HAWKEN servers are up and our April Update is live!
Forgot Password? SUPPORT REDEEM CODE

Jump to content


Category List

Community/Developer Q/A: Answers Pt. 2!


Community/Developer Q/A: Answers Pt. 2!

Greetings pilots!

Welcome to Part 2 of our answers for the Community/Developer Q/A. Check out Part 1 of our answers here!

Here are the HAWKEN team members that will be answering your questions today!

Jason Hughes - Producer
David Saunders - Game Designer
Dave Nguyen - Lead Designer

---

Q: Have you considered adding location based damage to the game?
    David Saunders:
    We’ve considered it, but decided against it for several reasons. Since every mech is a different size and every mech can swap body parts it starts to get complicated quickly. What we don’t want is for certain cosmetic pieces to have advantages over others, and we don’t want to prevent our artists from creating whatever comes out of their genius brains.

    There are TONS of other cool things we want to add to the game (many mentioned in this Q&A!) that it hasn’t been something we’ve pursued as of yet.

Q: Is there an ETA for the Technician Prestige weapon?
    David Saunders:
    It will most likely be released in Q1 2014 alongside another mech. We want to give the Technician something special that will let it play very differently. I’m super pumped for this weapon. Trust me, it'll be worth the wait.:D

Q: The current turn speed cap makes it difficult to keep up with some mechs, especially when they are close up. Would you ever consider adjusting the turn speed?
    David Saunders:
    We don't have any current plans to increase (or decrease) turning speed, but it’s something we continue to monitor. We’re more likely to add additional movement options to the game (such as quick 90 degree turns) than change the turning speed, but we’re working on other things first.

Q: Do you plan on implementing leaderboards?
    David Saunders:
    Yes! If you read the last Q&A session we talked a bit about supporting competitive play. We’re still working out the details, but it will include leaderboards.

    Jason Hughes:
    We are actively working on leaderboards and are targeting to have them launch on the website in November alongside some other related social features. There is always a possibility this date could slip slightly but we wanted you to know that it’s important to us as a team and nearing the end of implementation. We will have details to share in the coming weeks as the rough edges are worked out.

Q: What was the reasoning behind the new “killstreak” internals?
    Dave Nguyen:
    When we were designing the new internals, we didn’t intend for them to be related to “Killstreak” rewards. For example, the goal with the Armor Fusor was to alleviate the downtime after a fight and not force the player to stop and repair every time. The objections from the community were heard loud and clear on this, so we're currently re-evaluating how internals work.

    There were some really great suggestions from the community about internal effectiveness being dependent on how much damage you dealt. That helps a little bit, but it doesn’t really solve the “Killstreak” reward problem. We will be experimenting with some of the community ideas as well as some of our own in order to reach something that hopefully everyone will be happy with!

Q: For Ascension's tunes and internals, did you intentionally design them such that players could deliberately remove key game mechanics? Specifically, tunes like Cooling Units and Radar currently render fundamental skills (heat management and walking to avoid detection) completely meaningless in Hawken. Do you feel the opportunity cost in getting these tunes (10~14 tuning points) justifies the substantial advantage offered by subverting these mechanics?
    Dave Nguyen:
    For the Cooling Units that actually is deliberate. The Tuning System was built to create choices for players, and I’m sure there are many players who think Cooling Units are useless and would much rather spend their points on something else. So is it a bad thing if someone wants to sacrifice some points to make overheating less punishing? If they do, they lose out on putting points elsewhere. Even with maxed out “Cooling Units”, players still suffer a weapons reboot that renders them vulnerable, so it doesn’t completely take away from that mechanic of the game.

    The Radar on the other hand was an unintended bug. The radar system actually used to detect nearby walking/running enemies behind walls. There was a Radar update in one of the patches to remove that functionality and players were no longer detected for walking/running while out-of-sight. That is the intended behavior we want. The new tuning system implemented an increase in Radar range, but it inadvertently brought back some of that old functionality. The good news is that it's been fixed for the next patch release!

