138 replies to this topic

[CraftyDus]

Iirc not smite but Wildstar (not that it's important)

 

Ya that might have been it. Are people still playing that?

[Hyginos]

The weight class restrictions as I recall were mostly to deal with C stacks in TDM. There was also a max 1 hellfire mech and 1 sabot at that time so perhaps the motivations of that rule set are not the best to draw from.

 

I don't think the team compositions would look that different in 6v6 MA if you removed the max 3 rule and left only the one of each mech restriction, but that is arguably because there only about 3 viable(or at least meta/common) mechs per weight class. You would probably see the teams' weight vary with the size of the map more than currently, but I doubt many teams would choose to run stacks of any weight class over 4.

[CraftyDus]

I suggest you first get gud and then start playing couch expert; a lot of what you've said in this and the previous posts is empirically wrong. This is an ad hominem, but a warranted one.

 

it's not an ad hominem in context of the original post. 

 

Dermax makes an important point relevant to the discussion.

 

In fact the video states emphatically that good counterplay in multiplayer game design provides the very groundwork for player communities to be able to better differentiate the "gud" from the "get guds"

 

example from op video

 

[popeco]

If your scout's HP is at about 80%, and you're in safety near your teammates chipping away from the enemy line, are you in a bad position? No? Well, you're one sharpie powershot away from watching your mech's ragdoll doing a goofy somersault.

 

As some others have mentioned, being in a location where you can be powershot by ss =/= being in safety, imo.  I find that there tend to be plenty of places to take cover and safely heal on every map, especially if you have a decent awareness of the opposing team.  

 

I also agree that this is all part of the inherent risk of playing an A class, and part of what makes the game fun (for me).  If I have consistent trouble being blown away by SS in a match where I'm playing A class, I change my mech to try to adapt to the situation. YMMV

[crockrocket]

Ya that might have been it. Are people still playing that?

As far as I know it never really took off. Idk not my type of game

[Flifang]

I think the mechanics of getting the drop on someone in Hawken are in a very good spot.

 

There's a limited selection of mech-item combinations that can alpha-kill a full health A-class mech (the only class of mech where this can happen), and the mech performing the alpha has to be within about an A-class dodge's worth of distance to pull it off successfully. If the mech performing the alpha misses any of it's three simultaneous shots, then it's secondary and items are now on cooldown, and the other mech can respond with a host of counters.

 

Getting the drop on a mech in Hawken is much riskier than it appears. It requires good situational awareness to pull off in such a fashion that the person getting the drop maintains the advantage all the way through the fight - and that can take a long time given Hawken's TTK. Most <2100 MMR pilots that I see trying to get the drop haven't checked their radar, so when spot a single unaware enemy, they think that they've got this one in the bag. They haven't considered if that enemy is intentionally positioned to be within retreating distance to a nearby ally in the event of an alpha (which, as a rule of thumb, is a distance I always try to maintain), or if their enemy have a disabling item like an EMP, or if they're carrying shields (which can be a wonderful escape item).

 

In short, getting the drop on someone in this game is a high-risk, high-reward maneuver, and I think it equally rewards players on both sides who prepare and practice for such an event.

I want to point out that a full pred trap will in fact one-shot a sharpie from full.

 

Back to my previous statement, I think the word "punish" is incorrect when assessing the action-reaction of combat. Unless we're talking about specifically punishing a predicted maneuver with a tow rocket for example I feel outcome is much more appropriate, as the only thing that applies a "goodness" or a "wrongness" of a decision made from many, many possible decisions are how we see their outcomes. In the grand scheme of things every choice we make is neutral. You never know what stupid tactic will catch an opponent off guard. 

 

Hestoned for instance gets me nearly every damn time with that stand in place and shoot fuzzy bunny instead of being a slippery little bastard like most scouts are in the face of a G2 raider. I'm sometimes over predictive and wait for a dodge to shoot, especially when in the case of the G2 raider that 3.75 second weapon reload time would be a death sentence.  

 

Sure, many choices you can easily make in combat or in pre-combat positioning can end up making survival much harder but I feel like the nature of choice, along with the sheer number of options you have at any one given second self balances pretty well. The more you play the more you will begin to learn what works best and what can end up causing you to die pretty often.

