22 replies to this topic

[Beemann]

So one of the things that has irked me for a while with Hawken is the way in which resources are handled. The game works off of an infinite ammo system tied to a regenerating resource, a UT-style dodge (only the basic dodge, no other manoeuvres) and sprint system tied to another regenerating resource, and health that can be regenerated via the repair function/technicians/orbs. Items are no better, being either cooldown based or entirely finite in prior versions of Hawken (unless this changed post-steam launch)

 

All of these are separate resources that can be replenished without any interaction with other players or any other portion of the map

 

The issue with this is that it doesn't provide any real depth or incentive to risk certain fights or anything. In Global Agenda and in ye olde Tribes while using the laser rifle, both jetpack fuel and weapon usage were tied to a single resource, meaning "fight or flight" became a game mechanic and strategic choice rather than a fear response, In Quake/UT/etc. your weapons, ammo, health and armor are tied to specific points on the map, meaning you and your opponent can and will fight over resources to stay alive, gain advantage etc. In Team Fortress (as in Quake fortress, TF Classic or Fortress Forever) and Wolfenstein: Enemy territory, you were given weapons/ammo/health etc right off the bat, but replenishing them required specific positions or teammate intervention, meaning you either needed coordination or map control. Said teammates also did not have infinite resources either (with some minor exceptions like static Dispensers)

 

In these games ammo, health, armor etc are not only resources the player must manage, but also incentives to go to certain locations or team up with certain people. In Hawken you're just given all of those and you have the power to just get more. This not only leads to an easier game with far less depth, but also removes alternate victory conditions. In Quake I can, as the losing player, steal red armor or knock off just enough of my opponent's health to force them to divert and grab other resources. I can then push that advantage and attempt to gain more map control, so that the next big fight we have will involve a hefty resource bonus on my side. In TFC/FF my goal in a CTF match is not to fight my opponent, but to merely stop them from taking my flag or removing my team's defenses, and to make sure my team can take their flag. An enemy that gets away with very little health and is out of the next fight is as good as a ded enemy, since he'll use up team resources (ammo/health pickups, throwable medpacks)  and we still get a 1 man advantage.

 

You also have the movement part of the equation. Hawken currently sits between the Arena Shooter standard movement no-resource style (UT is based off of a short cooldown, Quake/Warsow/Xonotic/Reflex/etc lets you do what you want. FortressForever/W:ET/etc have bunnyhop as well as a result of being derived from Quake's tech) and the trade-off style (GA's energy/Tribes' laser rifle, rocket/nade/disc jumps taking health and ammo, etc) while doing nothing better than either system. You neither have the ease and freedom of movement that proper Arena Shooters offered, nor do you have the strategic decision making of having a multi-purpose resource pool

 

Potential solutions:

 

Combine Heat and Fuel in some way

This could either be a resource like GA's energy, or give fuel a role that isn't just movement (running your mech during overheat, fueling your repair drone)

 

Create another form of conflict around the resources Hawken has (the incinerator already exists, just make it so it isn't the only thing dealing with heat and maybe split its jobs amongst 2 or more mechs. IE one mech takes heat from allies, one mech causes enemies to overheat, maybe even split that into different distribution methods (AOE, single shot, heat flak/mg/single projectile etc.)

 

Cut out or severely reduce regen, and tie regeneration of resources to classes with limited resources/map positions

 

Note that any or all of these solutions could be used in tandem.

 

Edit: Aw yeah, devil's topic

Edited by Beemann, 03 April 2015 - 03:42 PM.

[Amidatelion]

I'm really not sure how to answer most this, because you seem to be hell-bent on comparing Hawken to games it's not and you're straight up ignoring MA and Siege as game modes. There's really nothing anyone can answer with because you're comparing different game-modes between different games.

 

 

The issue with this is that it doesn't provide any real depth or incentive to risk certain fights or anything. 

 

Now this this I can answer because it's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact that's flat out wrong. You have heat, fuel and health as resources. Heat management is core to any sort of prolonged engagement and it varies by mech. You have to watch your heat, learn the limits of your mech and disengage when you're done a fight. For HP, your choices are again disengage and enter a state of helplessness if you want to heal or risk trying to kill your enemy and stealing his soulabsorbing his orb. Or if there's a technician on your team, you nerf your total DPS in the trade-off. Fuel management is arguable as important as heat management because if you don't watch it, you're going to be SOL in the middle of a fight and a sitting duck. You have to learn to use cover to give yourself breathers, popping out to deal damage or risk an open engagement if you judge your skills are there.