Q: Would a universal horizontal tuning system be considered at some point in the future?
    Dave Nguyen:
    The current implementation of the tuning system allows mechs to feel more unique, each having its own strengths and weaknesses that were meant for its role. Allowing access to all tuning systems on all mechs takes away from that, as all mechs could potentially be made to feel the exact same as each other. We could make the bonuses to where they can’t pull a stat too far, but that wouldn’t be good because then it would feel “meaningless”. With our current implementation, we also leave it open to create new Tuning Systems for future mechs that would make them even more unique. This means different systems that wouldn’t apply to current mechs, similar to the Technician having a “Repair” System rather than “Fire Rate”.

    The Slider system was heavily considered during our rework of the Optimization/Tuning Systems and also briefly done with our old internals system. The old internals were not completely horizontal either, as they gave a slightly larger positive effect over the negative effect. However due to the “negative effect”, it was highly unpopular. We had the same effect with the tuning system working that way as well.



Back to HAWKEN News


61 Comments

Thank you, looking forward to PT.3

DreamedArtist
Oct 11 2013 06:06 PM
Hell I am pumped for the tech weapon!! but so far away! :(
Sweet, thanks for answering my question. :)
Thanks :D
Cant wait for the coming patches.
No ETA on community-run dedicated servers? :\

View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Q: What was the reasoning behind the new “killstreak” internals?
    We will be experimenting with some of the community ideas as well as some of our own in order to reach something that hopefully everyone will be happy with!

Hmmm... Acceptable. Don't get too crazy with your ideas though. *nods*

OdinTheWise
Oct 11 2013 07:12 PM

View PostZind, on October 11 2013 - 06:18 PM, said:

No ETA on community-run dedicated servers? :\
Something tells me that this will never happen in the way you want it.

thebloodgod0
Oct 11 2013 07:13 PM
I love the Cooling Units. Everytime I see a new mech without the Cooling Units tuning I go "Uhh...I'm gonna have a bad time with this... <_<".

View PostSylhiri, on October 11 2013 - 06:32 PM, said:

View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Q: What was the reasoning behind the new “killstreak” internals?
    We will be experimenting with some of the community ideas as well as some of our own in order to reach something that hopefully everyone will be happy with!

Hmmm... Acceptable. Don't get too crazy with your ideas though. *nods*
Yeah, our ideas are better!
Posted Image

P.S. No word about the snow map? C'mon guys, winter is coming.

OdinTheWise
Oct 11 2013 07:58 PM
I will just say that these Q/A make me feel loved
:c
soo....

View Postropefish, on October 11 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

:c
soo....

No ropefish, no mini nuke for you...

View PostTeljaxx, on October 11 2013 - 08:48 PM, said:

View Postropefish, on October 11 2013 - 08:24 PM, said:

:c
soo....

No ropefish, no mini nuke for you...
NUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
*lite's tree on fire then throws at building*
I like that we got some answers, but the question about vertical progression (power over time rather than having equal power at the start compared to other players) was never really answered.

View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

Q: [...] Do you feel the opportunity cost in getting [Cooling Units] (7* tuning points) justifies the substantial advantage offered by subverting the heat mechanic?

Dave Nguyen said:

For the Cooling Units that actually is deliberate. The Tuning System was built to create choices for players, and I’m sure there are many players who think Cooling Units are useless and would much rather spend their points on something else. So is it a bad thing if someone wants to sacrifice some points to make overheating less punishing? If they do, they lose out on putting points elsewhere. Even with maxed out “Cooling Units”, players still suffer a weapons reboot that renders them vulnerable, so it doesn't completely take away from that mechanic of the game.
Thanks much for answering my question. Since Radar's clairvoyance was unintended, it really comes down to CU's base values. I think at this point, I'm simply interested in meeting the developers and players that don't think max Cooling Units is mandatory on the Technician and Grenadier, among other mechs. With current base CU values allowing max CU to offer a 2.75s overheat time, the minor reboot time is closer to built-in Coolant+Extinguisher than a sacrifice. Point-for-point, current CU offers more value than any other tune.

It may come down to determining and balancing how short is too short for overheating. The disparity between no CU and low base values vs. max CU with high base values is too large right now, in my opinion.