 

Other than that, I don't have much else to add. Carry on.

[Flifang]

The inherent danger is there alright, but there is no reward. Ideally, you're supposed to be a glass cannon in an A class mech -- with little HP but high mobility and high dps. The first two parts are there, but the last one isn't: your dps is comparable to that of the other classes. No, you can't do damage "more quickly" in an A class.

 

 

Okay, one last thing. Re-read the thread again and I want to address this.

 

That would be the case if hawken was purely a cookie cutter hack and slash style game with at most two buttons.

 

But with how much individual mechs vary in stats that share the same weight class, primary weapon options that can and do completely change how a mech is played most efficiently, internals that change how your mech performs when different types of criteria are met, and items that can add evern more utility to your arsenal. 

 

A raider might run a shield set up because the player likes to do "the dance." But the way a T32 raider shield plays versus how an EOC raider shield plays might be very different. That's also depending on the player's "temperament" when battling the enemy and their internal setup.

 

Hawken is build on a sea of almost viable if not completely viable options that affect how you play. But that's why certain setups that are completely broken and/or above the rest stand out so much, and why some of the more situational, yet still effective items and internals are passed up due to personal preference or all around functionality. 

[Nept]

 

I'm saying that I think the moves Adhesives executives told them to make in the Ascension and Steam updates were (as implied by the devs at Adhesive themselves) meant to broaden the appeal of Hawken to fans of twitch shooters (which were incredibly popular in 2012-2014) - as twitch shooter fans who played Hawken were saying it felt slow and took too long to get kills.  It was a move to help cater the game to a demographic that they weren't winning over - and it is my opinion that it was a useless effort.  Hawken will not, and should never have tried to, appeal to any specific demographic (other than "gamers") - because it is simply different.  And that's what I love(d) about it - "Finally, a game that breaks the mold - a game that requires some footwork and thought, a game with a truly endless skill ceiling."

 

The ttk decrease was Vanashinkaku's brainchild.  Its primary purpose was to decrease the dominance of deathballs - tech-supported deathballs, especially.  And it worked.  Sticking with your teammates generally remains a good idea, but it's no longer the auto-win it once was: flanking attacks finally have impact, tech-supported mechs aren't invulnerable, and strong players can dismantle multiple opponents.  Previously, flankers couldn't secure kills (insufficient damage vs high health pools; the opposing team would notice their first volley and chase them off/kill them), tech-supported mechs were impossible for individuals to destroy (or even chase away - again, health pools too high), and outnumbering an opponent was essentially an auto-win.

 

In my opinion, the changes brought by Vana's ttk drop were almost across-the-board positive.  You want tactics?  The TTK drop allowed for (vastly) more tactical options.  You want individual skill?  The TTK drop allows skilled players to outplay multiple opponents.  And yes, perhaps killing people more quickly appeals to your average "twitch" gamer too.  But were that their sole motivation, Adhesive would've simply removed the turn-rate cap.

 

 

But there was always more of a chance before the faster speeds and lower ttk.  While 'getting the drop' is always preferable, it's far more enjoyable to have time and options for counterplay to "the drop".  One of the most satisfying moments in any online game is being able to use your skills, tactics and strategies to overcome a player who got the drop on you and come out in a pinch.

 

 

That's one of the best Scout players in the game getting the drop on one of the worst CQC mechs in the game.  And while I may not've "come out in a pinch," neither did Dave.  There are still plenty of opportunities for counterplay because Hawken still has one of the highest TTK's of any shooter.  In fact, the only counterplay option that's been eliminated by the ttk drop is guaranteed retreat to friendly forces - which, in my opinion, isn't particularly "tactical".

Edited by Nept, 20 August 2016 - 03:06 AM.

[Kopra]

looking at meraple's primary stats, he's in the mid to low 30% on many of his most-used primaries

a better example would be kopra

 

The stats for weapons' hit accuracy are really not reflecting the actual performance. What constitutes a hit or a miss? I definitely don't hit 40% EOC as a Raider and with an AR Assault the primary damage contribution is certainly more than 30 DPS (~30% of 99) when it matters. There's something wonky there, a better metric would be empirical TTK and when against Meraple it's definitely on the short side. In games I wouldn't go in a straight fight against him without an armor-, orbs-, EMP- or numbers advantage or if I had an other choice.

