160 replies to this topic

[Derpy Hooves]

Great post and all Nept, especially with revealing the shortcomings the game has had. But my only real fault is the "Season Pass" idea, nothing will entice the throngs of pay2win naysayers more, than offering up everything the game has to offer sans cosmetics, all in one nice neat little bundle ready for purchase. Presenting a season pass would just present the ones your trying to redress with even more fuel for their fire. Look at it from their side of the table for a breif moment, your looking for ways to claim a game is pay2win, sure monitizing items(general disambiguation here for mechs/internals/etc) will ruffle their feathers, get em pissed. But then all of a sudden that game offers everything to be unlocked all at once, the moment they see that, they see that as an attack vector. What better way to stab a fatal wound against the naysayers of the game not being pay2win, then to exploit the very package you intended to stop their attacks with. They see that package as a one time pony up to have full game access in a game where progression is a very real very tangible thing, the existance of such a package is gonna make their heads implode.

 

Not saying the Season Pass idea is bad, but in the attempts to shake off the pay2win stigmata that's a really bad way of going about it. But regardless, no matter what as long as the game has microtransactions of one sort or the other, the pay2win naysayers are always going to be there, and always rearing their heads.

[Pumapaw]

I would bite and pay for a 1 year season pass if it was not in the 50 usd area. Say around 20 USD.

[MomOw]

Toxic rainbows, I understand your point but all depends on what the season pass is made of. If they implement limited free play and full access for a season pass I would be glad to pay for it and I won't mean Pay2win. I don't know if this time of business plan is viable.

 

I have in mind limited "lives" (as candy crush) such as play 5 games in a row, wait 1 hour to get back 1 game ticket, and a season pass that grants an unlimited access to games for a given number of months plus specific cosmetics.

[Derpy Hooves]

Toxic rainbows, I understand your point but all depends on what the season pass is made of. If they implement limited free play and full access for a season pass I would be glad to pay for it and I won't mean Pay2win. I don't know if this time of business plan is viable.

 

I have in mind limited "lives" (as candy crush) such as play 5 games in a row, wait 1 hour to get back 1 game ticket, and a season pass that grants an unlimited access to games for a given number of months plus specific cosmetics.

it's all a matter of balancing what it gives, but a full unlock single payment bosh is gonna start an Hawken hate riot. Microtransactions no matter their form on the pure free2play mind set are the hellspawn of satan himself, they're hated to the ends of the earth no matter what form they take. Even the current cosmetics which have been pointed out time and time again don't give any benefit what so ever, newcomers to the game see it as something that's behind a perverbial pay wall there for it must be pay2win that those parts/paint/taunts must give some sort of advantage.

[Rmait]

If you have ever played WOT you find out in a hurry the money talks in that game and takes all the fun out of it.  After being victimized by Aggressive players who buy an unfair advantage in those games,  people get a bit touchy when they see you can purchase anything at all here. They see it as unbalanced gameplay and no one wants to be cannon fodder.  I could be wrong.

[Beemann]

arena shooters � shooters where skill ceilings are elevated through high mobility, high movement speeds, and high times-to-kill. Although some people enjoy the challenges and ability gaps brought about by such games, most people do not. Simply put, arena shooters have never enjoyed massive audiences.

 

 

Conclusion

 

Combining an arena shooter (and a mech game, to boot � another niche genre) with a funding pitch predicated on massive populations wasn't a great idea. Arguably, combining any shooter (that's not CounterStrike) with a funding pitch predicated on massive populations isn't a great idea. And although Hawken's development had issues apart from its source of funding, none of them (again, imo) tilted its ship so dangerously as this one. [Note: I'm considering Meteor's decision to develop their own delivery and purchase system as part and parcel with its funding pitch]

 

If you're planning on posting about the game's direction, please keep my thoughts in mind. We're a tad tired of seeing people claim that their balance/gameplay suggestion will revitalize the community and attract throngs of eager gamers. It won't. The people who are interested in playing an arena mech shooter will play Hawken. The people who aren't interested will not.

Few issues with the selected portion, specifically the bolded part

Hawken is not an arena shooter.