Looking forward to Part 3 and beyond.
    At your offices in general think to add Russian support in game or not? Already many skilled players everything look in game less often. You really lose Russia from regions of distribution of game. After Titanfall exit your game will cease to play because of inutile feedback with game regional communities.
    *pops shield and watches ropefish wreaking Havoc*
    And nothing about the Amazon servers. Huh, I guess I'll just continue 250 ms-ing around.

    Quote

    I'm simply interested in meeting the developers and players that don't think max Cooling Units is mandatory on the Technician and Grenadiera
    fury monster.
    Also you  have pretty narrow view   by saying that CU  offers more value than anything else.
    Simply percent wise - yes.
    But the attribute itself  - overheating recovery time,doesn't play a key role and   won't even be be used in most  situations.

    UnDeaD_CyBorG
    Oct 12 2013 05:47 AM
    So the new tech weapon is already more or less designed, but won't be implemented for a while?
    That's gonna be a serious new mechanic, then.

    As for cooling units; The problem is not what they do, but how.
    They have exponential returns; 7 CU is half as good as 9.
    And they are nearly all on mechs that don't suffer from the downtime much; Sharpshooters are often far away and have cover nearby, grenadiers have indirect fire, techs are around teammates and not necessarily in the line of fire at all.
    Maybe make it just slightly weaker, but offer a bit of faster cooldown without overheat, as well? Maybe a partial % system against the exponential returns.

    View PostUnDeaD_CyBorG, on October 12 2013 - 05:47 AM, said:

    So the new tech weapon is already more or less designed, but won't be implemented for a while?
    That's gonna be a serious new mechanic, then.

    I think the new "predator" weapon becomes the prestige for the tech...

    View PostShadowWarg, on October 11 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

    I like that we got some answers, but the question about vertical progression (power over time rather than having equal power at the start compared to other players) was never really answered.

    View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

        The Slider system was heavily considered during our rework of the Optimization/Tuning Systems and also briefly done with our old internals system. The old internals were not completely horizontal either, as they gave a slightly larger positive effect over the negative effect. However due to the “negative effect”, it was highly unpopular. We had the same effect with the tuning system working that way as well.

    I am not certain, but I believe they find that getting to decrease something in order to get something else better wouldn't have been a popular feature, so they went up with a vertical progression system similar to the old tree system. My bet on that a vertical progression is going to stay in the game. If I am wrong, I would be pleased to be corrected! :)

    View PostArachII, on October 12 2013 - 06:44 AM, said:

    View PostShadowWarg, on October 11 2013 - 09:22 PM, said:

    I like that we got some answers, but the question about vertical progression (power over time rather than having equal power at the start compared to other players) was never really answered.

    View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

    The Slider system was heavily considered during our rework of the Optimization/Tuning Systems and also briefly done with our old internals system. The old internals were not completely horizontal either, as they gave a slightly larger positive effect over the negative effect. However due to the “negative effect”, it was highly unpopular. We had the same effect with the tuning system working that way as well.

    I am not certain, but I believe they find that getting to decrease something in order to get something else better wouldn't have been a popular feature, so they went up with a vertical progression system similar to the old tree system. My bet on that a vertical progression is going to stay in the game. If I am wrong, I would be pleased to be corrected! :)

    That's not what I mean. I'm talking about the decision to separate every one purely based on levels and gaining power through level up. This includes locking some of the stronger items until a certain level is reach and handing out opt points for each level gained after 5. In short, why make it so player with less time in the game have numerical disadvantage over players that have the more time in the game. (vertical progression)

    View PostShadowWarg, on October 12 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

    That's not what I mean.
    -snip-

    Woops! My apologies! I thought you asked if the vertical system is going to stay, not about players' segregation and the design intent behind power distribution/rewards. :wacko:

    View Post[HWK]ZamboniChaos, on October 11 2013 - 06:03 PM, said:

    We’re more likely to add additional movement options to the game (such as quick 90 degree turns)
    Ugh, please don't do that.  The turning-rate cap is fine considering the game's current speed.  A quick 90 degree turn removes the need for reaction times and will clutter my kb with binds.