CRO_NOSM1-BUBA wrote:Since entering the community, I noticed attitudes by certain portions of the community that were completely against the foundation of the game, and unwilling to let go of its predecessor (which in itself was a great game)––and looking back, I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the poor performance of Starhawk. I mean it was released as a sort of half breed, not enough of a strategic RTS-esque shooter, and surely not enough as a Warhawk V.2––and quiet honestly I cannot believe how much the developers caved to this incessant whining (case and point: CAF). For example, there were such long-drawn out arguments for the addition of capturable bases, yet the idea of just building and renovating on the existing framework of the game didn't seem to interest many people (example: simply increasing the healths and cost of structures to strike a good balance).
I really wish that things that made this game distinct and different were pushed, instead of the perpetual struggle to hold it as close as possible to the predecessor. I wish that instead of perpetual whining that made the hawk a near game-breaking force, focus was put on improving and expanding the build and battle system––which in my opinion at least, is the heart of the game. I wish that instead of always being fast paced (although that's also nice) there were a deeper and more thought out battlefield, at least as an option. I wish that instead of being held back by what came before, Starhawk was given a chance to form a unique and distinct identity––instead of being the amalgamation of a game that it is now.
I still have fun in starhawk, and I think it really is one of the hidden gems of the PS3, but at the same time I can't let go of what it could have been.
Disclaimer: this is not to say that the community didn't give any good advice/positive criticism or that the developers were flawless, but that the fanaticism and at times arrogance stunted starhawk from growing into the much greater game that it could have been.
Lot's of people like to complain and post statements like this. Just because you don't fly CAF doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. Diversification is what makes the game great. Would it be the same game if they only had a pistol for the ground game or only the razorback for a vehicle?
As far as the capturable bases and industructable buildings go, they would cut down on the issue of baserapes becuse troops would have someplace to hide as a hawk was attacking. The build and battle buildings do nothing to stop a baserape because they can be destroyed. I believe LBI finally figured this out and that is why cypress has buildings that can't be destroyed.
The game had the ability to be more than what it is right now, however Sony felt that LBI couldn't take it to that level so they let them go.
CRO_NOSM1-BUBA wrote:
Since entering the community, I noticed attitudes by certain portions of the community that were completely against the foundation of the game, and unwilling to let go of its predecessor (which in itself was a great game)––and looking back, I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the poor performance of Starhawk. I mean it was released as a sort of half breed, not enough of a strategic RTS-esque shooter, and surely not enough as a Warhawk V.2––and quiet honestly I cannot believe how much the developers caved to this incessant whining (case and point: CAF). For example, there were such long-drawn out arguments for the addition of capturable bases, yet the idea of just building and renovating on the existing framework of the game didn't seem to interest many people (example: simply increasing the healths and cost of structures to strike a good balance).
I really wish that things that made this game distinct and different were pushed, instead of the perpetual struggle to hold it as close as possible to the predecessor. I wish that instead of perpetual whining that made the hawk a near game-breaking force, focus was put on improving and expanding the build and battle system––which in my opinion at least, is the heart of the game. I wish that instead of always being fast paced (although that's also nice) there were a deeper and more thought out battlefield, at least as an option. I wish that instead of being held back by what came before, Starhawk was given a chance to form a unique and distinct identity––instead of being the amalgamation of a game that it is now.
I still have fun in starhawk, and I think it really is one of the hidden gems of the PS3, but at the same time I can't let go of what it could have been.
Disclaimer: this is not to say that the community didn't give any good advice/positive criticism or that the developers were flawless, but that the fanaticism and at times arrogance stunted starhawk from growing into the much greater game that it could have been.
I kudosed you for this statement alone. Yeah I made a lot of noise for the peripherial things I wanted in the game, you know the little details...in game music (the one I got), seeing pings, ability to save server rotations, getting rid of triangles and circles to indicate enemies on the map....but I think the devs really wanted to go in a new direction but were pulled in the old direction by the success of warhawk, the strength of the community, and by their own love for warhawk.