It has none of the traits of an arena shooter. It is more akin to Team Fortress 2 (and, hilariously, the latest CoD) than it is to Quake or UT

It's a game based around loadouts and roles, with hard limits on movement and mechanically mandated teamplay. This is practically antithecal to Arena Shooter gameplay

 

Additionally, if you're trying to go for the Arena Shooter crowd, then HUD editing, free aim and more freedom of movement are the first things that are going to be asked for. Loadouts/classes are going to be out of place as well

Umbre and I actually went and talked to Arena Shooter players. First thing that got complained about was the turn cap and how its implemented

I've also been spending a lot of time on the Reflex forums, where you get people from pretty much every Arena Shooter community duking it out over every little mechanical variance. The desire for a game that locks down your aim, your speed and restricts you to a loadout is just not there.

 

What's more sensible is to go either in a class-based shooter direction (TF2, Dirty Bomb etc.) or in a more CS-style direction. Trying to go for a niche of a niche is a great way to never really grow the community, and you do have a minimum population to sustain a F2P shooter (see: Tribes Ascend and how it only ever broke even)

 

It's also inaccurate to suggest Arena Shooters have never had a large audience as they were the norm for a while (UT and Quake pulled in HUGE numbers in their day) but that's beside the point

[bacon_avenger]

If you have ever played WOT you find out in a hurry the money talks in that game and takes all the fun out of it.  After being victimized by Aggressive players who buy an unfair advantage in those games,  people get a bit touchy when they see you can purchase anything at all here. They see it as unbalanced gameplay and no one wants to be cannon fodder.  I could be wrong.

And that's one of the major misconceptions we have to clear up for a lot of new players.

 

WoT, each tier of tank is measurably better than the last.  More damage, movement, etc

Hawken, one of the bigger mistakes ADH/MTR made was classifying the mechs into tiers and levels, when they are meaningless.

 

Many new players come into the game, see the 'tiers' and 'levels', and automatically assume that higher tier/level = more powerful mech and weapons, when that is simply not the case.

 

Granted, the internals and items are 'more powerful' in a way as the tiers go up, which was one of the really bad things that the ascension patch brought into the game and still remain (yes, I'd like nothing better than to see them go away).   But a mech, they don't change, and being able to unlock a mech or weapon early isn't pay to win, it's pay to avoid the grind to get more options for different play styles, not outright power.

[Beemann]

And that's one of the major misconceptions we have to clear up for a lot of new players.

 

WoT, each tier of tank is measurably better than the last.  More damage, movement, etc

Hawken, one of the bigger mistakes ADH/MTR made was classifying the mechs into tiers and levels, when they are meaningless.

 

Many new players come into the game, see the 'tiers' and 'levels', and automatically assume that higher tier/level = more powerful mech and weapons, when that is simply not the case.

 

Granted, the internals and items are 'more powerful' in a way as the tiers go up, which was one of the really bad things that the ascension patch brought into the game and still remain (yes, I'd like nothing better than to see them go away).   But a mech, they don't change, and being able to unlock a mech or weapon early isn't pay to win, it's pay to avoid the grind to get more options for different play styles, not outright power.

They also see that certain mechs are destroying them (sometimes for l2p reasons, sometimes due to balance) or that people have access to stuff they dont (powerful items)  and get mad at that. Generally speaking, having gameplay mechanics tied to money is a great way to make people angry, especially when some of those gameplay mechanics are part of a progression system (which loading out a mech with items and internals absolutely is). The best solution (with regards to reducing complaints) has been to make everything available either off the bat (dota, unrealistic for non-valve companies) or for a price (SMITE, Nosgoth etc.), and then constantly tweak and change the balance of the game (keeps meta from becoming stale, fixes balance issues, gives everyone their time to shine as the slightly most powerful)

 

OR you buckle down, come up with a small core of mechanics that dont need to be changed much, get a bunch of goofy gamemodes to match up with your serious-time-investment ones, slap on an admission fee and leave it at that (or sell cosmetics afterwards)

[bacon_avenger]

They also see that certain mechs are destroying them (sometimes for l2p reasons, sometimes due to balance) or that people have access to stuff they dont (powerful items)  and get mad at that. Generally speaking, having gameplay mechanics tied to money is a great way to make people angry, especially when some of those gameplay mechanics are part of a progression system (which loading out a mech with items and internals absolutely is).

