|
There is a link to this in the OP, but I figured it deserves reposting every so often for the newer players. Those of you that are just starting owe it to yourselves to watch this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AyzNifXSFA It's from an older version of the game, but the concepts still apply and it will transform the way you move and play Hawken.
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 17:47
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
Saturnine Aberrance posted:If this does turn out to be a temporary thing for you guys, then it could be the result of this: I'm sure it's that, so I have no doubt it'll be sorted after the next two weeks of what they're doing (if not before). Looking forward to putting some more time in tonight, I need to buy some poo poo and get that Sharpshooter leveled.
|
|
#
?
Dec 22, 2013 23:57
|
|
|
PathAsc posted:I'm sure it's that, so I have no doubt it'll be sorted after the next two weeks of what they're doing (if not before). Yeah, saw you added me to your friend's list so I decided to pop in and play a couple games with you. I think at a couple points I was doubling everyone else's score. Some things never change in this game it seems. 
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 01:56
|
|
|
Decided to dust the Brawler off for a night of action.. she's definitely speedier than she used to be. Decided to swap up my tuning a bit, went for max armor, boost thrusters, and hydraulics. The rest I tossed into weapon loader. Internals, I went with Adv. Armor Fusor, Repair Kit, and basic Fuel Converter. Since the Fusor returns a base of max hp, you get good returns with your huge health pool of 1150hp. Brawler speed feels on par with Grenadier now. Based on the rounds I played tonight, Brawler feels like a good mobile anchor that now actually has the speed to get where it matters. The SA Hawkins improvement gives you an option for cqc or long range, either way my favorite old warhorse is now back in regular rotation for me.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 08:22
|
|
|
Is there any consensus on the EMP item for use on the Berserker/Bruiser?
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 21:33
|
|
|
Agrajag posted:Is there any consensus on the EMP item for use on the Berserker/Bruiser? EMP is good on any mech. I waffle between using it and shield, but I generally prefer the EMP.
|
|
#
?
Dec 23, 2013 22:56
|
|
|
In further news regarding changes to economy and progression: "[HWK posted:ZamboniChaos"]
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 03:19
|
|
|
You beat me to posting it, but yeah. When is the cutoff date for applying 2x boost codes? While the sale is halted, can I still apply boost codes to my account? I'm sitting on a ton of 3 day and 7 day codes and I'd rather use them before the cutoff date.
|
|
#
?
Dec 28, 2013 23:53
|
|
|
It sounds like the cutoff date is January 7th, so get your boosts in before then!
|
|
#
?
Dec 29, 2013 06:02
|
|
|
Yeah, it works smooth again. Time to actually learn wreckage.
|
|
#
?
Jan 5, 2014 15:16
|
|
|
Couple of bits of news to share with you all - the first is only here now because I am a bad person who didn't post it when it first came up. Adhesive Studios, the guys making the game, have posted an open invitation to anyone in the LA area interested in trying out an upcoming build of the game and provide their feedback for January 6th through the 8th. (That's how late I am on this) The thread itself can be found here. In order to apply, you need to go onto the games' forums and send a PM to the guy who posted the thread I just linked. The other piece of news is not normally my style - but it's fairly big and I should share anyway. I'm part of a Hawken dedicated podcast on Twitch called The Cockpit, where we have a few prominent/high level players talk about the game, related news and other such stuff. We also have one of Hawken's designers, Chris Vance as a regular host on the show, who gives his own perspective on the game, as well as offers insight into the companies thought process for some decisions, as far as he can shed light. It's also a good place for them to offer bits of exclusive news about changes to the game and other events as they choose! This coming show just happens to be one of those times, and Vance will be sharing some really great information about the coming patch, as well as our normal discussions and such. In the weeks following, Vance will be on vacation, so we'll have other developers on in the weeks to follow, who will also have cool things to say on those particular days. Liquidfusion will not be one of those devs however, since apparently he is too cool for us. The show is every week on Wednesdays at 7 pm pacific/10 pm eastern, and you can find the show at the following link: (click) If you have any questions about the show or the testing at the studios, I'll do my best to answer them. Since I know most of you will be asking: Yes, I know what the news is, no I'm not spoiling exactly what it is yet. I will say that it is gameplay related, it is absolutely a good thing, and it is not related to a new mech, since those were a lot of the questions people are asking me in the thread and in PMs on the forums.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 03:42
|
|
|
That sounds pretty neat.
|
|
#
?
