Starhawk General

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

---

armyluke wrote:

I like WH, probably more than SH, it was more challenging and getting a kill was so rewarding seeing as how much of a pain it was to level up. I like the setting too, its got a great mix of WW2 and a future setting. The Eucadian Hawk easily being one of my favourite vehicles in any game ever, just because of its looks. The Western setting just doesn't work for me.

Everytime I go on WH though, its the same map setup in almost every server, CTF on Close Corridors, Northern Bridge and Grinder. They're great maps, they just get very repetitive after a while. I'd probably play more if I saw a greater variation of maps.

Although SH is no exception to this problem too.

---

Yeah towards the end of 2009 Warhawk's server variety was already starting to dwindle, by now its bad.  However, like you said, 95% of the SH games are usually 1 of 2 modes and 1 of 2 maps.  

I do miss the feeling that trying to become a general gave me...it gave me that desire to keep going as there weren't too many generals when I became one.  I was ticked off when one month after getting my 10,000 A2A kills they nerfed that requirement to 5k!   ARGH! 

[armyluke]

5,000 A2A Kills?!

It looks like I'll never become a General!

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

---

armyluke wrote:

5,000 A2A Kills?!

It looks like I'll never become a General!

---

it used to be 10k!  I did it and it took me a while, I was at the points for general before I got the 10k kills!

[armyluke]

---

PLYMCO_PILGRIM wrote:

---

armyluke wrote:

5,000 A2A Kills?!

It looks like I'll never become a General!

---

it used to be 10k!  I did it and it took me a while, I was at the points for general before I got the 10k kills!

---

Yea, I was stuck trying to get up to Sergeant for a while, you had to do so many things in one match to get that Warhawk Recruiting Ribbon, I eventually got it, I was so glad.

[RubiconAlpha]

---

ManlyMisfit wrote:

---

Appreciate the response Rub, Now I have to ask, why do you enjoy Starhawk so much more than Warhawk? Why not play Warhawk instead? Warhawk now is "almost" entirely a pilots game. I try to join every now and then and not near as fun as it once was for me. Maybe it's just the severs I end up joining but the skill level required now is relentless. Also I'm more than a bit rusty.

I also want to hit on the these 4 paragraphs. I don't think you developed enough as a 'hardcore' player to realize the delicate balance between the weapons in Warhawk. Nothing personal against you, it's just what I'm gathering from the to B/I sentences above. They contradict, if the ground and vehicle combat was balanced then ground only servers shouldn't leave you feeling exposed. I would consider myself "hardcore" enough in Warhawk's ground combat and back in the day was deadly enough to help my team to victory even though I didn't spend much time in the air. I feel weapon balance overall was better in Warhawk but like I stated in the above paragraph, "If you don't fly, you die.... a lot" in Warhawk now more than ever.

Starhawk has similar issues but there is far fewer aces in Starhawk and if you get tried of dying on the ground you can join another loadout and actually enjoy a game every now and then.

As to the lack of cover on the ground when on foot in Ground Pounder, there is little (if any at all) places to attack from when on foot without the use of a jetpack against tanks and Razorbacks. You can't use jetpacks when you are carrying the flag in most servers so stealthy moving from one end of the map to the other on foot is difficult at best. Sure I could call down a vehicle and try to make a quick escape but that's really your only real choice.

Add the changes to CTF in Starhawk where all you have to do is race for as many flags as you can, it defeats the need to keep the other teams flag hidden from them, so again this is counter to what I liked most about Warhawk's map layouts.

I've written extensively on the issues with Starhawk around the beta/ first month of release if your interested in reading it. If not, the short version is that although Starhawk is based off of Warhawk, the mechanics are totally different. I remember all those debates and for me I kept hoping LBI would find some better balance between weapons and vehicles during the beta.

After the game's release I focused more on the "unfinished-ness" of the whole project. Much shorter single player than I think most of us thought would be there. The lack of features and modes that we then got some of in later patches. The "lightness" of the RTS "lite" that Build and Battle was so hyped up about. And lastly all the game breaking bugs and crashes that tuned off so many day one buyers that never really got fully corrected.