[CraftyDus]

The stats for weapons' hit accuracy are really not reflecting the actual performance. What constitutes a hit or a miss? I definitely don't hit 40% EOC as a Raider and with an AR Assault the primary damage contribution is certainly more than 30 DPS (~30% of 99) when it matters. There's something wonky there, a better metric would be empirical TTK and when against Meraple it's definitely on the short side. In games I wouldn't go in a straight fight against him without an armor-, orbs-, EMP- or numbers advantage or if I had an other choice.

Another thing to keep in mind is all these numbers and all this conjecture don't include the effect of all the Overwatch he's been playing. Perhaps it wouldn't hurt his aim too drastically because Hawken has huge hitboxes. But a lot of Overwatch undoubtedly softens a decent players aim. Perhaps not a great player such as our beloved Meraple. One can hope.

Edited by CraftyDus, 20 August 2016 - 05:29 AM.

[Xacius]

Back to my previous statement, I think the word "punish" is incorrect when assessing the action-reaction of combat. Unless we're talking about specifically punishing a predicted maneuver with a tow rocket for example I feel outcome is much more appropriate, as the only thing that applies a "goodness" or a "wrongness" of a decision made from many, many possible decisions are how we see their outcomes. In the grand scheme of things every choice we make is neutral. You never know what stupid tactic will catch an opponent off guard. 

Whether by prediction or reaction, "punish" is most definitely the accurate term when discussing the exploitation of an enemy's mistake.  In the grand scheme of things, every choice we make is neutral?  Yeah, sure, on a cosmic scale.  In a local setting, however, individual choices often impact the outcome of engagements.  If a decision has a positive or negative outcome, then it can't ultimately be neutral.  Initially it might be neutral, but what the fuzzy bunny does that matter if there's never an end result?  I don't see how this is relevant in any capacity.  

 

"Stupid tactics" that catch opponents off guard often only work once or twice.  For example, in TPG Season 1, I was playing with BSB.  In one of our matches, I decided to hide out on a bigger map�not just me, mind you.   The entire team.  After obtaining a decent score lead, we hid near one of the silos on Frontline.  Since it was TDM, the enemy team's only course of action was to find us and try to even the score before the time limit ran up.  They spent 5 minutes trying to find us, and by the time they did the match was basically over.  This worked once, and was hilarious, but ultimately the best tactics are those that persist.  

Edited by Xacius, 21 August 2016 - 03:14 PM.

[Flifang]

Whether by prediction or reaction, "punish" is most definitely the accurate term when discussing the exploitation of an enemy's mistake.  In the grand scheme of things, every choice we make is neutral?  Yeah, sure, on a cosmic scale.  In a local setting, however, individual choices often impact the outcome of engagements.  If a decision has a positive or negative outcome, then it can't ultimately be neutral.  Initially it might be neutral, but what the fuzzy bunny does that matter if there's never an end result?  I don't see how this is relevant in any capacity.  

 

"Stupid tactics" that catch opponents off guard often only work once or twice.  For example, in TPG Season 1, I was playing with BSB.  In one of our matches, I decided to hide out on a bigger map�not just me, mind you.   The entire team.  After obtaining a decent score lead, we hid near one of the silos on Frontline.  Since it was TDM, the enemy team's only course of action was to find us and try to even the score before the time limit ran up.  They spent 5 minutes trying to find us, and by the time they did the match was basically over.  This worked once, and was hilarious, but ultimately the best tactics are those that persist.  

My point with the positive/negative versus neutral argument was to point out that everything you view is up to you how you classify it. The human mind sees exactly what it wants to believe it sees. It feels about things exactly however it wants to. I'm certain I don't have to tell you that, but now my point, although moot; probably makes more sense. Maybe? I dunno.
 