Jan 6, 2014 04:09
|
|
|
Saturnine Aberrance posted:Couple of bits of news to share with you all - the first is only here now because I am a bad person who didn't post it when it first came up. Sure wish I was back in SoCal again, oh well. Looking forward to the show, I can only imagine the types of PMs you get there...  I missed the stream, because I'm a shitlord. When should I look for the recording of this glorious thing on the internet? PathAsc fucked around with this message at 06:04 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 8, 2014 06:04
|
|
|
PathAsc posted:I missed the stream, because I'm a shitlord. When should I look for the recording of this glorious thing on the internet? It's funny you should ask because the highlight should be available right now! You can find the recording here: (link) Sorry for the stretched webcams on most participants - google hangouts only provides the feed in a square, so fitting them to a normal aspect ratio messes them up. Normally we just eat it and keep the feeds square. Also, if you have trouble loading the video, Twitch is having problems as a whole at the moment, so just be patient/keep refreshing and you should get lucky eventually. So the big reveal today? The removal of vertical progression. Since they didn't want to limit news like this JUST to the show, after the end of the broadcast, they also put up a news post to discuss the changes and describe them more specifically, rather than in a podcast setting. You can find that news post at this link: (click) Alternatively, here's the post in question. "[HWK posted:ZamboniChaos"]
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 06:30
|
|
|
So, they removed the Ingame Bux money gating to make room for the Real Life Bux money gating. Good to see they have their priorities in order, I guess. These economic changes are really souring me on the game, because at first it didn't follow the typical F2P model of "These are your only choices, pay real life $$$ for more choices", and all the changes they're proposing make it so that it's exactly that. While it is true that you can still unlock new mechs with Hawken Credits, good luck doing that in any reasonable amount of time now that you can only get a handful per match. The system sucked before, and it's going to suck after unless there is a higher influx of Hawken Credits... but they aren't going to make there be a higher influx of Hawken Credits because this is a free to play game and they need players' money to keep going. Don't get me wrong, it's a fun game, but I don't feel like I'm achieving anything anymore now that they're leveling out the economy, so unless they make it so that there's a way to dole out more HC I've pretty much given up on it. CJacobs fucked around with this message at 07:58 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 07:42
|
|
|
CJacobs posted:So, they removed the Ingame Bux money gating to make room for the Real Life Bux money gating. Good to see they have their priorities in order, I guess. These economic changes are really souring me on the game, because at first it didn't follow the typical F2P model of "These are your only choices, pay real life $$$ for more choices", and all the changes they're proposing make it so that it's exactly that. If you like the game considering giving a few bucks to the devs?
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 08:37
|
|
|
I already have, by customizing my mechs via meteor credits, AKA the only thing that could ever be worth spending money on until this exact update. Like I said in response to the last 'economy change' post, them making poo poo take longer to afford and be more costly does not make me want to buy things to get them earlier, it makes me want to stop playing the game. They're not making the game out of the kindness of their hearts I know but there are absolutely ways to make a Free to Play game work that don't involve taking stuff that already was free to unlock in the past and locking it behind their own slow, poo poo ingame economy.
