Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Do you mean 
Reply
Jan 24 2013
By: CRO_NOSM1-BUBA I Only Post Everything 865 posts
Offline

Starhawk and Tower Defense

8 replies 302 views Edited Jan 24, 2013

I was watching the community night live a while back, and I wanted to (finally) share some realizations from it––namely that of  Starhawk's uncanny resemble to a tower defense game, when looked from a detached/top-down/meta view. Really, it was a sight to behold, with a team of troops constantly fortifying and fighting off what seemed to waves and waves of foes from capturing their base, coming in the form of combat units, hawks, etc. I feel this is what the developers initially envisioned, too bad it isn't easier to see and understand the meta-game from the player view.

 

More thoughts later, what do you think? 

 

 

Please use plain text.
Message 1 of 9 (302 Views)
Reply
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 11/22/2004
Offline
1176 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

[ Edited ]
Jan 24, 2013

CRO_NOSM1-BUBA wrote:

I feel this is what the developers initially envisioned, too bad it isn't easier to see and understand the meta-game from the player view.


Great observation!

 

As an RTS player, Starhawk does force teams to use tower defense tactics. Sadly, structures are so weak and the pace of play so relentless it's kind of a fool's errand to build elaborate bases.

 

Many new players try to build bases that they hope will be undefeatable. Overbuilding in just the main base instead of moving forward partly because many of the maps make forward base building difficult at best to set up and defend.

 

So instead you now have shielded bubble mini-bases on high spots on the map for campers that get tied of getting killed on the main ground plain. Often these mini-bases does little to defend the flag, or help the team as a whole.

 

Not always but often.

 

I do wish base defenders got more credit. Not to promote more camping but there is a role for defenders who keep the flag safe and structures up and available for their team.

 

Starhawk does give a supplier medal and repairman medal but kills inside your team's zones should be rewarded higher in my opinion. Same should go for attackers that get kills behind enemy lines.

 

This would help focus roles for each type of player. Starhawk's free-for-all style does make this game frustrating at times and the lack of necessary communication with each other adds to that frustration.

 

I would find Assault mode far more enjoyable if the defenders were not always put in a hopeless situation right from the start. Sure, I've been on teams that have defended our bases well but LBI created this mode more for the chaos than making it hard for the attacking team to capture each base.

 

Once the first base is captured it becomes more of a battle against time. Some love the chaos, Starhawk is all about the chaos but this is where more RTS elements would create more strategic gameplay.

 

LBI wanted everything to be fast and furious every minute of gameplay. They succeeded.

 

Which is why every reviewer singled out how fun the multiplayer was at first glance. I wonder if any of them played more than just a few brief hours since Starhawk was nowhere to be found on any of their "Best of 2012" lists. The players of the game had to write Starhawk in.

 

Had the gameplay been deeper, more strategic and something that forced the player to evolve their tactics over time I believe more players would still be here from the beta days.

 

Also, the game would have had a bigger impact in the shooter world and not just been looked at as some flash-in-the-pan title that was just something people enjoyed on some convention floor or public beta but didn't bother preordering.

 

I still love Starhawk but if we are to ever get another game in the Warhawk/Starhawk formula, developers/publishers need to make sure it can draw a larger, lasting audience for all of us.

 

I hope we someday get something that is as unique as Warhawk/Starhawk but can also be a success.

Please use plain text.
Message 2 of 9 (267 Views)
Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/25/2012
Offline
7276 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 24, 2013
PixelJunm Monsters Delux Edition!
Please use plain text.
Message 3 of 9 (253 Views)
Reply
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
48434 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 24, 2013

Southern_DuDe_20 wrote:
PixelJunm Monsters Delux Edition!

Best 10 bucks I ever spent on PSN besides RISK: Factions :smileytongue:

I actually got PJM to LAG!  For real!  check it out :smileytongue:

 

Please use plain text.
Message 4 of 9 (247 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/21/2011
Offline
865 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 24, 2013

RubiconAlpha wrote:
 
As an RTS player, Starhawk does force teams to use tower defense tactics. Sadly, structures are so weak and the pace of play so relentless it's kind of a fool's errand to build elaborate bases.

