]

Note that you failed to see that they were quoting the exec producer of the game, it wasn't an opinion piece from the writer, it was just the producers words typed out lolololololololol. Oh you guys.

Anyone who lumps Quake and Unreal Tournament into a category with Tribes: Ascend is a dolt - executive producer of Tribes: Ascend, or not.  In fact, his being executive producer of Tribes: Ascend invalidates the argument more than anything.

[Superkamikazee]

Anyone who lumps Quake and Unreal Tournament into a category with Tribes: Ascend is a dolt - executive producer of Tribes: Ascend, or not.  In fact, his being executive producer of Tribes: Ascend invalidates the argument more than anything.

 

Oh so Hawkens "Elite" knows all now huh? lol I'd take your gentlemens advice regarding what makes a twitch shooter a twitch shooter, but I mean look what happened to Hawken the last time someone listened.....

[Nept]

Oh so Hawkens "Elite" knows all now huh? lol I'd take your gentlemens advice regarding what makes a twitch shooter a twitch shooter, but I mean look what happened to Hawken the last time someone listened.....

 

As I said earlier, Omni's not just Hawken's elite:

 

 

A) Tribes is a terribly slow, non-twitch shooter which is fast only in the linear sense.  The only games that permit players similar aiming times are the slower MechWarrior entries. [And before someone gets into a Tribes is great/you don't even know argument, Omni has several top-ranked T2 players, and was the top-ranked Legions (Tribes-inspired game, but much faster) team.  Also, the team which won Tribes:Ascend competition comprised a mixture of teams/players which lost to us in Legions.

 

So yeah, I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity.  As for the correlation = causation fallacy, I suggest you look at this link: https://community.pl...on-development/

Edited by Nept, 30 March 2015 - 03:08 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

As I said earlier, Omni's not just Hawken's elite:

 

 

 

So yeah, I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity.

 

Oh you're still going on about this? I guess I struck a nerve, sorry.  At least we had a fun back and forth bit back there, and your buddy jumped in to save the day, that was noble, and I respect that. Let's move on though shall we. 

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 03:09 PM.

[Nept]

 lol I'd take your gentlemens advice regarding what makes a twitch shooter a twitch shooter, but I mean look what happened to Hawken the last time someone listened.....

Well, you've admitted that you'll trust us to assess a game's twitch capacity.  Now you just need to go read this thread to understand why your "elite players ruined Hawken" argument is invalid.

[Superkamikazee]

Well, you've admitted that you'll trust us to assess a game's twitch capacity.  Now you just need to go read this thread to understand why your "elite players ruined Hawken" argument is invalid.

 
Let me reiterate, a combination of bad business decisions, meta changes, and then the hail mary to blindly follow "high tier" player advice on meta changes killed Hawken. 
 
So you're suggestion your opinions have made the game better, am I correct with that assessment?
 

So yeah, I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity.

Elitism, don't let it happen to you folks. They're right, everyone else is wrong, THE END.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 03:33 PM.

[Gruncor]

Well, you've admitted that you'll trust us to assess a game's twitch capacity.  Now you just need to go read this thread to understand why your "elite players ruined Hawken" argument is invalid.

If I remember who said all those things because Hawken would fail I still was in 2012. Even this same subject journalistic quotes and market analysis I did too, telling everyone in the forum that the style faster arena shooter was in decline and that would end Hawken with a ridiculous playerbase ... Man, NEPT remembered what I said and put in new forum as if he had discovered. WTF? Nept, my lawyers will look for you.

Edited by Gruncor, 30 March 2015 - 03:51 PM.

[Nept]

 
Let me reiterate, a combination of bad business decisions, meta changes, and then the hail mary to blindly follow "high tier" player advice on meta changes killed Hawken. 
 
So you're suggestion your opinions have made the game better, am I correct with that assessment?

You mean, "let me shift my stance," not "let me reiterate".  But fine, let's look briefly at your position.  Firstly, the developers did not "blindly follow high tier player advice".  In fact, they outright ignored it with their Ascension release - a release that was almost universally loathed by the community. Secondly, I've not "suggestioned" anywhere within this thread that my opinions have made the game better - or even that they've been taken into account in the past.  It took opposition from the overwhelming majority of the community to change that Steam release patch; had they been listening to myself or other high tier players, it never would've been released.  And thirdly, you should stop throwing passive aggressive quotes around "high tier" Hawken players.  It's more unbecoming than the elitism you're professing to fight against.