CJacobs fucked around with this message at 09:14 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 09:11
|
|
|
Saturnine Aberrance posted:It's funny you should ask because the highlight should be available right now! You can find the recording here: (link) Ah, thanks, figures it'd pop up after I say gently caress it and leave the page. I'll definitely be watching this later.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 13:56
|
|
|
Since the economy is a big sticking point for a lot of people, I figured I'd post an awesome graphic made by Luminescent that was posted on the official forums regarding costs. Also, be aware that costs for things are not final, and are constantly being reviewed. As well, apparently during the in house testing that happened recently, some of the testers did give feedback on economic issues while there, which are being taken into consideration. So: Here's the cost of a mech and its bits in the current build.  And here's an estimated cost for the coming patch (prices may vary slightly in the actual build, official costs have not yet been made public, though a dev did respond saying that these prices, while not exact, are close enough to be representative)  Another point to note is that in the current system, there are no test drives for mechs - you have to hope you wind up buying a mech you like, and if you don't you're poo poo out of luck. Next patch reintroduces the test drive system so you can test for yourself whether or not you like the gameplay of a mech in practice as well as on paper, so apart from the people who are trying to collect all the mechs, this will save you money as well. Once you've played enough, you'll have more than enough HC to get all the mechs several times over anyway. Also, there's been a lot of angst all over the place over the HC rewards being removed from the achievement system. The developers have indicated that there will be other ways to earn HC in the future, besides just grinding it out in game. Also also, what was revealed in the news/the podcast represents a tiny portion of what we'll be getting in the coming couple of patches. Vance estimated that these changes to vertical progression amounted to 5% of the changes that are coming, which is obviously just a number he pulled out of his rear end, but you can safely assume that that'll be pretty representative of the reality once the patch notes arrive. There's a ton of balance, economy, content, performance, etc changes coming in these patches, so don't let yourself get hung up thinking about these changes we've heard so far occurring in a vacuum, either. Saturnine Aberrance fucked around with this message at 19:38 on Jan 9, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 19:34
|
|
|
Tuning points are going away? I am saddened.
|
|
#
?
Jan 9, 2014 21:00
|
|
|
Saturnine Aberrance posted:Since the economy is a big sticking point for a lot of people, I figured I'd post an awesome graphic made by Luminescent that was posted on the official forums regarding costs. Also, be aware that costs for things are not final, and are constantly being reviewed. As well, apparently during the in house testing that happened recently, some of the testers did give feedback on economic issues while there, which are being taken into consideration. I wouldn't pay much attention to those graphs. They are pretty misleading, especially when they don't factor in the cost of the mech at all. The big problem with how ADH did Mech purchases was because it was full of compromised design decisions. Some people wanted to go the Valve route; give away all the Mechs for free and just monetize on all the gear. Some people wanted to go the League of Legends route; charge for the mechs give away everything else for free. Some people wanted the World of Tanks (or so I've been told, I don't play WoT); have ranks that make the Mechs get more powerful. What ended up happening was basically the worst of all 3 ideas. The ranks made sense if you gave away all mechs for free. That way you could play the mech upto rank 1's power level for free forever. You should get a pretty great grasp of how a mech feels with that system. The initial problem with the rank system was the complete lack of a reason to level up. Rank 1 mechs were just simply not that much weaker than rank 5s. ADH wanted to keep the power creep fairly low, so they went a different route. If you fully level up a mech, you would get another mech for free. This of course only matters if you don't have every mech initially for free. Many thought this would be a compelling reason to continue playing the game. The problem is, people completely underestimated how many people want to play different mechs. They don't; most people like to find that one mech they are good with and never change. This means people would have to pay full price for their mech, then pay for each rank. After a lot of debate, they said it's just easier for everyone to just remove the complexity in the system, and make it more like a traditional FPS. Considering I was the main person who fought to change the old talent tree system, and was a major proponent of the current tuning system (I'll talk more about my original idea if you want), I'm sad to see the tuning system go. The main reason ADH is getting rid of it is simply, player expectations and balancing. It's much easier to play against a mech if you know what his advantages are. Balancing is also a huge problem. ADH was getting to the point where each mech would have to have unique values for each tuning point. Armor tuning points on a scout are worth much more than armor on a brawler.
|
|
#
?
Jan 10, 2014 20:42
|
|
|
Patch notes have arrived! Not for the big thing that was brought up earlier, that's coming in February. Here's a somewhat smaller one coming this month. You can read the patch notes in their original form here: (link), or you can read them below. quote:Next week we will be deploying a minor update to the game. Included are improvements to our matchmaking system, balance adjustments for the Technician and changes to Siege Mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:32
|
|
|
drat those Siege changes sound interesting. Despite its flaws, it's been my bread and butter game mode.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:41
|
|
|
Siege is just capture the hill with another gimmick attached. Once I thought of it like that, I liked it a lot more.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:47
|
|
|
It says a lot that, after playing a fair amount of siege, I had no idea that respawning drained EU from the team pool. Like, liking back now I can see it, but there was zero feedback for someone dying or for their teammates. Was that communicated to players anywhere in the old version?