 

Also, this part,

 

 

An enemy that gets away with very little health and is out of the next fight is as good as a ded enemy, since he'll use up team resources (ammo/health pickups, throwable medpacks)  and we still get a 1 man advantage.

 

is basically a core mechanic of Siege. A fleeing enemy is an enemy not on the AA, which provides a resource advantage of bodies on the AA, which makes the AA fire faster/slower.

[Beemann]

I'm really not sure how to answer most this, because you seem to be hell-bent on comparing Hawken to games it's not and you're straight up ignoring MA and Siege as game modes.

Protip: Every mechanic in Hawken has been used in other games before. Hawken is not a completely uncomparable original island in a sea of comparable games. Hawken still has the same potential pitfalls as other shooters. Denying this helps nobody and contribures nothing

 

Additionally, this thread is about resources, not gamemodes. Quake, Tribes, W:ET, UT. FF etc. have objective based gamemodes as well as DM and TDM modes. Hawken is the same. What I'm pointing out is how the resources affect overall conflict. If you'd like to discuss Hawken's gamemodes, I can start another thread explaining why those don't help your case whatsoever

 

 

Now this this I can answer because it's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact that's flat out wrong. You have heat, fuel and health as resources. Heat management is core to any sort of prolonged engagement and it varies by mech. You have to watch your heat, learn the limits of your mech and disengage when you're done a fight. For HP, your choices are again disengage and enter a state of helplessness if you want to heal or risk trying to kill your enemy and stealing his soulabsorbing his orb. Or if there's a technician on your team, you nerf your total DPS in the trade-off. Fuel management is arguable as important as heat management because if you don't watch it, you're going to be SOL in the middle of a fight and a sitting duck. You have to learn to use cover to give yourself breathers, popping out to deal damage or risk an open engagement if you judge your skills are there.

Did you read the post? Like, at all?

The issue isn't that there arent resources, but that the contribution of said resources is poor. Heat management is core, but any competent player will be able to manage heat easily, and it doesn't take much effort to reach a basic level of competency with said heat. Fuel is the same way

In both cases, not being an absolute spaz is the only real requirement for resource management.

 

For health, you have so many options for healing so as to make long-term damage non existant. I played Hawken back when repairing was an actual risk due to the time taken to enter/exit the mode. The current state of Hawken includes health orbs (that you dont have to earn, other people can) a repair function that is the least risky it has ever been, and classes that heal at basically no cost (heat gain is minimal)

 

 

basically a core mechanic of Siege. A fleeing enemy is an enemy not on the AA, which provides a resource advantage of bodies on the AA, which makes the AA fire faster/slower.

No it isn't. No permanent resources are used up in Siege. In a game with finite resources (IE non regenerating health) a King of the Hill match not only involves the man advantage that Hawken could have from damaging someone severely (but not killing them) but the loss in resources that comes from healing that person. If the game is pickup based and the team doesn't have map control, or if it has classes with finite healing items you'll win for sure this way. With the way Hawken works, the capability to heal back up exists within every mech in the game at no permanent cost

 

I addressed all of this in my first post. I'd recommend reading the whole thing rather than snipping bits out and criticizing them on their own

[Pure_Amazing]

Give fuel a role that isn't just movement (running your mech during overheat, fueling your repair drone)

If I'm understanding this topic correctly (I'm quite tired atm)

 

I'm just gonna leave this here:

https://community.pl...th-reform-idea/

Edited by Pure_Amazing, 03 April 2015 - 04:20 PM.

[BaronSaturday]

See, what you fail to see is that this isn't TF, UT, Quake, Call of doony, battlebunny or anything else that isn't Hawken. It's Hawken. If you don't like how Hawken handles resources, then go play one of those other games. You clearly like them more. For the rest of us, we'll just play Hawken and we'll like it.

[Beemann]

See, what you fail to see is that this isn't TF, UT, Quake, Call of doony, battlebunny or anything else that isn't Hawken. It's Hawken. If you don't like how Hawken handles resources, then go play one of those other games. You clearly like them more. For the rest of us, we'll just play Hawken and we'll like it.

See the first part of my response to Amidatelion

Also there's two other things

One: The Hawken you've played hasn't remained consistent at all throughout development. It's changed before and will change again

Two: The game died already. Clearly pandering to the current playerbase is insufficient.