That certainly doesn't help either.

 

The ascension patch and it's about-face on the progression system we were constantly told was coming (horizontal) was one of the worst things MTR could have done to keep things moving in a positive direction.

[Nept]

Few issues with the selected portion, specifically the bolded part

Hawken is not an arena shooter.

It has none of the traits of an arena shooter. It is more akin to Team Fortress 2 (and, hilariously, the latest CoD) than it is to Quake or UT

It's a game based around loadouts and roles, with hard limits on movement and mechanically mandated teamplay. This is practically antithecal to Arena Shooter gameplay

 

I stated - as did the developers - that Hawken was a mech arena shooter.  That accounts, at least for myself, for several components (such as the turn-rate cap) that aren't typically found within arena shooters.  As someone who played arena shooters competitively, I place emphasis on movement and mechanical skill ceiling requirements when classifying shooters under the arena rubric.  Nor do I think that classes are antithetical to arena shooters: Unreal 2 XMP, for example, contained the most skill-based and rapid combat I've experienced in an arena shooter while being balanced around three classes (Ranger, Technician, and Heavy).  If you wish, you could classify such games as "Class-based Arena Shooters".

 

Although you seem unimpressed with Hawken's movement system, it's objectively more expansive than the majority of shooters - even when traditional arena shooters are taken into consideration.  In Quake, you're limited to strafe jumping, circle strafing, and a bunny hop; in Unreal Tournament 1 and 3, you're limited to dodging, wall dodging, circle strafing, and bunny hopping.  Hawken allows players to dodge, air dodge, boost, fly, bunny hop, and (kind of) circle strafe.  And although the movements aren't as rapid as they are in something like Unreal Tournament or Toxikk, the inclusion of a turn-rate cap demands fast reactions from the players.  Only games like Unreal Tournament 2003/2004 and Unreal 2 XMP exceed the variety of movement options that are available within Hawken.  Games like Team Fortress 2 fall horrendously short.

 

I'm also uncertain as to why you'd a) compare Hawken to CoD:AW (a game whose only similarity is the ability to dodge) and b) act as though that were an insult (perhaps I'm reading "hilariously" wrong).  Not sure how much CoD:AW you played, but it was an excellent game which failed competitively only because they refused to provide private servers.

 

 

Umbre and I actually went and talked to Arena Shooter players. First thing that got complained about was the turn cap and how its implemented

I've also been spending a lot of time on the Reflex forums, where you get people from pretty much every Arena Shooter community duking it out over every little mechanical variance. The desire for a game that locks down your aim, your speed and restricts you to a loadout is just not there.

 

Many Omni members and associates are top arena shooter players themselves.  I can attest that we had difficulty convincing (or outright failed to convince) most of them to play Hawken - and it was entirely due to the turn-rate cap.  However, those who stuck with the game found themselves enjoying the mech-like mechanics, even with an extensive arena shooter background (myself included).  And as you said yourself, every arena shooter community fights over every little mechanical variance: Unreal Tournament players almost universally revile Quake, and vice versa.  Even subsequent iterations within a series are hated by its community (most UT99 players hated UT2k3, for instance; UT2k3 competition didn't continue into UT2k4; and UT2kx players generally hate UT3).  Let's not pretend that you'll ever find consensus/a universally enjoyed game within those communities.

 

I think the desire for a mech arena shooter is there, as evidenced by the core community which continues to play Hawken, and as evidenced by those new players who enjoy our game for what it is.  It's not going to have a massive playerbase, but neither will Reflex.

 

 

What's more sensible is to go either in a class-based shooter direction (TF2, Dirty Bomb etc.) or in a more CS-style direction. Trying to go for a niche of a niche is a great way to never really grow the community, and you do have a minimum population to sustain a F2P shooter (see: Tribes Ascend and how it only ever broke even)

 

It's also inaccurate to suggest Arena Shooters have never had a large audience as they were the norm for a while (UT and Quake pulled in HUGE numbers in their day) but that's beside the point

 

Hawken has had enough large-scale directional shifts.  What's more sensible - imo, of course - is to build upon what they have now.  I'm surprised that someone who has (supposedly - no offense, I just never see you in-game) played through all of Hawken's iterations would think that continued revisions is the right choice.