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 03:57
|
|
|
Chard posted:It says a lot that, after playing a fair amount of siege, I had no idea that respawning drained EU from the team pool. Like, liking back now I can see it, but there was zero feedback for someone dying or for their teammates. Was that communicated to players anywhere in the old version? Incredibly poorly, yes. If you payed SUPER close, unrealistic attention to the EU to launch your battleship it will report 10 eu less after you spawn. This is obviously super unintuitive, and it is also really bad (I will almost universally say those two words are the same). While 10 may not sound like much, let me give you this all too common scenario. Team A launches battleship before team B. Going into the launch phase, Team B has 10 eu left to launch. Team B plays SG like King of the Hill and they all immediately go to the AA. For the sake of arguement, let's just agree this is the *correct* strategy. They finally take the AA, but they collectively died 10 times before taking it. They were down 10 eu, now they are down 110 eu. Additionally, the enemy could have easily picked up their 10x10 eu drops. So now the eu difference is actually 200, not 100. That's a huge swing. Ultimately, SG just has too many positive feedback systems, and it is about time ADH started removing some. Popular shooter games are built with very few positive feedback systems, and it is about time Hawken gets rid of some of the most damning ones. Let's all praise the removal of the battleship shooting players. When that change went through internally, everyone just about peed their pants from excitement. It is something Sarchasm (level designer) and myself have been yelling for at the top of our lungs for over a year now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 11:01
|
|
|
LiquidFusion posted:Incredibly poorly, yes. If you payed SUPER close, unrealistic attention to the EU to launch your battleship it will report 10 eu less after you spawn. This is obviously super unintuitive, and it is also really bad (I will almost universally say those two words are the same). While 10 may not sound like much, let me give you this all too common scenario. In your mind then, what is the better strategy or should be the better strategy for siege? I like siege but there should be more to it I feel. As it stands, good siege games are a lot closer than what scores can suggest.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 11:32
|
|
|
Hypha posted:In your mind then, what is the better strategy or should be the better strategy for siege? I like siege but there should be more to it I feel. As it stands, good siege games are a lot closer than what scores can suggest. O what Siege is, could be, and should be are all different things. What is currently on live right now is not what I personally would like to see it become. These Siege changes however are without question (in my opinion) the best changes we can hope for with the resources the design department was given. For the record he was told he basically can't have any programmers. As a guy who was trying to enact a lot of sweeping changes to Siege for well over a year now, I can say the changes are pretty great; many are what I have been yelling at them to do. The main reason for that is what is on live right now has a winning strategy. For you non game theory fans, that basically means "One team can just blindly execute a strategy without regard for their opponent and win." I think that is one of the worst things you can do in any game (video or traditional). Games, even twitch games, are almost always about choice and responding to a changing environment. FINALLY answering your question directly. What Team B should have done in that scenario: I think the winning strategy on live is to take the AA. I think in the scenario I suggested Team B should have been on the AA to begin with. Because of the fact that the enemy always drops 10 eu, they will always bring you eu. After defending the AA, you can collect the EU off the dead bodies, and launch your ship. If you follow that strategy, games may last forever in a day, but you will win. With the changes coming, you can not simply stay on the AA. You have to go collect EU. More importantly if there are players with a lot of eu, but their ship has already launched, they "safely" kill themselves near their base to make sure the eu doesn't fall into enemy hands. What I would like to see the "proper" strategy be in that scenario: "It depends". Ultimately I would like to see a discussion what they should do. Should they go to the AA, should the get EU, or should they try and shoot the ship down by hand? Personally, I would like to see manually shooting the ship down to be removed, I think it is a terrible experience for everyone. It's no fun to do, it's no fun to fight against, and it just makes other terrible situations more common (e.g. base camping). Yesterday, there was a game of siege (at the office with Adhesive) where our team was winning 1600 - 400. The enemy launches their ship. It gets about half way, and we realize that we just can't hold the AA like we have been. One player tells the team to NOT launch a counter ship to stop the damage. He thought that we will guarantee a win with launching the ship after. He theorized we would survive the ship the enemy launched, and our next ship would absolutely do enough damage to win. Another player tells them to absolutely launch a counter ship. He theorized there is little chance, even with them holding the AA, that the enemy ship would kill our ship AND do 1600 points of damage to our base. Which was the right strategy? Players on that team talked about it for quite a while, and that is what good game design is about. What was the right choice? Hard to say. I can say that we took too long to launch a counter ship, which forced us to wait. We did survive the enemy ship, and after a successful launch we did easily get the base damage to win. However the ending score was 300 - 0, not the 1600 margin we had earlier.
|
|
#
?