[ZombieBiscuit]

In Tribes there was only one weapon that took from your energy pool. Phase Rifle for both Tribes Ascend and Tribes Vengeance. ( I am not sure of starseige or tribes 2) The rest were ammo based.

[Beemann]

In Tribes there was only one weapon that took from your energy pool. Phase Rifle for both Tribes Ascend and Tribes Vengeance. ( I am not sure of starseige or tribes 2) The rest were ammo based.

I specified that it was one specific weapon (the laser rifle from Tribes 1 and 2 http://tribes.wikia....ribes/Tribes_2)). It was actually a good way to counter the usual sniping problem as you couldn't be fully mobile and shoot at the same time.

GA had its own solution that had a similar result in that you had to be scoped (with a delay before you could take your first shot) which imposed a speed buff

[BaronSaturday]

See the first part of my response to Amidatelion
Also there's two other things
One: The Hawken you've played hasn't remained consistent at all throughout development. It's changed before and will change again
Two: The game died already. Clearly pandering to the current playerbase is insufficient.

First, don't talk to me like I haven't been playing for the better part of two years. Srcondly, this game died because Meteor doesn't know how to do business, not because of pandering to anything. The game has a playerbase after a solid year of silence. That's a testament to the staying power it has in it's current state. Thirdly, if you don't like Hawken then don't play Hawken. What you view as shallow gameplay is simple gameplay. There's a difference. Shallow gameplay is easy to master. Simple gameplay is not. You want to try condescending to me again?

Edit: Your response to Amid doesn't negate the fact that, while containing similar aspects as other games in somewhat similar genres, it is a unique confluence of those aspects.

Edited by SaturdayGhede, 03 April 2015 - 07:28 PM.

[Beemann]

First, don't talk to me like I haven't been playing for the better part of two years.

There are plenty of people who have been playing this game for a long time and still seem to forget that the game they demand be unchanged has already been heavily reworked more than once

 

 

Secondly, this game died because Meteor doesn't know how to do business, not because of pandering to anything.

The game had basically no players on steam. That's not indicative of it being purely Meteor's fault. (A peak of ~500 for the entire month of December? That's not a healthy game)

 

 

The game has a playerbase after a solid year of silence. That's a testament to the staying power it has in it's current state.

Can you name a game that still runs that has no playerbase? Even DNF has players. Even Colonial Marines has players

The question is how many players, and whether that playerbase is capable of keeping a game going

>800 players isn't a healthy base for pandering to for a F2P game, and most of that is due to revived interest because the game has been picked up again

 

 

What you view as shallow gameplay is simple gameplay. There's a difference. Shallow gameplay is easy to master. Simple gameplay is not. You want to try condescending to me again?

No, it's shallow

Exceedingly shallow

Depressingly shallow

Feel free to try to explain why it isn't. I've already explained why the resource aspect of it is. I can move into movement, gamemodes etc. if you'd like

 

 

Edit: Your response to Amid doesn't negate the fact that, while containing similar aspects as other games in somewhat similar genres, it is a unique confluence of those aspects.

Protip: if you're not making a clone of a game, your game will be a "unique confluence" of game mechanics. Currently Hawken is in the same boat as everything else in that it's an amalgamation of already used game mechanics. Suggesting otherwise is pure fanboyism

[BaronSaturday]

There are plenty of people who have been playing this game for a long time and still seem to forget that the game they demand be unchanged has already been heavily reworked more than once

That's totally excellent for them.  They are not me.  Thank you very much.  I was around when the CRT had 770 hp.  Today this game is as close to perfect as it's ever been.  Miner tweaks here and there would be great, but big sweeping changes aren't necessary.
 

 

 

The game had basically no players on steam. That's not indicative of it being purely Meteor's fault. (A peak of ~500 for the entire month of December? That's not a healthy game)

 

 

Can you name a game that still runs that has no playerbase? Even DNF has players. Even Colonial Marines has players

The question is how many players, and whether that playerbase is capable of keeping a game going

>800 players isn't a healthy base for pandering to for a F2P game, and most of that is due to revived interest because the game has been picked up again

The first part of this is grossly inaccurate.  I've never not gotten a match, ever.  Not once have I logged in and had to wait more than a minute or so to get a match.

Hawken is still here because of the people that stuck around.  It's still here.  Was it healthy?  No.  Was it being developed as promised and expected?  No.  Colonial Marines never claimed it would have continued development.  You keep comparing Hawken to things that are not Hawken.  That's like me comparing the playerbase of SCII to Smite.  They are not the same game.  Different things can, will, and do happen to their playerbases for different reasons.  Both of those games are healthy because their developers didn't abandon them.
 