 

 

Nept: "So yeah, I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity"

Elitism, don't let it happen to you folks. They're right, everyone else is wrong, THE END.

That's a straw man if I've ever seen one. 

A) An elite player commenting on a game's twitch capacity falls under the category of "expert opinion";

B) As an argument, deferral to expert opinion is only fallacious if the expertise isn't applicable to that field, or if expert opinion is divided;

C) You cannot take the statement "I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity" to mean that no opinions asides from ours - on anything - are ever correct.

 

You started this argument by claiming that Tribes was a twitch shooter.  It's not - we've established that.  Now you're trying to pretend that elite players have ruined the game.  They didn't - the developers didn't even listen to us.

 

*Edit* Meant Ascension release

Edited by Nept, 30 March 2015 - 04:05 PM.

[Nept]

Also, since I don't want to write another post on Hawken's developmental history, here's one you should peruse: https://community.pl...yers/#entry7624

[Superkamikazee]

You mean, "let me shift my stance," not "let me reiterate".  But fine, let's look briefly at your position.  Firstly, the developers did not "blindly follow high tier player advice".  In fact, they outright ignored it with their Ascension release - a release that was almost universally loathed by the community. Secondly, I've not "suggestioned" anywhere within this thread that my opinions have made the game better - or even that they've been taken into account in the past.  It took opposition from the overwhelming majority of the community to change that Steam release patch; had they been listening to myself or other high tier players, it never would've been released.  And thirdly, you should stop throwing passive aggressive quotes around "high tier" Hawken players.  It's more unbecoming than the elitism you're professing to fight against.
 
That's a straw man if I've ever seen one. 
A) An elite player commenting on a game's twitch capacity falls under the category of "expert opinion";
B) As an argument, deferral to expert opinion is only fallacious if the expertise isn't applicable to that field, or if expert opinion is divided;
C) You cannot take the statement "I would trust a game's top competitive players to assess a game's twitch capacity" to mean that no opinions asides from ours - on anything - are ever correct.
 
You started this argument by claiming that Tribes was a twitch shooter.  It's not - we've established that.  Now you're trying to pretend that elite players have ruined the game.  They didn't - the developers didn't even listen to us.
 
*Edit* Meant Ascension release

Oh stop, I don't care if you're a top player or not, you're not the authority on gaming genre classification. If the executive producer of Tribes call it a twitch shooter, it's a twitch shooter. You can interpret that however you'd like, you can have your opinion as well.

It's well known that there was a large push by the high tier player base to eliminate fuel consumption when dodging, #increasethespeeds, and the most vocal proponents for the AC to raise the skill ceiling. One could argue those changes, while not as detrimental as Ascension, fundamentally changed the game all the same, in a really big way.

Would you say that Hawken is more arena shooter than it was at the start of Open Beta? I'm not trying to continue arguing because this is getting silly, but I'd like you honest opinion.

[Superkamikazee]

Also, since I don't want to write another post on Hawken's developmental history, here's one you should peruse: https://community.pl...yers/#entry7624

It's too bad I can't go back and find old threads about all the speed increase pushes, AC commotion , and fuel management debates. Good times.

[Xacius]

Oh stop, I don't care if you're a top player or not, you're not the authority on gaming genre classification. "If the executive producer of Tribes call it a twitch shooter, it's a twitch shooter." You can interpret that however you'd like, you can have your opinion as well.

 

No, no, no...  That's the stupidest thing I've heard all year.  

 

Do you know what it takes to become an executive producer on a video game?  I'm studying computer programming with an emphasis in entertainment arts and engineering.  I'm well-versed in this field (as well as related fields) and can safely say that "Executive Producer" is not a job line that heavily interacts with gameplay design.  

 

Take a look at this guy's linkedin profile.

 

He's a software distributor and has experience in software development and project management.  He claims that his personal skills include: computer systems programming, software design and architecture, project management, product management and lifecycle planning, managing content development, game design and development, recruiting and HR, process improvement, product marketing, performance marketing, social media, public/press relations, domestic and international business development, and general/studio management.