 

Also note that "large" is a relative term.  UT and Quake did not pull in what I would consider "HUGE" numbers compared to the behemoths that were named within Hawken's marketing pitch.  In fact, they objectively pulled in miniscule communities compared to league and CS.  I love arena shooters, but let's not pretend that they don't service a niche audience.

 

 

 

 

*Edit* I should also mention the obvious: I enjoy playing Hawken because it is Hawken.  It is not CS, it is not UT; it offers something different - something unique.  CS is still out there; UT4's coming out (and UT2k4 never really stopped); TF2's going strong.  If you want to play one of those games, go play one of those games.

 

I would rather see Hawken stay Hawken.

Edited by Nept, 03 April 2015 - 11:03 PM.

[Beemann]

I stated - as did the developers - that Hawken was a mech arena shooter.  That accounts, at least for myself, for several components (such as the turn-rate cap) that aren't typically found within arena shooters.  As someone who played arena shooters competitively, I place emphasis on movement and mechanical skill ceiling requirements when classifying shooters under the arena rubric.  Nor do I think that classes are antithetical to arena shooters: Unreal 2 XMP, for example, contained the most skill-based and rapid combat I've experienced in an arena shooter while being balanced around three classes (Ranger, Technician, and Heavy).  If you wish, you could classify such games as "Class-based Arena Shooters".

Adding "mech" to it doesnt change the fundamentals of an arena shooter. Tournaments that you took part in dont change the fundamentals of an arena shooter.

 

 

I'm also uncertain as to why you'd a) compare Hawken to CoD:AW (a game whose only similarity is the ability to dodge) and b) act as though that were an insult (perhaps I'm reading "hilariously" wrong).  Not sure how much CoD:AW you played, but it was an excellent game which failed competitively only because they refused to provide private servers.

Hawken's design definitely takes more than a few cues from CoD. AW is an especially good comparison due to the dodge system. I wasnt using it as an insult, but merely finding it amusing since you complained about CoD comparisons in your initial post

 

 

Many Omni members and associates are top arena shooter players themselves.  I can attest that we had difficulty convincing (or outright failed to convince) most of them to play Hawken - and it was entirely due to the turn-rate cap.  However, those who stuck with the game found themselves enjoying the mech-like mechanics, even with an extensive arena shooter background (myself included).  And as you said yourself, every arena shooter community fights over every little mechanical variance: Unreal Tournament players almost universally revile Quake, and vice versa.  Even subsequent iterations within a series are hated by its community (most UT99 players hated UT2k3, for instance; UT2k3 competition didn't continue into UT2k4; and UT2kx players generally hate UT3).  Let's not pretend that you'll ever find consensus/a universally enjoyed game within those communities.

How many actually stuck with the game? We've had a conversion rate of 0. The squabbles I mentioned are generally about small variances, but something like a turn rate cap (particularly Hawken's, as it caps out your overall mouse movement and almost acts as a reverse acceleration if you move your mouse quickly) is far more broadly alienating

 

 

I think the desire for a mech arena shooter is there, as evidenced by the core community which continues to play Hawken, and as evidenced by those new players who enjoy our game for what it is.  It's not going to have a massive playerbase, but neither will Reflex.

Reflex is a passion project more than anything else. It's a 20 dollar arena shooter that aims to make things more inviting for new players, but there's not really this huge expectation of massive success. The devs just want enough money to keep the game going and then the community will handle tournaments, maps, and already handle any matchmaking that occurs. I also never suggested that Hawken follow Reflex

Hawken's systems necessitate upkeep. The game is a F2P shooter hoping to survive off of microtransactions and with numerous mechanics designed around a larger casual playerbase (progression systems, the technician and rocketeer etc.). Hawken has lost actual thousands of players and the current playerbase is under 800 peak for March. You also have to take into account the fact that a lot of those users are people who are curious about the new dev team/interested in what they'll do. Should the game stay static many of them will likely leave again

 

 

Hawken has had enough large-scale directional shifts.  What's more sensible - imo, of course - is to build upon what they have now.  I'm surprised that someone who has (supposedly - no offense, I just never see you in-game) played through all of Hawken's iterations would think that continued revisions is the right choice.

