on 15-03-2012 06:48 PM
A big part of the fun of warhawk in my opinion was the large multilevel buildings. the ability to escape planes by running round these mini mazes allowed you tip the balance during battles. so far all we got in starhawk as map buildings go are a few tiny buildings in the centre of dust and abit of multilevel work on the bridges in acid sea/scourge. The bridge is quite good, i have both escaped and chased an enemy across and under it leading to interesting battles and its great if your on foot and there is a pesky hawk or two about.
Do we want to see more bigger, multilevel maps issued buildings or not?
on 16-03-2012 07:00 PM
I agree, being the diehard teamplayer I am, I really love all the ''interiors" and "mazes", which are in Warhawk. I don't shy from dogfighting at all, but firefights in the DC skyscrapers, or Omega Factory are really awesome and important part of Warhawks gameplay. I won't even mention the small layouts like Olsavik village, Grinder and Close Corridors.
Trying to clean up the whole place, while in intense shootouts is awesome. Add a few landmines and you have a recipe for success.
The fact, that some of those places need to be cleaned up on foot is very good for balance of the game as well.
So, I'd really welcome, if the maps added a couple ''roooms'', so we can get some close quarter combat going.
So far, we have just bunkers and that's an artificial structure called down from the orbit. And while I enjoy conquering the bunkers, we really need to have more classic, concrete stuff filled with enterable parts. These buildings also make the game unique. How could someone forget the arbour in the middle of the DC map ?
Much love for enterable structures in Warhawk & Starhawk!!
on 16-03-2012 08:08 PM
Yeah i would like some places to hide and fight from without the threat of it bolwing up sometimes. maybe it would encourage build spots outside the base if they had somewhere to hide if it all went wrong. lol
on 16-03-2012 08:18 PM
Yes, you're 100% right with the part about hiding somewhere.
The maps we now have are just without ANY real cover. You're exposed at all times.
You can't run in that narrow alley, or anything and that's just wrong.
Seriously, it was fun to play in such areas. I was A2Ging, or in a tank many times, but I never thought of those ''alley'' tactics as cheap. It was just another obstacle on the battlefield and I don't expect, that I'll A2G it everything all the way to the enemy flag.
It also nicely mixed up the gameplay, because conquering a base like that could be a totally epic battle on its own.
on 16-03-2012 09:42 PM
I remember in warhawk if you had no vehicle but where under attack from a tank or a plane the allys were your only chance. keep moving and change attack points and maybe you can outwit the tank or plane enough to bring it down. now with starhawks build and battle ability you could turn map issued structures into more usefull setting.
Think deralict building where you can upgrade it with ist own unique traits that you can add like doors, sentry gun mounts or maybe even something new only available for these buildings?
on 18-03-2012 12:26 AM
I agree, the maps need more natural cover an interiors. I think the issue the developers had though was that the build-and-battle feature requires for structures to be able to fall from the sky, and so they can not land, say, in a building.
I would suggest, however, that they work around this by placing control panels of the map's buildings thenselves, allowing for you to spend rift energy, like you do for vehicles, to mount a small gate in a hallway or a turret on a wall.
If they make the requested item spawn from the building itself, that would get around the limitations of the falling-from-the-sky effect. Perhaps have there be and energy effect, or something else Starhawky.
This would be Awsome!
on 18-03-2012 01:01 PM
Yeah i agree, map issued buildings you can upgrade with your rift would be the best. and it would be a good way to draw people into currently unplayed areas. Dust is so big there are alot of areas which dont see any action at all. And if starhawk is aiming to offer map options similar to warhawk then we could be in for even bigger maps. i seem to remember the factory map in warhawk was massive maybe even 3 times the size of dust.
Adding this option to the game is bound to improve on what is already a very impressive formula, dont you think?
on 19-03-2012 05:50 PM
I think this is a great idea. Dust isn't a terrible map, but there is far too much nothing out there. I remember in Warhawk, if I ran around a map on foot, I would find all sorts of buildings and interesting arcitecture I could explore and find weapons and whatnot hiding inside. This gave some incentive to get out of the home base and fortify somewhere else. This is not the case in Starhawk -- especially Dust. You run around the entire map for absolutely no reward. There is nothing out there save for a few rift barrels here and there. Weapons needs to spawn in more locations and neutral bases that we can fortify and make our own NEED to be in this game. It feels very shallow without that.
on 23-03-2012 02:33 PM
Im not trying to put down the build and battle system, the truth is i love it. as a seasoned command and conquer player this feature really rings home for me and it would be a dire shame if they took it out. but random abandoned complexes that you can either capture or upgrade or hopefully both would enrich the maps of this game.
For the latest news and updates on what is happening in the PlayStation community, head over to our Announcements & Events forum.
To post a message, you will need to Sign In to the Forums using your PLAYSTATION®Network Sign In ID and password. If you do not yet have a PSN account, just click here to register.