Jan 11, 2014 18:04
|
|
|
The problem I have is that after the initial collection, the requirement for energy is not as great. You need to hold the AA practically at all times but not so much for the energy trees. I would like to see energy be a much more critical component for victory over the positional advantage of holding the AA. At the very least, if Team A can hold the AA forever and never collects energy, they can never lose. So far, I just camp the AA and collect energy from corpses. I see a tree once, maybe twice in the whole game, and I never think of defending one. How about if the AA required energy to shoot too? Now it doesn't matter if the whole team is there, if no one has juice, there is no point. As such, teams have to bounce between the energy trees and the AA, making the whole experience more fluid. Now there is a reason to defend the energy trees but since there are two of them, it is a lot harder to lock them down. It also forces a team to have to decide how it spends its resources; do they launch a ship or save energy to use the AA? To me, that sounds like a more dynamic game mode. Hypha fucked around with this message at 02:13 on Jan 12, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 02:11
|
|
|
Taking this line by line.Hypha posted:The problem I have is that after the initial collection, the requirement for energy is not as great. You need to hold the AA practically at all times but not so much for the energy trees. I agree 100%. Earlier in this very thread someone said Siege is just king of the hill. I would say it is an overly complex king of the hill. quote:I would like to see energy be a much more critical component for victory over the positional advantage of holding the AA. At the very least, if Team A can hold the AA forever and never collects energy, they can never lose. So far, I just camp the AA and collect energy from corpses. I see a tree once, maybe twice in the whole game, and I never think of defending one. This is the winning strategy I was talking about. The team that does this will never lose. It may take some time, but there are no ways to counter that strategy, except to just do the same strategy better. No choices to make, lame and boring. quote:How about if the AA required energy to shoot too? Now it doesn't matter if the whole team is there, if no one has juice, there is no point. As such, teams have to bounce between the energy trees and the AA, making the whole experience more fluid. Now there is a reason to defend the energy trees but since there are two of them, it is a lot harder to lock them down. It also forces a team to have to decide how it spends its resources; do they launch a ship or save energy to use the AA? To me, that sounds like a more dynamic game mode. There were many ideas suggested, many were in a similar vein as this one. In your scenario it makes EU more valuable, yes. However, it also makes it very confusing. EU no longer has a clear purpose. More importantly, players can make really bad decisions on what to do with their EU. Currently, launching your ship is never bad. Sure, you may launch the ship at a very inefficient time, but it never directly hurts you. By making the AA use EU, depositing EU (or launching your ship), can severely hamper your team's ability to shoot down the opponent's ship. People who are active in the community may want a more complex game mode, but what Hawken needs is a simple game mode where you make significant decisions. These Siege changes go a long way to creating that. I'm really excited to try them out on Live.
|
|
#
?
Jan 12, 2014 03:31
|
|
|
Patch is out! I'll post some trip reports on the new Siege. -edit- There are a couple things I'd like clarification on, if possible. Increased the max EU stored by an energy tree from 100 to 250 EU Is this for the entire tree or per each "bubble" in the tree? EU trees will now display the current amount of EU it contains in the HUD This isn't working while ships are airborne, however you can still use the tree "bubbles" to gauge how much EU is inside to grab the leftovers. The only other thing I have to add, and this is only after four or five rounds so I might not be on the mark with this. It definitely feels like the main focus is still solely the AA and that the "correct" way to play is to control the AA. Frequently my team would launch, I'd refill my EU stores during the AA fight from fallen enemies/hitting the EU trees during lulls, and then the team would send enough EU back to re-launch the moment the skies cleared. Also, the devs might want to look into the range you can enter the delivery lift from. I've personally clocked it at 25m and while it can be fun to see your mech teleport that far while turning around nearly instantly, it feels pretty exploity. Pseudophile fucked around with this message at 00:48 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 00:19
|
|
|
Pseudophile posted:Increased the max EU stored by an energy tree from 100 to 250 EU quote:EU trees will now display the current amount of EU it contains in the HUD quote:The only other thing I have to add, and this is only after four or five rounds so I might not be on the mark with this. Taking the AA is obviously important, but it is MUCH harder to win the game if you JUST take the AA. If one team defends the AA, and one team defends the EU, then the EU team will win. Of course your mileage may vary with pubbies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 03:44
|
|
|
With all these drastic changes to the ways mechs are bought/acquired and customized, I think it's safe to say that the developers don't really know what they're doing and are just sort of throwing darts in the ocean hoping to hit whales at this point. I only spent about 10 bucks total, but this likely marks the first and last time I ever spend money on a game in open beta thanks to the bullshittery that has been going on here. I kind of assumed that since open beta is generally the final stage of development where minor kinks are ironed out that they had their formula pretty much set, and maybe needed to release some more content before the game was ready to be out of testing. But holy crap this game has been in "testing" for more than a year now, and they still seem to be spending most of their time retooling their harpoons. If they had actually just fixed bugs and made whatever balance changes were needed I would probably still be playing this now, and might have even thrown them some more cash. It seemed like the game was in a "releasable" state 6 months ago (as long as they released new stuff on a weekly basis, like most games of this type do), so I'm not sure what is going on at the company at this point. Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 09:49 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:28
|
|
|
So... that horde mode probably isn't coming huh.