Hawken had shifts towards entirely different design philosophies. The goal honestly should be to decide on an identity for the game and move towards it. If it's to be a competitive game, there's a number of mechanics and lack of content (modes and maps specifically) that are going to hinder its progression in that regard (especially if it's to be one of those tournament circuit games)

If it's going to be a casual shooter, there's still mechanics that will need to be changed as they're unnecessarily hard on new players

 

There are core gameplay concepts that simply do not work. There are maps and visual effects that do not function well

The fact that Adhesive added rotten boards to their house does not mean that the rotten boards that were there in the first place should stay

 

 

Also note that "large" is a relative term.  UT and Quake did not pull in what I would consider "HUGE" numbers compared to the behemoths that were named within Hawken's marketing pitch.  In fact, they objectively pulled in miniscule communities compared to league and CS.  I love arena shooters, but let's not pretend that they don't service a niche audience.

DOOM had a larger userbase than Windows 95. Quake's was one of the largest launches of its time and it was one of the first properly supported online games (Quakeworld). The difference between them and League of Legends is that the total population purchasing/playing games was a lot larger when the latter hit. They still represented a massive portion of video game sales/profits for their time

 

Saying they weren't is like saying they weren't high tech because they're worse graphically than modern games

Edited by Beemann, 03 April 2015 - 11:39 PM.

[?FTD? eXeon]

 

Why are you even arguing about this game, is it just to argue with someone? Dont get me wrong I love arguing I'm sure xacius can tell you all about it! But seriously, from looking at your account on heroku it looks like you spent more time coming up with names for your mechs than actually trying to understand the game: http://hawken.heroku...om/user/beemann

[Nept]

Re: Beeman

 

I'm not going to spend any more time debating what constitutes an arena shooter with you.  I don't mean that in a harsh way, but it's not an effective use of my writing time.  I've stated my opinion, and you've stated yours: people can make of them as they will.  Last thing I will note on the topic, though, is that adding another word to a category description does change that category.  That's just the way that words and categories work.  J-pop, for instance, is very different from pop.

 

Couple things I will comment on quickly:

 

 

Hawken's systems necessitate upkeep. The game is a F2P shooter hoping to survive off of microtransactions and with numerous mechanics designed around a larger casual playerbase (progression systems, the technician and rocketeer etc.). Hawken has lost actual thousands of players and the current playerbase is under 800 peak for March. You also have to take into account the fact that a lot of those users are people who are curious about the new dev team/interested in what they'll do. Should the game stay static many of them will likely leave again

 

IIRC, the new developers stated that Hawken is now stable; that is, they're not losing money.  I don't think they're feeling much pressure re: establishing the enormous playerbase which Meteor originally envisioned (or lied about to their investors).  I think with new content (e.g., maps and cosmetics) and server systems, Hawken will do just fine.

 

 

Hawken had shifts towards entirely different design philosophies. The goal honestly should be to decide on an identity for the game and move towards it. If it's to be a competitive game, there's a number of mechanics and lack of content (modes and maps specifically) that are going to hinder its progression in that regard (especially if it's to be one of those tournament circuit games)

If it's going to be a casual shooter, there's still mechanics that will need to be changed as they're unnecessarily hard on new players

 

Yes, Hawken did shift toward different design philosophies.  I think it is in a good place now, and I would like to see it remain in that place.  I don't think pursuing the "e-sports" path is the correct decision, as I've yet to see that trajectory work well for any shooter that's not CS.  Nor do I think that the game's mechanics need to be dumbed down to fulfill a casual shooter role.  Many of the issues that confound new players can be eased with revisions to the leveling system, the tutorials, and server segregation.