 

 

No, it's shallow

Exceedingly shallow

Depressingly shallow

Feel free to try to explain why it isn't. I've already explained why the resource aspect of it is. I can move into movement, gamemodes etc. if you'd like\

The mechanics in the current iteration of Hawken are in place to keep the game moving.  Pre Ascension was full of matches that dragged ass.  So it was changed back to include a lower TTK.  Then they increased the speed of the mechs across the board because slow mechs and long TTKs do not play well with the infinite resource mechanics.  The game is in a good spot because Alpha Strikes are rare enough to keep the game going, but things die just fast enough to keep things interesting.  This game is about the pursuit in many regards.  In order to implement the finite resources you want, the game would have to be changed substantially in order to keep teams from hanging on one side of the map away from each other taking pot shots.  The game is purpose built with those mechanics in mind and it feels good.  It's not too Arena shootery and it's not too "Mech simulatory".
 

 

 

Protip: if you're not making a clone of a game, your game will be a "unique confluence" of game mechanics. Currently Hawken is in the same boat as everything else in that it's an amalgamation of already used game mechanics. Suggesting otherwise is pure fanboyism

Right.  And you actually mean to tell me that Quake and UT aren't the same game with some very minor changes?  Same with COD and Battlebunnies.  COD and Battlebunnies, however, are not like Titanfall.  Do they share many things?  Yes.  Do they differentiate heavily from one another?  Yes.  Can they be compared?  Sure, at first glance.  Comparing this game to UT is like comparing UT to CoD.  Are they shooters?  Yes.  Can you run in both?  Yes.  Can you shoot people in both?  Yes.  Can you jump in both?  Why yes you can.  You know another game that shares all of those things?  Banjo Kazooie.  But you're not comparing CoD to Banjo Kazooie are you?  No.  You'd compare Banjo Kazooie with Mario 64.

Protip:  Don't argue with idiots.  They'll bring you down to their level then pummel you with experience.

[AsianJoyKiller]

And you actually mean to tell me that Quake and UT aren't the same game with some very minor changes?

lolwut

You think Quake and UT are basically the same game, but don't believe Hawken can be compared?

 

You have amazingly selective logic.

[BaronSaturday]

lolwut

You think Quake and UT are basically the same game, but don't believe Hawken can be compared?

 

You have amazingly selective logic.

Right.  I've chosen not to compare them, selectively, as you've chosen to compare them... selectively.

[BaronSaturday]

For the Record, Beeman, I get what you're saying, but I feel it's invalid.  The mechanics, I feel, are not shallow.  You feel they are.  I'm not sure that either of us are correct, but I like the game where it is because I feel the mechanics lend themselves well to the gameplay.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Right.  I've chosen not to compare them, selectively, as you've chosen to compare them... selectively.

Let me be more clear. You are saying things can be compared in one case, but not in another case for no reason, or arbitrary reasons. It is logically unsound to say that UT and Quake could be considered to be almost the same game, yet not allow for the possibility that elements of those games could be compared to similar elements in Hawken.

This is your logic:
The presence of X and Y make UT and Quake similar.

The presence of X and Y do not make UT and Hawken similar.

But logically that doesn't make sense. If it can be compared in one set of games and make them similar, it can be compared in another set of games that both have X and Y and make them similar.

Also, that was my first post in the thread. I have yet to compare anything.

[BaronSaturday]

Let me be more clear. You are saying things can be compared in one case, but not in another case for no reason, or arbitrary reasons. It is logically unsound to say that UT and Quake could be considered to be almost the same game, yet not allow for the possibility that elements of those games could be compared to similar elements in Hawken.

This is your logic:
The presence of X and Y make UT and Quake similar.

The presence of X and Y do not make UT and Hawken similar.

But logically that doesn't make sense. If it can be compared in one set of games and make them similar, it can be compared in another set of games that both have X and Y and make them similar.

Also, that was my first post in the thread. I have yet to compare anything.

I'm not sure you actually know what you're talking about.  So you believe that Banjo-Kazooie and Call of Duty are the same?  They both have running, jumping, shooting, and objective based gameplay.

Or are you just trying to make a point because you agree with the OP.  Cause that's kind of what that feels like.  His selective logic is less sinful than mine because you agree with them.  Gotcha.