I also know that they knew the hawk in Warhawk was a bit overpowered and wanted to balance it out more(according to their own statements). This is where the friction started for LBI and about 80% of the active warhawk community forum posters. They listened to all of us and responded to that friction, making their own choices for the direction fo the game, for better or worse.
Like you I still love Starhawk and still have dreams and ideas of adjustments and additions that could have made the game even better.
In the end it was LBI, not us, who decided what would be what.
dreamcaster21 wrote:
Simplifying the game is what LBI needed to do,this building is helping destroy the game...Go to any server and look, camp and hide auto wars that's the game anyone can see this..
For CTF and TDM, I completely agree. However, it's not the case for zones. That mode is pretty much anti-camper given that you have to go out of your base to capture the zones and win. It's probably why it's not very popular though
.
thesupertman wrote:
LBI should have listened to MEEEEE! MEEE AND MEEE ONLY. LBI SHOULD NERFF PEOPLE WHO AREN'T ME AND MAKE MEEEEE INVUNCIBLE! NERF EVERYTHING THAT HAS KILLED ME! NERF MY KR SO IT CAN DESTRO TANKS! NERF MY GRIZZLY SO I CAN FLY! GIVE MEEEEE UNLIMITED CLUSTERS!!!!!
Who is MEEEE? Sounds japanese.
bus_driver68 wrote:
CRO_NOSM1-BUBA wrote:Since entering the community, I noticed attitudes by certain portions of the community that were completely against the foundation of the game, and unwilling to let go of its predecessor (which in itself was a great game)––and looking back, I think this is one of the biggest reasons for the poor performance of Starhawk. I mean it was released as a sort of half breed, not enough of a strategic RTS-esque shooter, and surely not enough as a Warhawk V.2––and quiet honestly I cannot believe how much the developers caved to this incessant whining (case and point: CAF). For example, there were such long-drawn out arguments for the addition of capturable bases, yet the idea of just building and renovating on the existing framework of the game didn't seem to interest many people (example: simply increasing the healths and cost of structures to strike a good balance).
I really wish that things that made this game distinct and different were pushed, instead of the perpetual struggle to hold it as close as possible to the predecessor. I wish that instead of perpetual whining that made the hawk a near game-breaking force, focus was put on improving and expanding the build and battle system––which in my opinion at least, is the heart of the game. I wish that instead of always being fast paced (although that's also nice) there were a deeper and more thought out battlefield, at least as an option. I wish that instead of being held back by what came before, Starhawk was given a chance to form a unique and distinct identity––instead of being the amalgamation of a game that it is now.
I still have fun in starhawk, and I think it really is one of the hidden gems of the PS3, but at the same time I can't let go of what it could have been.
Disclaimer: this is not to say that the community didn't give any good advice/positive criticism or that the developers were flawless, but that the fanaticism and at times arrogance stunted starhawk from growing into the much greater game that it could have been.
Lot's of people like to complain and post statements like this. Just because you don't fly CAF doesn't mean it shouldn't be in the game. Diversification is what makes the game great. Would it be the same game if they only had a pistol for the ground game or only the razorback for a vehicle?
The more I fly CAF, the more I realize my initial complaints about it are 100% true. CAF is the dominant flight mode. I'm still no where near as good in CAF overall, (the landscape is my number 1 enemy) but specifically A2A, its a beast, I'm slowly getting down the silent Solid glitch-fest movents. I cannot replicate these movements in AF no matter what, nobody can, the controls don't allow it. CAF is also great for flying outnumbered. dodging flak is also easier, because those instant verticals and powerslides make me harder to track. And the moving reticule gives me better accuracy with flakk as well. (quick flick left or right in CAF as opposed to turning my entire hawk just to adjust my aim in AF)
I've never EVER run into an AF pilot who can be as untouchable in the air, as some of the top CAF pilots. In fact, all the top pilots are CAF pilots.
This is not some opinionated "ongoing debate" with two sides bringing up great points. It's simply fact.
There's nothing we can do about it anymore in regards to fixing or balancing it out, but I'm not going to sit here and pretend the 2 flightmodes are equally balanced choices, or that the pros and cons of each balance them out. CAF comes out on top.