 

 

DOOM had a larger userbase than Windows 95. Quake's was one of the largest launches of its time and it was one of the first properly supported online games (Quakeworld). The difference between them and League of Legends is that the total population purchasing/playing games was a lot larger when the latter hit. They still represented a massive portion of video game sales/profits for their time

 

Saying they weren't is like saying they weren't high tech because they're worse graphically than modern games

 

My point is that arena shooters have not constituted a large proportion of market share for a very long time, and they have never competed with the numbers associated with CS and league.  That point was made primarily to indicate that Meteor's population projections were woefully unrealistic (and those projections were  based directly on games like league).  You've misconstrued that argument to mean that arena shooters have never enjoyed popularity.  They have.  And yes, when they were some of the only games available, they maintained healthy PC communities.   My point stands, though: arena shooters do not enjoy the same popularity enjoyed by games like CS or league, nor have they ever reached anywhere near those numbers.  Both of those elements are more relevant to the discussion at hand than discussing population proportions between games with over a decade of time between them.

Edited by Nept, 04 April 2015 - 12:32 AM.

[Beemann]

IIRC, the new developers stated that Hawken is now stable; that is, they're not losing money.  I don't think they're feeling much pressure re: establishing the enormous playerbase which Meteor originally envisioned (or lied about to their investors).  I think with new content (e.g., maps and cosmetics) and server systems, Hawken will do just fine.

Gonna need a source on that. Another thing to take into account is the fact that a small dedicated playerbase is not necessarily going to be pumping the same amount of cash into the game over time. Most players are not your F2P/Mobile Whales, and so will spend more sporadically. It's possible that Hawken has somehow managed to only get consistent spenders, but I sincerely doubt it

 

They also haven't developed new content yet. We'll see how the trend holds (if you'll recall from Tribes, it doesn't always)

 

Yes, Hawken did shift toward different design philosophies.  I think it is in a good place now, and I would like to see it remain in that place.  I don't think pursuing the "e-sports" path is the correct decision, as I've yet to see that trajectory work well for any shooter that's not CS.  Nor do I think that the game's mechanics need to be dumbed down to fulfill a casual shooter role.  Many of the issues that confound new players can be eased with revisions to the leveling system, the tutorials, and server segregation.

And that place is?

I dont think the game has a chance going down the full-on esports path. Too many bridges have been burned and too much of the game directly works against spectated competition. The point is more so that many mechanics actively work towards a static metagame and boring predictable combinations, and this has been an issue with various balance combinations. The way most companies fix this is to embrace the chaos and start tweaking balance regularly (as in constant balance changes to multiple mechs and weapons every few patches but no major gameplay changes unless things become too dead-set around a specific playstyle regardless of the aforementioned changes)

 

Additionally, server segregation is a luxury afforded to games with larger playerbases. While the current method is not ideal, there's not a whole lot you can do to sort 800 people (slightly more than peak concurrent users) by region and skill level into balanced matches. Taking into account that there's ultimately going to be a tier that is a miniscule percent of that population on either end of the bell graph and you have two populations of players who can't find many matches, and the ones they do find are half-full and imbalanced. In turn, they'll smurf and mess up the rest of the population's matches, or they'll leave

 

As far as tutorials go, they don't really fix the bits that turn players off the game. Knowing why something feels clunky and awful doesnt make it not clunky and awful anymore. I also assume that said tutorials aren't going to tell players which items/mechs/etc aren't worth playing past a certain point, meaning that newbie pitfalls are still going to exist without (once again) more than a few balance changes

 

 

My point is that arena shooters have not constituted a large proportion of market share for a very long time, and they have never competed with the numbers associated with CS and league.  That point was made primarily to indicate that Meteor's population projections were woefully unrealistic (and those projections were  based directly on games like league).  You've misconstrued that argument to mean that arena shooters have never enjoyed popularity.  They have.  And yes, when they were some of the only games available, they maintained healthy PC communities.   My point stands, though: arena shooters do not enjoy the same popularity enjoyed by games like CS or league, nor have they ever reached anywhere near those numbers.  Both of those elements are more relevant to the discussion at hand than discussing population proportions between games with over a decade of time between them.

If your point was that a genre that no longer gets major releases is not a considerable portion of the market, that probably would have been a better thing to say than "always been niche"

Your point also hinges on Hawken being an arena shooter. It's niche status had a lot more to do with its perceived P2win status, grind, bugginess and adherence to mechanics that are understandably unpopular (mouse speed based turn rate cap)

The most often praised portions of Hawken, across the board, were the mechs and movement, much in the same way that they were praised in Titanfall, and the extent to which the latter has been praised in Advanced Warfare.