 

Only two of those self-proclaimed "personal experience" bullet points relate to video game design and development.  He's really a project leader and business manager that may have weighed on a couple game mechanics throughout the course of a four year development cycle.  

 

If he were the LEAD GAMEPLAY DESIGNER for HiRez, I'd trust his judgment a bit more.  Given his background, I'd wager that he's relating Tribes to Quake and Unreal Tournament because those games are/were vastly more popular in comparison, giving players that like those titles a reason to try Tribes.  He's essentially trying to promote his product (like any good project manager would).  Does this make him a credible guru on whether or not his game is a twitch-shooter?  

 

fuzzy bunny no.  

Edited by Xacius, 30 March 2015 - 04:38 PM.

[Nept]

 If the executive producer of Tribes call it a twitch shooter, it's a twitch shooter. You can interpret that however you'd like, you can have your opinion as well.

The executive producer of Tribes: Ascend did not make a twitch shooter, regardless of what he called it during a marketing interview.  Someone who lumps together Quake and Unreal Tournament with Tribes doesn't understand what constitutes a twitch shooter.  It's no different from players claiming the same for CoD (which, ironically, encourages more twitch gameplay than Tribes).

 

My opinion is that you got called out while talking about something you didn't understand.

 

 

It's well known that there was a large push by the high tier player base to eliminate fuel consumption when dodging, #increasethespeeds, and the most vocal proponents for the AC to raise the skill ceiling. One could argue those changes, while not as detrimental as Ascension, fundamentally changed the game all the same, in a really big way.

Would you say that Hawken is more arena shooter than it was at the start of Open Beta? I'm not trying to continue arguing because this is getting silly, but I'd like you honest opinion.

 

There was a large push by almost the entire player base once Ascension was released.  Claiming that it was primarily high-tier players complaining is disingenuous.

 

As for whether Hawken is more arena shooter than it was at Open Beta's start, yes, I think it is.

Edited by Nept, 30 March 2015 - 04:39 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

Haha, ok. You guys are persistent little buggers aren't ya. 

[Superkamikazee]

 

 

As for whether Hawken is more arena shooter than it was at Open Beta's start, yes, I think it is.

 

And do you feel that is a good thing? Before you answer, consider the fact that Unreal Tournament is coming out and will be F2P, and Cliff Belszinski is also developing a F2P arena shooter.

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 04:43 PM.

[Xacius]

 
Let me reiterate, a combination of bad business decisions, meta changes, and then the hail mary to blindly follow "high tier" player advice on meta changes killed Hawken. 
 
So you're suggestion your opinions have made the game better, am I correct with that assessment?
 

Elitism, don't let it happen to you folks. They're right, everyone else is wrong, THE END.

 

Our suggestions were simply that � suggestions.  No one suggested that the devs completely remove fuel consumption from dodging.  They threw it on us and asked us what we thought.  It made the game faster and more dodge-oriented, so a lot of the high-tier players responded positively.  The high-tier community did not kill Hawken.  The developers killed Hawken when they left the game in an unfinished state and went MIA for a year.  

[Aregon]

*Checks discussion*

*150+ replies*

*Checks posts*

*Swearing loudly in frustration intensifies*

*Jumps out window*

[Nept]

And do you feel that is a good thing? Before you answer, consider the fact that Unreal Tournament is coming out and will be F2P, and Cliff Belszinski is also developing a F2P arena shooter.

 

Yeah, I think Hawken has carved its own niche.  I've never enjoyed the slow pace of MechWarrior (asides from MechWarrior: Living Legends), so I was happy to hear that the Hawken developers imagined their mechs as rapid and mobile assault units - which was also the reason I was so disappointed by Ascension.

 

I'm not trying to turn Hawken into Unreal Tournament.  I love Unreal Tournament, but it's its own beast.  I think that Hawken and its turn-rate cap emphasizes a different set of skills, or even some of the same skills in different ways.  The turn-rate cap, for example, emphasizes reaction times by preventing players from catching up to targets with a rapid twitch.

 

That being said, I want Hawken to have a high mechanical skill ceiling.  Certain aspects - like increased movement - go a long way toward raising that ceiling by making it more difficult for players to aim.

[Superkamikazee]

Our suggestions were simply that � suggestions.  No one suggested that the devs completely remove fuel consumption from dodging.  They threw it on us and asked us what we thought.  It made the game faster and more dodge-oriented, so a lot of the high-tier players responded positively.  The high-tier community did not kill Hawken.  The developers killed Hawken when they left the game in an unfinished state and went MIA for a year.  