I didn't want or need Starhawk to be just a "high rez" Warhawk since I pretty much moved on from Warhawk long before Starhawk was released. I just wanted something more, not just more of the same and surely not something less than Warhawk.

That is where my disappointment was, but after accepting that Starhawk is all it will ever be then I just got on to enjoying the parts I still do like and gripe (a little less) about the other stuff. Again nothing else has the same feel to it other than Warhawk and if Warhawk had Ground Pounder servers I'd be in those servers more than Starhawks.

All that means is that I personally don't see Starhawk having good troop or vehicle combat (balance). And because of that, Planes are as powerful. (Map layout also has a bit to do with it, like you mentioned. Also plane combat isn't very good, but that point is irrelevant). I totally agree there is still much to do with troop and vehicle combat to balance out the OP nature of planes in the game.

But that won't happen and anytime you gave a troop something that could actually take a plane down (Grizzly/MAW/Beam Turrets/Flak Cannons) pilots cried foul. They enjoy being invincible to everything other than other pilots in the game. Even then, many cry about that to. So no one is completely happy.

Better luck next time with who ever tries to make another "spiritual successor" to either franchise.

---

I hope that cleared up some of that for you and everyone else.

If I was strictly a pilot and enjoyed spending most of the round in the air I could see why Warhawk pilots said, "I'll pass on Starhawk". But I only got into a Hawk when I had to and that was to get somewhere fast, not play some Top Gun pilot from start to finish.

Warhawk now is mostly just ace pilots trying to "out pilot" each other and those on the ground have stayed in the game and kept their skills up. I haven't done either in the last two years so I put up with Starhawk for being more forgiving.

But I miss Warhawk (as it was in the beginning before jetpacks ), don't doubt that.

[BEN_drowned__]

WH and SH are the same in ground combat. Starhawk just has an aiming button. don't know how different flight is and don't care. I know that all WH vets that gave up on SH were pilots. I also hate pilots thatnever get on the ground. They use A2G on helpless troops and **bleep** me off. I also hate Rocket Launcher noobs. hawks make me not want to play this game and so does the rocket launcher.

[chemicalgroom]

Wow-  a whole trove of interesting bits here. 

@Rubicon: OMG, you have exactly the same thoughts about Warhawk as I do/did. If I were super cynical, I'd say you were my alt. LoL. Do you use a mic and play games on east coast time? If so, by all means send me a FR -- we'd be pretty well suited to each other in game.

@Philly: apology accepted and not necessary. Honest questions can sound abrasive, especially in a forum where there are mostly mindless platitudes tossed around.  In any event, your thoughts on MAG vs SH are very on point and well constructed. Maybe part of my comfort level in WH was the sense I had for maps/situations, which I certainly didn't try to cultivate in my limited time in SH.  If I joined a game that was a base ravage, I'd watch the map before spawning and come in when (and where, if possible) I was least likely to get hammered; and I knew the maps well enough (thanks to folks like Manly) that I could usually sneak out when needed. I still got killed, don't get me wrong, but I never had the issue that folks do with SH where it was spawn-die-spawn-die-spawn-die in some 8 v 2. 

@Manly: balance is the key word -- that's what makes a game work (or not). To me, BFBC2: Vietnam is still the high point. It was the ultimate rock/paper/scissors set up, with limited unlocks and very well designed maps (i.e. multiple exit points from and approaches to bases). It was limited DLC, but it was still the best multiplayer shooter gaming I've experienced by far because no one class/vehicle had an advantage that couldn't be over come by the proper load out/squad tactics. Of course, many hardcore BFBC2 folks hated it because they couldn't just sit in a spinning chopper of death and go 70-0 in a round...  

As you know all too well, I simply couldn't fly well enough in WH to be a factor and wasn't going to spend the hundreds of practice hours necessary to "get good" at it. I have a family, a demanding job, and limited TV time -- I just want to jump into game and play and have a fighting chance of survival. Any game that you have to practice is a fail to me. Any game that gives players with 1000 hours a significant advantage over someone with 100, whether it is by unlocks or a mastery of some demanding skill (like flying) is simply not going to find as broad of an audience and, therefore, has less chance of success. 100 hours of a videogame is a lot of time for "normal" people -- developers have to do what they can to help them have an enjoyable experience, which means (a) don't let them spawn into a vulnerable position during a base ravage, (b) give them good starter weapons, and (c) make any "perks" that provide a competitive advantage easily attainable.  There will still be some players (you) who are much better than others (me), but at least I feel like I have a fighting chance instead of repeatedly banging my head against the wall.