Edited by SaturdayGhede, 03 April 2015 - 09:00 PM.

[AsianJoyKiller]

I'm not sure you actually know what you're talking about.  So you believe that Banjo-Kazooie and Call of Duty are the same?  They both have running, jumping, shooting, and objective based gameplay.

http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope

[BaronSaturday]

http://en.wikipedia..../Slippery_slope

Did you read it?  I'll read it after you do.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Did you read it?  I'll read it after you do.

More specifically, Appeal to Extremes, a form of Slippery Slope fallacies. It's like saying that dogs are humans because they also drink water and breathe oxygen.

What you need to do is explain why you cannot compare similar elements between Hawken and the other games mentioned, yet you can compare them between, for example, UT and Quake. For what logical reason do these elements suddenly become invalid points of comparison for Hawken, yet remain valid between the other games?

[BaronSaturday]

More specifically, Appeal to Extremes, a form of Slippery Slope fallacies. It's like saying that dogs are humans because they also drink water and breathe oxygen.
What you need to do is explain why you cannot compare similar elements between Hawken and the other games mentioned, yet you can compare them between, for example, UT and Quake. For what logical reason do these elements suddenly become invalid points of comparison for Hawken, yet remain valid between the other games?

Now thst you understand the what of my arguement, I'll explain the why of it since you clearly missed it. Just because two games share similar elements or are even in the same genre does not mean they need to play the same. I'm tired of the call of doony and battlebunny. I'm tired of the UTs and quakes. The same games being pumped out every year. Hawken has borrowed many things. In order to keep it's pacs, it has chosen the resource system that works best for it. In my opinion of course. But comparing it to a bunch of games based on their shared qualities on the grounds that it should be more like all of them is rediculous to me. So the comparison is invalid. Game A has this type of resource management so game b should follow suite is a poor premise to base a point on. So in keeping with the rediculous theme, I chose to be rediculous.

[AsianJoyKiller]

Okay. I guess I'll just ignore the Straw Man, Red Herring, other massive failures in basic logic, and go on to comment on that you clearly misunderstood what Beemann has said.

It's not that just because X game has these things that Y game should have them. It's that these systems have proven over time, in multiple extremely sucessful games, to deepen gameplay and generally make it more interesting and engaging, and that the lack of these elements in Hawken causes issues. These elements have value the goes beyond them being in certain games. It's that the element of finite resources has proven to be good, and that these are successful games it has shown up in. For some bizarre reason, you've focused on the games it's shown up in, and not the value mechanic itself.

 

And I guess I will comment on one of those massive logical failures. Just because an element that works in another game is added to a different game, that does not automatically make them the same. If that were true, by your very own logic you would have to agree that Hawken is the same game as UT.

 

 

Anyway, on to address the OP. I would very much like to see some sort of resources added that would make map control important.

 

Currently map control boils down to whatever is the most defensible position in DM/TDM. This means that DM modes become very static as once you control a good position, there is no reason to give it up voluntarily. With all resources (health, fuel, and heat dissipation) being infinite, it's not hard to hold out in stale gameplay that becomes about who screws up poking first.

 

With Siege, it would be nice to see it become more than a glorified King-of-the-Hill. And honestly, that is just TDM in a smaller space. While there is the EU phase, that's really more of a relay race, and between equally skilled teams it's hardly efficient to try and harass. You're better off leaving each other alone, gathering as fast as possible, and trying to win the team fights at the AA. Having to control resources that aren't just triggers for the mini-TDM phase, and making the AA phase deeper than "most people on the AA = good" would be interesting.

 

Asymmetrical resources on MA maps could create a strategy in which silos you might try to hold. Right now (though less true for the more poorly designed maps), it's rather arbitrary on what you decide to hold, and often has to do more with how much resistance there would be in taking it. I believe it would be more interesting if people had reasons to try to hold specific silos.

[Panzermanathod]

Just to throw my 2 cents here, as a new player...

 

I'm not an FPS player. I don't care for most of the genre. You want to know what is legit one of my favorite FPSs of all time is? Resident Evil: Survivor.

 

I'm not terribly for a good deal of the suggestions here, but I've generally been with with the game pace.

 

Of course, I'm sure some of you will just find my opinion irrelevant.

[LadyTiggs]

If someone doesn't see your point of view, it is no reason to start name calling. I've gotten more alerts on this thread then any other so far. I'm locking this discussion, move along now.