Jump to content

Photo

Nept and DerMax Discuss Hawken's Direction: Concerns and Suggestions

* * * * * 4 votes

  • Please log in to reply
176 replies to this topic

#161
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

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".

 

Fair enough.


No crew


#162
AsianJoyKiller

AsianJoyKiller

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 343 posts

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.....

Just an FYI, I've got personal experience with Todd Harris from my days playing Global Agenda. He's got a great smile, but some of the things he says can be rather silly. Take what he says, especially at PR events, with a grain of salt.



#163
Xacius

Xacius

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 387 posts

Just an FYI, I've got personal experience with Todd Harris from my days playing Global Agenda. He's got a great smile, but some of the things he says can be rather silly. Take what he says, especially at PR events, with a grain of salt.

 

Nah man, executive producer sounds all fancy and fuzzy bunny.  He must know everything there is to know about the game's mechanics.  


Edited by Xacius, 30 March 2015 - 08:16 PM.


#164
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Nah man, executive producer sounds all fancy and fuzzy bunny.  He must know everything there is to know about the game's mechanics.  

 

"Today on Salty Quasi Pro Gamer", still salty. Stay tuned for more...


No crew


#165
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Some outside perspective regarding Hawken. There's quite a few people who feel the way I do that Hawken is too arena shooter and not enough mech shooter atm, and a few who feel it's a decent FPS. But it seems like there is an overwhelming majority who hate that it's a F2P game, and a lot of P2W being thrown around. 

 

http://www.neogaf.co...d.php?t=1011067

 

http://www.neogaf.co...=1011067&page=2

 

I'd argue that devaluing the importance of Hawken becoming (returning) more of a mecha game is a missed opportunity to satisfy the appetite of mech genre fans. I'd argue there is an under served market for mech games that Hawken is no appealing to. The links I posted aren't exactly conclusive of the sentiment towards Hawken, but it is interesting none the less. I'm also not convinced collecting data solely from forum users is of much benefit when so many gamers never visit or join a games official forums.


No crew


#166
RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Some outside perspective regarding Hawken. There's quite a few people who feel the way I do that Hawken is too arena shooter and not enough mech shooter atm, and a few who feel it's a decent FPS. But it seems like there is an overwhelming majority who hate that it's a F2P game, and a lot of P2W being thrown around. 

 

http://www.neogaf.co...d.php?t=1011067

 

http://www.neogaf.co...=1011067&page=2

 

I'd argue that devaluing the importance of Hawken becoming (returning) more of a mecha game is a missed opportunity to satisfy the appetite of mech genre fans. I'd argue there is an under served market for mech games that Hawken is no appealing to. The links I posted aren't exactly conclusive of the sentiment towards Hawken, but it is interesting none the less. I'm also not convinced collecting data solely from forum users is of much benefit when so many gamers never visit or join a games official forums.

 

Just so others don't have to waste their time, most people in those links were complaining about F2P and not about wanting it to be more "mech"...



#167
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Just so others don't have to waste their time, most people in those links were complaining about F2P and not about wanting it to be more "mech"...

 

Yeah I mention that.


No crew


#168
RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts

Yeah I mention that.

Yes... but your post feels quite biased towards "it's not mech enough", which really shouldn't even be a point of discussion as people's ideas of "mech" are strictly opinion.



#169
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Yes... but your post feels quite biased towards "it's not mech enough", which really shouldn't even be a point of discussion as people's ideas of "mech" are strictly opinion.

 

There's no bias, I hate F2P, Hawken should never have been F2P, and I posted that several others shared my ideas of "mech". 


No crew


#170
BaronSaturday

BaronSaturday

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 596 posts
This is something that I think gets missed. In all of the balance conversation, there's never talk of story balance. I like when things feel like they fit in the lore. "why does this technology exist in this universe?" "Who made it?" "Why was it developed?" I want to feel like it all makes sense. HAWKEN has viable mechs. They're fast, lethal, maneuverable. MWO does not. Slow, oversized, lumbering mechs are not a viable war machine. A dude with a RPG takes aim at a leg=game over. HAWKEN mechs, i would imagine, are able to do what they do because they are heavily assisted by computers, they're small, and they're fast. This game simulates one of the best representation of mech warfare I've ever seen. It's a pure mech simulator because this is how a viable war machine must behave. These things make sense from a story perspective. That mech just murdered an entire platoon by itself and it looked like it was dancing while it did it... We need to make those. Everything in this game must make sense from a lore perspective and then be rebalanced where necessary. It's going to be a funny day when we add z and d class mechs and everyone cringes because it makes zero sense to have something faster than the scoot and something slower than a brawler because those represent, in a sensible way, the min/max of what we understand th physics to be. The game is very visceral now because it feels real.