[Nept]

Gonna need a source on that.

 

Just message capnjosh and ask him, or trawl through the various interviews and twitch events they've hosted (there was one today, for example).

 

As for the rest, you can find my opinions and counterarguments within the posts I've already written.

 

 

If your point was that a genre that no longer gets major releases is not a considerable portion of the market, that probably would have been a better thing to say than "always been niche"

 

 

*Edit* Also, I never said that arena shooters have "always been niche".  I said that arena shooters "have never enjoyed massive audiences".  I also took the time to explain the truth of that statement in the previous reply.  If you're going to play at semantics and quoting, at least get the wording right.

 

Christ.

Edited by Nept, 04 April 2015 - 05:16 AM.

[Krellus]

Imo Hawken would have better off as a $80 retail game. Everything unlocked. Add a few cosmetics for extra $$. Not too late to go this way...

[defekt]

Imo Hawken would have better off as a $80 retail game. Everything unlocked. Add a few cosmetics for extra $$. Not too late to go this way...

The last time I ever paid over 50 quid for a computer game was exactly that: the last time ever.  IMHO Hawken isn't worth more than �20 all-in given its current condition.  Things may change, of course, and I hope (once again - Hawken is on its sixth chance now from me) that they do.

[Mergaz]

Well I would pay to have an unlock all mechs and internal. items. Cosmetic items could be unlocked individually. It would be a good model, it would not P2W and the grind could be removed if the player wanted to be competitive as quickly as possible.

[Marloth]

For what little it's worth, I feel the term "Season Pass" alone is a loaded, dangerous one to put out there. I know I hear it and it counjours up in my minds eye exclusive items, time-limited maps, and other 'premium' style things, and makes me wary of any game touting it as a feature.

 

I've not been playing too long, I have less than 100 hours against the game at this point, and I've not engaged with the community much either.. but given the seeming re-birth that came out of the blue has gotten me to come out and see what the noise is about. My opinion is literally a casual player to the community, though to a game that I have enjoyed those hours spent.

 

One of several things I clearly remember was being wary of spending any of the reward MC/HC for the longest time after making a MC purchase in error, and discovering it was mine regardless. I chalked it down to "Lesson learned" and that there's no "Economy" perse in the game so not selling back makes sense I guess. But from a newer player perspective it did burn a little.

 

Adding on that the community was effectively "outside" the game with a Teamspeak server and such, it wasn't much of a hurdle sure, but it was a hurdle nontheless for a new player - I'd be joining a random TS server and doing what now?

 

The new player experience of "How I mech shoot" was pretty good from what I remember though, The Newbie Experience to purchasing really could do with streamlining a little for sure, as mentioned above the game already clamours towards a niche market on it's own, narrowing that doorway isn't going to be beneficial to anyone in the long term.

 

As for the monetisation aspect, I'd be curious to see what people thought about one entirely spitball idea. I fully expect to be eaten alive for this.

 

As a new player you recieve a basic mech, and say a 15 day "Test Drive" licence to use any mechs available whilst earning your unlocks and such. This gives them the chance to spend a few weeks playing around with different mechs.

 

They can buy the internals and keep them and have the first few purchases at a lower cost. At the end of the 15 days, the player can choose to "refund" internals they don't want, or purchase mechs they want to keep at a one-time lower cost?

 

One risk I feel is players feeling a bait & switch of the first hit's free.. so maybe have that throughout the new player experience via tutorial it's shown how this works by having you actually "purchase" your first mech, how the HC/MC system works.

 

You do the tutorial missions, learn how to pilot, then you can optionally go though a tutorial on how the market "works" by having to actually buy the first free mech?

 

At the end of the 15 days, whilst reminding the player as they get more experience they can purchase these mechs with the MC earned by play.

Offer say an external "Licence" to pilot an amount of mechs - In actuality however there is no restricting people, this is just an excuse for how the bundles work and to conceptualise the idea of skipping the experience gained to get the HC

 

Put the MC value there right next to it, so they can make the choice perhaps?

