Public Starhawk BETA

[mcann07]

What do you think about the starhawk ground game? I've played 1200+ hours in Warhawk, mainly on the ground. Yet, when I play starhawk I want to fly. I am at best an average pilot so it's not In my best interest to fly. But the ground game in starhawk is awful, so I'd rather struggle against good pilots than quite easily dispose of most ground players.

I don't know what it is but it's so boring to play on the ground. Anybody else find the ground game somewhat lacking. Considering that we have nearly all the troop weapons, it's hard to see how it can improve.

[Commandofin]

Easy to answer this. You like preset maps where there are preset bases which have bunkers and other buildings. These bases are part of the map which are designed to attract players attention by it holding a flag or it gives you other goodies besides cover. In Starhawk you create bases on the map on the go and establish these "attraction" points on the map. So you don't know where to go until these player made bases have been established by the enemy. And you get confused where to go even though you won't notice it but thats why you get frustrated because you don't have clear place to go.

And trying to attack player made bases which end you getting killed every time gives you the feeling that it wasn't important anyway since the base itself isn't important be it where ever it is. This will how ever change when LBInt introduces Zone since there are clear points on the map which are needed to be controlled so that players like you would know exactly where to go and fight.

You pick up hawk since you can more easily engage enemys in combat in air than on ground because you get always a clear view to your target and can spot enemys from the air. Since in Starhawk air combat requires less things to worry and know about than ground combat you go for the fast and easy one which is air.

And the fact that players are more scattered than in Warhawk doesn't give you the joy of ground combat by being surrounded by multiple enemys and trying to fight them all off. This how ever would be fixed with a simple new game mode where build and battle would shine IMO. The game mode puts one team attacking and one team defending randomly dropped cargos or what ever you want them to be. Then the rifters would be given small amount of time to build base and defences around the cargo and they would have to held off the outcast for a certain period of time. Rifters get points if they manage to secure the target and outcasts are given a point if they manage to destory it.

In short: Starhawk's maps lack the focus on certain spots on the map giving the player a feeling that they don't know where to go. This is why people try to get hawks so they can just engage enemys.

[Stezza]

---

mcann07 wrote:
But the ground game in starhawk is awful, so I'd rather struggle against good pilots than quite easily dispose of most ground players.

I don't know what it is but it's so boring to play on the ground. Anybody else find the ground game somewhat lacking. Considering that we have nearly all the troop weapons, it's hard to see how it can improve.

---

I don't think Starhawk's ground combat is 'awful' by any stretch of the imagination, it just needs a few tweaks to bring it up to par. At the moment it lacks the immediacy of Warhawk, where you could jump in a Hawk at the beginning of a game, fly straight to a neutral base and get out to find yourself fighting for your life against the oncoming enemy within a matter of seconds. It felt dangerous, urgent, exciting.

Build & Battle encourages a more defensive mindset which, from what I've seen so far, seems to lead to too many stalemates and too little direct contact with the enemy. A lot of people spend the first few minutes of the game building and then feel inclined to sit back and defend their structures rather than pushing forward and aggresively engaging the opposition.

Personally, I think the maps we're playing on at the moment are too big for small-sided games, there are often large areas on the ground that are completely devoid of action.

I also think regenerative health has adversely effected ground combat.

In Warhawk if you took a lot of damage in the process of killing the enemy the onus was on you to heal yourself, desperately running towards the health pickup with only the tiniest sliver of life force remaining, the threat of your imminent demise bearing down on you.

In Starhawk, it doesn't really matter how much damage you take, providing you stay alive you will be back to full health in no time at all, the game heals you, no muss, no fuss, no spills, no fun...

I would remove health regen entirely, adding health pickups, and add some pre-built structures to the landscape to encourage players to go out and fight over territory.

[mcann07]

---

Commandofin wrote:

Easy to answer this. You like preset maps where there are preset bases which have bunkers and other buildings. These bases are part of the map which are designed to attract players attention by it holding a flag or it gives you other goodies besides cover. In Starhawk you create bases on the map on the go and establish these "attraction" points on the map. So you don't know where to go until these player made bases have been established by the enemy. And you get confused where to go even though you won't notice it but thats why you get frustrated because you don't have clear place to go.

And trying to attack player made bases which end you getting killed every time gives you the feeling that it wasn't important anyway since the base itself isn't important be it where ever it is. This will how ever change when LBInt introduces Zone since there are clear points on the map which are needed to be controlled so that players like you would know exactly where to go and fight.

---

I might agree with everything here except, the highlighted text. I dont find killing people hard. I end up with a kdr closer to 2 than 1 most games. So its not that i find it hard to break the other team down. In warhawk, if i was on a small map like close corridors, grinder etc and my team was 9-0 up in ctf, or it was 7v1 in my favour, I would switch team so I could have a fight. I play better when the odds are against me, because raping a team bores the ***** outta me. Perhaps, its just that there are too many noobs so its too easy atm, but i know others who feel the same as i do. We were ground beasts in warhawk, but in starhawk have taken to the air. 

[Tsuujin]

I don't feel that the ground game is lacking, especially on defense. I have a great time building up a defensive perimeter and then holding it against infantry, razorbacks and hawks. The key is that the game isn't really meant to be played spread out. There are defined objective points (i.e., the flags) that are going to be the focus of attack, and the tools at your disposal are geared towards either assaulting these points or defending them. A well thought out strategy between teammates can even result in the creation of midway bases between objectives which will potentially see even more action.

[Hogezz]

The focus is dictated by either defining or attacking the bases and battling for control of parts of the map with rift barrels. That's where the magic happens.

[Fatal-Aim]

Oh man.... I agree that the ground game needs to pick up tremendously. It's like I been saying all along; by solely having to rely on B&B is really hurting the game a lot. At first, it's fun and exciting because it's new to the player but after awhile does it become monotonous due to the player having to build every little thing in order to do any little thing. So it basically drags the game play out while at the sametime limiting the player and the battlefield at the very same time, resulting is a lack of longevity in the far term. B&B should be the focus for sure, but it should not be the only option. It will only tank the experience, I feel.

[Leemco]

Totally agree with you bro the ground game is lacking big time , no squad system and a measly amount of weapon choice , it gets repetitive after a while playing starhawk we have had no evolution in the game modes i.e ctf and tdm same old modes from warhawk with no improvement to the game modes.

[Liam511]

Leemco... its a *****ing beta.

[InfiniteStates]

---

mcann07 wrote:
What do you think about the starhawk ground game? I've played 1200+ hours in Warhawk, mainly on the ground. Yet, when I play starhawk I want to fly.

---

I'm the exact opposite. I played a lot of Warhawk (dunno the hours), mostly in the air, yet on this I prefer being on the ground...