 ...

 

 

I do wish base defenders got more credit. Not to promote more camping but there is a role for defenders who keep the flag safe and structures up and available for their team.

 

...

This would help focus roles for each type of player. Starhawk's free-for-all style does make this game frustrating at times and the lack of necessary communication with each other adds to that frustration.

 

I would find Assault mode far more enjoyable if the defenders were not always put in a hopeless situation right from the start. Sure, I've been on teams that have defended our bases well but LBI created this mode more for the chaos than making it hard for the attacking team to capture each base.

 

...

LBI wanted everything to be fast and furious every minute of gameplay. They succeeded.

 

...

Had the gameplay been deeper, more strategic and something that forced the player to evolve their tactics over time I believe more players would still be here from the beta days.

 

 


Thorough as always! And I agree, been wanting stronger structures for a while, and really strategic-ness is traded for the relentless pace, lots of good points.

 

Imagine if Assault was more tower defense-like, there being waves of a couple minutes in which the attacking team has to take a zone, each wave unlocking more stuff on the attacking teams BnB wheel (starting off pretty weak, basically just ground units). SO many ideas...SO much potential. I really think starhawk should have had the "Play.Create.Share" mantra, with more player control much if not all problems could be alleviated. 

Please use plain text.
Message 5 of 9 (228 Views)
Reply
I Only Post Everything
Registered: 12/21/2011
Offline
865 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 24, 2013
It's funny actually, when I first started posting I made a thread called "LBI meets LBP" talking about this, but no one seemed to read it so I changed the title to "Non-Ranked Servers and Awesomeness," with better reception lol.
Please use plain text.
Message 6 of 9 (223 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 11/22/2004
Offline
1176 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 24, 2013

I think we are in agreement Assault mode could have been more Tower Defense "like" and should have put the really hard work on the side of the attackers, not the defenders.

 

The weakness of everything that can (and must) be built and the lack of permanent structures and/or natural choke points really puts the defenders at a real disadvantage.

 

Add to that the nature of Outpost spam and there's no real way to defend much of anything in the game other than "kill quick and kill often".

 

I know true RTS gameplay have long and slow startup times before the real action starts. But perhaps such focus on quick "instant action" gameplay, which makes Starhawk what it is, robs the game from bringing in new players, and more importantly, keeping those players coming back for more.

 

I do find it funny so many in this community have now shown such an interest in Dust 514 which is entirely the opposite of everything LBI was trying to do with Starhawk.

 

Why? Maybe because they are ready for something more than just a kill-fest every round, more defined roles and some type of focus on the overall goals for their team.

 

I'll keep checking in on Dust 514 to see if it develops into the kind of game they (Sony/CCP Games) keep saying it will be.

 

But had LBI done more to give the player real server options including custom loadouts, skills off/on, adjustable building strengths, permanent structures, capturable zones over deployable outposts and adjustable in-game rules even if non-ranked, more players would still be enjoying this game and not be looking elsewhere for something new.

 

I do hope LBI and other developers read some of our thoughts about how the gameplay could have been done differently for longer lasting appeal and perhaps garnering a larger audience.

Please use plain text.
Message 7 of 9 (202 Views)
Reply
Treasure Hunter
Registered: 01/25/2012
Offline
7276 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 25, 2013
Pilgrim, please play my game. I cant Rainbow that level to save my life! SUBSCRIBED!
Please use plain text.
Message 8 of 9 (173 Views)
Reply
0 Likes
PlayStation MVP
Registered: 12/21/2007
Offline
48434 posts
 

Re: Starhawk and Tower Defense

Jan 25, 2013

Southern_DuDe_20 wrote:
Pilgrim, please play my game. I cant Rainbow that level to save my life! SUBSCRIBED!

The gem bomb is KEY!   and enough fire towers to lag out the game lol.

 

I would totally love to do it for you, i've actually gotten the trophy on an alt account also just for giggles :smileytongue:

 

Please use plain text.
Message 9 of 9 (144 Views)
Reply
0 Likes