Technician | Fear the Beam | Support
Welcome to the End of Days
KHCwt3J.png
[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[]]]]]]
Smoke this!


#171
RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts


There's no bias, I hate F2P, Hawken should never have been F2P, and I posted that several others shared my ideas of "mech". 

 

The bold italic portion below gives your post a feel of "mech games must fit a certain mold and many people don't play due to it"

 



Some outside perspective regarding Hawken. There's quite a few people who feel the way I do that Hawken is too arena shooter and not enough mech shooter atm, and a few who feel it's a decent FPS. But it seems like there is an overwhelming majority who hate that it's a F2P game, and a lot of P2W being thrown around. 

 

http://www.neogaf.co...d.php?t=1011067

 

http://www.neogaf.co...=1011067&page=2

 

I'd argue that devaluing the importance of Hawken becoming (returning) more of a mecha game is a missed opportunity to satisfy the appetite of mech genre fans. I'd argue there is an under served market for mech games that Hawken is no appealing to. The links I posted aren't exactly conclusive of the sentiment towards Hawken, but it is interesting none the less. I'm also not convinced collecting data solely from forum users is of much benefit when so many gamers never visit or join a games official forums.

 

That's why I felt your post was showed bias.  But perhaps I'm just locking in on that aspect of your post as I hate it when people try to make "mech" fit a mold ;)


 



#172
vonbach

vonbach

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 30 posts

As far as I see it the top priority needs to be matchmaking. Something needs to be done to make 

40-15 losses stop. Its not fun for anyone. 



#173
RedVan

RedVan

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 137 posts

As far as I see it the top priority needs to be matchmaking. Something needs to be done to make
40-15 losses stop. Its not fun for anyone.


Matchmaking is pretty worthless until there is an adaquate population for it to be beneficial.

Buuuut then I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who simply won't pick up the game because they view MM to be terrible, thus being part of the problem...

Gamers these days put far too much focus on MM systems IMO. It hurts more than it helps
  • bacon_avenger likes this

#174
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts

Matchmaking is pretty worthless until there is an adaquate population for it to be beneficial.

Buuuut then I'm sure there are plenty of people out there who simply won't pick up the game because they view MM to be terrible, thus being part of the problem...

Gamers these days put far too much focus on MM systems IMO. It hurts more than it helps

 

It really is a lose lose. And at the same time, all it takes is a few unbalanced matches for gamers to give up on the game. It's very easy to give up on a F2P game, when there's another F2P game to play. Gotta strike when the irons hot, the game and matchmaking almost have to be incredible at launch when the hype is there to get players in to try it out.


No crew


#175
Valimer

Valimer

    Member

  • Members
  • PipPip
  • 18 posts

It really is a lose lose. And at the same time, all it takes is a few unbalanced matches for gamers to give up on the game. It's very easy to give up on a F2P game, when there's another F2P game to play. Gotta strike when the irons hot, the game and matchmaking almost have to be incredible at launch when the hype is there to get players in to try it out.

 

There are other ways to retain players. Dark Souls and Counter-Strike (very anti-noob friendly games) managed to retain new players. Personally, losing in Hawken is still fun to me because giant mechs and explosions and stuff. Hawken just needs to make sure it's multiplayer experience is as streamlined as possible including turning over matches and incentive for players to stay for the entire match. Just fixing those two things would be a huge improvement.

 

Also they could improve and expand on the carrot-on-a-stick game.



#176
Superkamikazee

Superkamikazee

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 471 posts
Both examples you gave are games a player pays for, there's some investment there. If they quit playing and abandon the game they just wasted their money. There's an incentive to continue trying. A free game you just uninstall and move onto the next F2P game, zero investment, and not even a second thought given when quitting.

No crew


#177
Panzermanathod

Panzermanathod

    Advanced Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 711 posts

I have to say... removing remote detonation would, personally, make my Assault play useless.

 

I'm pretty sure I'm not the only one around who plays the game at sub 20-25FPS on a good day. Remote detonation kinda mitigates my relative inability to aim due to a choppy framerate. And once that framerate hits single digits my ability to aim just about dies.






3 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 3 guests, 0 anonymous users