 

The high tiers "suggestions" were never actually meant to be implemented, just suggestions, got it. Wait, but the high tier responded positively to their suggestions being implemented. It was ADH's fault Hawken died. 

[Nept]

The high tiers "suggestions" were never actually meant to be implemented, just suggestions, got it. Wait, but the high tier responded positively to their suggestions being implemented. It was ADH's fault Hawken died. 

 

I think what he's saying is that removing fuel consumption from dodging was a developer idea that the testers enjoyed.  I also think he's being a bit harsh with that ADH assessment.

[Superkamikazee]

Yeah, I think Hawken has carved its own niche.  I've never enjoyed the slow pace of MechWarrior (asides from MechWarrior: Living Legends), so I was happy to hear that the Hawken developers imagined their mechs as rapid and mobile assault units - which was also the reason I was so disappointed by Ascension.
 
I'm not trying to turn Hawken into Unreal Tournament.  I love Unreal Tournament, but it's its own beast.  I think that Hawken and its turn-rate cap emphasizes a different set of skills, or even some of the same skills in different ways.  The turn-rate cap, for example, emphasizes reaction times by preventing players from catching up to targets with a rapid twitch.
 
That being said, I want Hawken to have a high mechanical skill ceiling.  Certain aspects - like increased movement - go a long way toward raising that ceiling by making it more difficult for players to aim.

 
I think Hawken should be a mech game first and foremost, with arena shooter traits. Hawken in it's current state is an arena shooter first and foremost with some mech undertones (mainly just the mechs physical appearance). All that's left to differentiate Hawken from being a full blown ARENA shooter is the turn rate cap, and that's already gotten a small bump in speed.
 
I want Hawken to be a mech shooter, a balance between mech sim and arcade arena shooter, which was the original vision for Hawken. BALANCE is the key, what we have now is not a balance, it's an arena shooter with a turn rate cap.
 
 

I think what he's saying is that removing fuel consumption from dodging was a developer idea that the testers enjoyed.  I also think he's being a bit harsh with that ADH assessment.

 
He said it not me, I just tried understanding his contradictory statement. I was a bit snide about it, I apologize.

Edit: Were the testers "high tier"?

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 05:37 PM.

[Superkamikazee]

double post

Edited by Superkamikazee, 30 March 2015 - 05:23 PM.

[Nept]

 

I think Hawken should be a mech game first and foremost, with arena shooter traits. Hawken in it's current state is an arena shooter first and foremost with some mech undertones (mainly just the mechs physical appearance). All that's left to differentiate Hawken from being a full blown ARENA shooter is the turn rate cap, and that's already gotten a small bump in speed.

 

I want Hawken to be a mech shooter, a balance between mech sim and arcade arena shooter, which was the original vision for Hawken. BALANCE is the key, what we have now is not a balance, it's an arena shooter with a turn rate cap.

To me, Hawken feels much more mech than arena shooter.  Although there's an experience/relativity component inherent in these types of conversations, I see Hawken as having a number of "mech properties" asides from turn-rate cap.  They have two independently firing weapons, for example.  There are different mech classes with different armour levels, movement capabilities and speeds - even within an overarching grouping (A's, B's, C's).  The mechs experience acceleration, whereby directional shifts while walking take time (although not so much time that it turns cumbersome, a la Ascension).  The mechs can boost forward to travel more quickly.  They can thrust themselves through the air (and contrary to some players, I feel as though the movement speeds through the air are quite slow and "mech-like").  And even now, the mechs have a considerably higher TTK than would be present in arena shooters.  Simply put, I feel as though I'm piloting a relatively fast mech.

 

This is what I would consider an arena shooter (twitch-based):

To me, there are massive differences between that sort of gameplay and Hawken - even if both games possess more movement than has typically been seen within the shooter genre (which I think is a great thing).

 

I think that the turn-rate cap is an important component of Hawken, and I think it interacts with the aforementioned elements to produce a faster-paced mech game.  And while people certainly will have their notions about what is/isn't a mech game, I think that Hawken does a good job matching the game's original "vision".

Edited by Nept, 30 March 2015 - 06:00 PM.