As for the "stupid tactics" piece, maybe I'm just a slow learner. I mean, it only took me personally what? 3 years to be able to play on a level around people like you or hestoned even a little. Would you consider using a hologram as a stupid tactic? I ask because I'm curious if your opinion would change if we were to test this on one of those servers that has no radar or indicators. Dave was a sucker for my holos during those DMs with radar and indicators removed.

 

But oh yeah. I totally buy one personal experience from one of the kings of competitive hawken as being a norm in competitive hawken all together.

[crockrocket]

My point with the positive/negative versus neutral argument was to point out that everything you view is up to you how you classify it. The human mind sees exactly what it wants to believe it sees. It feels about things exactly however it wants to. I'm certain I don't have to tell you that, but now my point, although moot; probably makes more sense. Maybe? I dunno.

As for the "stupid tactics" piece, maybe I'm just a slow learner. I mean, it only took me personally what? 3 years to be able to play on a level around people like you or hestoned even a little. Would you consider using a hologram as a stupid tactic? I ask because I'm curious if your opinion would change if we were to test this on one of those servers that has no radar or indicators. Dave was a sucker for my holos during those DMs with radar and indicators removed.

But oh yeah. I totally buy one personal experience from one of the kings of competitive hawken as being a norm in competitive hawken all together.

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm guessing xacius would consider using holos a "gimmicky" tactic much like his example. It may work a few times but people will catch on quickly.

THC actually used holos quite effectively against us during a couple scrims s3. Not sure how that went against other teams. In any case, it's the sort of thing that you learn to play against fairly quickly.

[Flifang]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm guessing xacius would consider using holos a "gimmicky" tactic much like his example. It may work a few times but people will catch on quickly.

THC actually used holos quite effectively against us during a couple scrims s3. Not sure how that went against other teams. In any case, it's the sort of thing that you learn to play against fairly quickly.

Probably. But were those on servers without radar or indicators? Those are a lot harder to distinguish even from your own team without radar or indicators unless you've memorized what everyone's mech looks like.

[Xacius]

Not trying to put words in anyone's mouth, but I'm guessing xacius would consider using holos a "gimmicky" tactic much like his example. It may work a few times but people will catch on quickly.

THC actually used holos quite effectively against us during a couple scrims s3. Not sure how that went against other teams. In any case, it's the sort of thing that you learn to play against fairly quickly.

The main reason why that worked is because you made the other team rage, lol.  They thought you were taunting/disrespecting them.  I found it hilarious, as there's really nothing in the rules against it.  

 

Probably. But were those on servers without radar or indicators? Those are a lot harder to distinguish even from your own team without radar or indicators unless you've memorized what everyone's mech looks like.

TPG S3 had radar and HUD.  The only gameplay limitations were internal restrictions (repair kit/extractor ban), no map abuse (climbing out of the map into out of bounds areas), and class restrictions.  

[crockrocket]

The main reason why that worked is because you made the other team rage, lol. They thought you were taunting/disrespecting them. I found it hilarious, as there's really nothing in the rules against it.

TPG S3 had radar and HUD. The only gameplay limitations were internal restrictions (repair kit/extractor ban), no map abuse (climbing out of the map into out of bounds areas), and class restrictions.

Oh I meant holograms not holo taunts

Edited by crockrocket, 21 August 2016 - 08:54 PM.

[Silverfire]

The main reason why that worked is because you made the other team rage, lol. They thought you were taunting/disrespecting them. I found it hilarious, as there's really nothing in the rules against it.

TPG S3 had radar and HUD. The only gameplay limitations were internal restrictions (repair kit/extractor ban), no map abuse (climbing out of the map into out of bounds areas), and class restrictions.

Less the team and more like select individuals thought that. I didn't even notice the holotaunts.

[devotion]

Dave was a sucker for my holos during those DMs with radar and indicators removed.

the key takeaway here is that dave is a sucker.

[dorobo]

Death/Sex Balls previously was an issue indeed. Meta back then became very stale.

I don't mind slight increase in ttk but it's all very relative to let's say what a heavy mech it is.. In a brawler an a class is furked on the other hand vs Grenadier in the open tryin to hit dancing scout is much much harder especially if it activelly tryin to avoid you. Do everyone plays brawlers? no..