08-11-2012 11:04 AM
After the new patch and the introduction of the cypress map with pre-build structures and weapon pick up . a lot of people are happy with the new dynamic and how fun and different it feels from the other map.
It's interesting because it is something , us WH vets have been saying since playing the beta , that LBI should have kept that from Warhawk , because it gave the game a faster pace .
Too bad that this as well as many other things we said was not listen from the LBI team and they took away so many features that worked really well in WH and instead took a big risk that unfortunately didn't work when we look at the sale figures .
All developing team should remember that no one knows the games better than the hard core players , specially us who have played WH for almost five years.
I like the latest update , especially the fact that rank points can't be gained by setting up private servers with a bunch of cheaters and help eachother rank up while everyone else play fair, It's something we had asked in WH but never got unfortunately.
LBI did a good job with this update , it's just too bad they didn't have time or the willingness to make a game like this on day one .
08-11-2012 01:40 PM - edited 08-11-2012 05:32 PM
They need to update the old levels.
Yes! I have said this clear back in the beta.
Build'n'Battle just doesn't give ground troops any real cover to fight off the air attack.
If LBI would update both Starhawk and the classic Warhawk maps, removing the permanent defensive turrets and add Build'n'Battle to them, we would get a far better balanced game. Period.
All the 1.03 updates (other than the change to CTF) are great but still no hope for ground players other than one limited loadout.
08-11-2012 01:44 PM
08-11-2012 02:00 PM
I agree mule_tool with your comment.
It does seem LBI spent all of their time getting the Build'n'Battle to play smoothly and very little was focused on weapon balancing or the real impact those weapons would have on how players would be forced to play.
I'm not trying to re-fight what LBI should have done before Starhawk was released, but at least we are starting to get a more playable and enjoyable game many months after the fact.
If the map design was tweaked like so many of us keep asking for, I feel Starhawk would a much better game overall.
08-11-2012 02:12 PM
although Cypress is now one of my fave maps, I don`t like RPgs, snipers and all but 1-2 weapons inside the main base, all blitz does now is add vehicles and uses the build limet. no blitz all you need is vehicles so you won`t be seeing much arment buildign in use any more wich I enjoyed having in the base (bunker does provide comer to most things thogh and the tower adds a look-out point) but still I would like it if they get rid of the weapons and move them atleast somewhere else in the map.
08-13-2012 07:08 PM
08-13-2012 08:43 PM - edited 08-13-2012 08:48 PM
As I've said elsewhere, LBI really should have foreseen the inherent problems with B&B and offered it to us not as a one-size-fits-all combat strategy. Yes, on paper it sounds phenomenal—and I suppose it could be with two highly-coordinated teams who each want to play an interesting, complex game. But all it usually amounts to is a race for cluster bombs and torpedoes, and to see who can be the first one to put up three bubble shields around two tank garages and fifteen beam turrets.
B&B is a great concept that should have been added onto the already-solid base that Warhawk supplied. Many of the changes to Starhawk were unnecessary and have proven to be detrimental—perhaps the new missile tracking system is the most offensive of these. But one of its most glaring flaws is the omission of decent cover for troops, which was clearly intended to encourage strategic use of B&B. Sadly, B&B went out the window the day cluster bombs entered the scene, and when the game flooded with players who had no idea how to use it strategically or cohesively. It's just not enough on its own. And that's not even to mention the fact that the only B&B structure that can realistically be used for cover from most attacks (the bunker) also blocks your view of the skies, meaning that while you can't as easily be Hawked from inside of one, you can't really do much to fight back, either.
Resultantly, the game revolves almost completely about vehicles, whereas in Warhawk I always felt like troops had a place in battle. They were a constant threat, firing high-impact rockets while nearly invisible under cover—locking onto tanks and Hawks alike. I know that in the end the best Hawk pilots still dominated, but those were the best. In Starhawk, even the best troops don't stand a chance against a half-assed pilot. And that's just poor game design.
Troops would have a MUCH better chance (and the game itself would be significantly improved) if LBI would do just two things for them:
1) Vastly increase the MAW rocket's tracking and movement speed, and tighten its pathing. In essence, give us back the rocket launcher from Warhawk. It never needed changing in the first place.
2) Update all of the launch maps with indestructible cover. Tunnels, crumbling buildings, towers, natural caves in the rocks, you name it. Just give troops and clever pilots places to hide that can't be cluster bombed out of existence.
As outspoken a critic I am of the godawful red triangles in this game, I'd settle for the two improvements listed above. They alone would do so much to improve the game that I could tolerate the inclusion of the n00b alerts. I would also absolutely wait patiently for those updates to trickle out, even if they had to launch a separate patch for each individual map to keep the data packets as small as possible. Yes, it would be worth it, LBI—to all of us, and ultimately to you as well.