One can be for an arbitrary number of �10, that buys you 3 mechs, 1 of each weight class - player can choose.

�20 for 2 of each weight class - again player choses.. and so on.

�35 "Veteran" deal basically unlocks all mechs, and default internals, with an amount of HC to spend.

 

The actual figures are of course up for variation, given at the moment the Scout Mech bundle goes for 2232 MC, which means a purchase of �15 if I wanted to get it via HC, leaving 1348 MC in my wallet for .. something I guess. Someone who knows how these microtransaction deal will likely correct me as to why this isn't a viable option, or such - as I said, this is literally a this came to me whilst reading grade idea.

[Decoy101x]

Hawken is not an arena shooter.

$0.02

[Elite_is_salty]

#y'allHaveNoLife

[Rmait]

Hey these guys are just trying to help,  no need to flame them.  I would expect each player can express an opinion without the trolls coming out.  Anyone have a better idea to help keep new players from feeling they have been had and bailing out?  i think everyone was a newbie at some point,  had to start somewhere.

 

OK I have my fireproof suit on,  Ready.

[Nue7ra1]

Through two waves of funding, Meteor entertainment raised roughly twenty-eight million on the claim that Hawken's numbers could compete with League of Legends':

 

 

 

REALLY? Did they really try that? wow.

[comic_sans]

 

REALLY? Did they really try that? wow.

 

Most of it got spent on stuff that wasn't the game!  Like the movie; because, as we all know, movies based off of videogames are always great and not insults to your intelligence.  They were originally going for some big multi-format push like whatever that sy-fy original show/game was, and the game is what's left after adh evaporated.

 

I'm not the world's most perfect source so do your own digging if it interests you, but there you go; most of it is well summarized on the first page of the thread.  Glad to see the new team at least feels like focusing on the game.

Edited by cosmic_spand, 27 June 2015 - 08:45 PM.

[Massive_Assailant_Stingray]

Desire to argue in a dead thread about what constitutes an arena shooter: Reaching critical.

[CraftyDus]

Desire to argue in a dead thread about what constitutes an arena shooter: Reaching critical.

 

do it

[Nept]

Oh god, don't.  I've enough on my plate atm.

[Hek_naw]

It is time to

[dorobo]

Anyone mentioned adhessive were in the process or intended to make a moba mode?..

[DallasCreeper]

the tiered system of unlocking mechs feeds the idea that the mechs at the top are the best.  I think it would be a good idea to let players choose any one starting mech for free (Pokemon style).  This, in conjunction with well-equipped test drive mechs, would go some way to making new players realise that experience counts for far more than the mech itself and the game is not P2W.

 

 

If you wanted to do it "pokemon style", limit the choice to the zerker, the brawler or the assault and only after the VR is completed.

Great idea, but IMHO, new pilots could spend some time on the CRT- Recruit (Get it up to rank 3?), before they choose their new, mech: zerker, Assault, or Vanguard. I believe Vanguard would be easier for new pilots to learn than Brawler, as it is less punishing when it comes to positioning, and the stock SMC is a very simple weapon compared to the FLAK.

[Hocisern]

This post rings true given the payment model and success of Overwatch. 

[crockrocket]

Holy necro....

[ATX22]

Holy necro....

 

No kidding... but an undead message board is better than a regular old dead message board.

[Nov8tr]

[ATX22]

 

 

 

But it's the one that was found anyway.

[Nov8tr]

DIE! DIE! DIE!

 

[dorobo]

[6ixxer]

... the most overlooked (and imo, the strongest) is the fact that players will look toward anything but themselves when explaining a loss. It's never their fault. No, it's the lag. Or the matchmaking. Or the hackers. Or the pay2win players in their pay2win mechs that are umpteen times better than yours. ...

I know I'm crap.
I know that through repetition I will become slightly less crap.
This is probably why I haven't chucked a hissy and left like so many others who just don't get it.

[6ixxer]

Blah Blah... success of Overwatch.

I really don't want to discuss a niche free to play vs a full purchase game from a big budget AAA developer.

[nepacaka]

air-dodge kill this game