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 09:46
|
|
|
Grondoth posted:So... that horde mode probably isn't coming huh. There is a coop mode. Currently it is only one map. Mercury_Storm posted:With all these drastic changes to the ways mechs are bought/acquired and customized, I think it's safe to say that the developers don't really know what they're doing and are just sort of throwing darts in the ocean hoping to hit whales at this point. I only spent about 10 bucks total, but this likely marks the first and last time I ever spend money on a game in open beta thanks to the bullshittery that has been going on here. Question (note not arguing one bit), is there a any part of the game that you would consider "AAA quality"?
|
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:00
|
|
|
LiquidFusion posted:Question (note not arguing one bit), is there a any part of the game that you would consider "AAA quality"? It seems AAA quality right now (perhaps even 6 months ago and definitely if the content that's released now had been in then, sans all the mech shop changes), and would probably would have been a game worth paying for on a shelf if that's the direction it had taken. Unfortunately all the huge changes that have been made recently seem driven by the free to play model, which I guess wasn't all that successful taking note of all the chair shuffling that's been happening. I saw a preview of this game a long time ago (before open beta) and was really wowed by it, definitely would have paid bigger monies had devs just committed to something rather than drawing out this 'testing' for so long. The ability point assigning system actually seemed pretty cool though, so I'm not really sure why it's being totally scrapped now? I had stopped playing because of the huge mech unlock changes that came at the same time that the point system did. Mercury_Storm fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jan 15, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 15, 2014 10:08
|
|
|
So, over the past few days, some more information has been released regarding the upcoming February patch, with more, and in more detail promised for the coming few weeks, with the patch itself aiming for a release in approximately mid February. Feature/change highlights include:
Again, more information to come in the coming few days. I may have missed something that's been released, if so let me know. I'll also try to update as soon as any other big information is released. Also, if anything I wrote in the list is unclear, say so and we'll try to clarify.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:22
|
|
|
Saturnine Aberrance posted:[*]Shield mechanics are changed so that you cannot fire out of a shield you are inside You won't believe the uphill battle I and the level designer had to fight in order to get this change. The graphical performance optimizations should be significant for some situations. I made combat much cheaper. I'm curious how everyone's siege games have been lately? My own personal experience has been much more positive. Although, people never shoot the turrets and it makes me sad.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:32
|
|
|
Wait... if you can't fire out of a shield then what's the point of the shield? They don't last near long enough to start healing and no firing means only the non-offense cooldowns will be useful (the CRT heatsink etc). I can see them being used for teamwork but if other people can't fire out of them either then they're only good for body blocking. edit: I guess it could be good for when you're almost overheated and need a break from constant fire? If another guy comes into the shield to push you out can you shoot at him inside of it or are you just locked in an eternal stare down until one of you leaves? CJacobs fucked around with this message at 22:57 on Jan 23, 2014 |
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 9, 2024 08:57 |
|
|
The best thing about shields used to be tacking them onto the back of your frontline unit and following the big blue ball to victory. Guess that was too much fun.
|
|
#
?
Jan 23, 2014 22:58
|
|