Back @Philly: your comments about spawning in MAG vs. Starhawk are spot on. It seems so simple that I can't believe Lightbox failed so miserably. Don't let a team camp the other home base, repeatedly destroying resources and killing people as they spawn. Didn't they ever play CTF in a blue server of WH? All games should have a protected zone at home base and some kind of mechanic like spawn-on-squad to give them a chance if one player breaks through.  The point is to have games that seem competitive, not to have servers that consistently empty because one team can easily get the upper hand and base ravage the other (then switch sides and do it again the next round).  I never played MGO, but it sounds great from your description. Hopefully there will be a sequel!

One of the things folks on boards like this often overlook is that 90% of the folks playing the game are NOT logging 1000 hours. Or 500. Or 300. If a developer caters to the folks who log 1000 hours, they will fail. To make the game work, it needs to be immediately appealing to those who would otherwise log 50 hours. Which is one reason why SH failed -- all that beta time, all those WH vets, tilted the battlefield before the game was even released.

@Plymco: I've never had issues with you before, so I'm not sure why you are ultra-sensitive now. Maybe it's just the history of these boards, I don't know. In any event, I threw out some hypotheticals trying to generate answers when no one had more to say than "it's fun!". No need to take anything personally. Healthy debate requires advancing arguments and defending them, and having a thick skin about it.

@GOW71: the limited server option (and narrow mode option that results) would definitely be a deal killer for me. So many online games are base ravages or unbalanced that I will often server hop in order to find a competitive match. Sounds like that's not an option in SH anymore. I guess it's not eating at you, though. Food for thought.

@everyone: what is with all the alts on this board? I've never seen so many folks posting under alts in my life. You know things are backwards when Manly posts under his screen name and other folks use alts... Lord Voldemort? Please. GameSage101 did that three years ago.

[CRO_NOSM1-BUBA]

---

chemicalgroom wrote:

...

As you know all too well, I simply couldn't fly well enough in WH to be a factor and wasn't going to spend the hundreds of practice hours necessary to "get good" at it. I have a family, a demanding job, and limited TV time -- I just want to jump into game and play and have a fighting chance of survival. Any game that you have to practice is a fail to me. Any game that gives players with 1000 hours a significant advantage over someone with 100, whether it is by unlocks or a mastery of some demanding skill (like flying) is simply not going to find as broad of an audience and, therefore, has less chance of success. 100 hours of a videogame is a lot of time for "normal" people -- developers have to do what they can to help them have an enjoyable experience, which means (a) don't let them spawn into a vulnerable position during a base ravage, (b) give them good starter weapons, and (c) make any "perks" that provide a competitive advantage easily attainable.  There will still be some players (you) who are much better than others (me), but at least I feel like I have a fighting chance instead of repeatedly banging my head against the wall.

...

One of the things folks on boards like this often overlook is that 90% of the folks playing the game are NOT logging 1000 hours. Or 500. Or 300. If a developer caters to the folks who log 1000 hours, they will fail. To make the game work, it needs to be immediately appealing to those who would otherwise log 50 hours. Which is one reason why SH failed -- all that beta time, all those WH vets, tilted the battlefield before the game was even released.

---

Interesting points, specially the last. I'm just gonna leave this here:  http://community.us.playstation.com/t5/Starhawk-General/How-Arrogance-and-Fanaticism-Never-Let-Starh...

[BlueKnight345]

I haven't been playing to long, only 23 hrs online, also I sort of suck flying a hawk but its part of the game and I will get better at it.. This game to me is great all around even if I do lose and get beat it only makes the next victory better. I just wish more people felt this way and stop giving this game such a "short chance"to like. I have played pretty much every other competitive shooter online I usually have around a 2.0 kdr in COD, but those games are very straight forward SH has so much more to offer and makes it much more of a competitive and fun game which is why I like it so much.

[bus_driver68]

If you want some help learning to fly then send me a FR and i will be glad to show you what I know.