-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Warhawk - The Official Thread
- Thread starter dralla
- Start date
FightyF said:
But BF2 is NOT Warhawk, if you've played Warhawk then you know how fast-paced and dynamic everything is.
How elastic is the AI in BF2? If the AI essentially turns into a complete one-dimensional n00b that is easily destroyed then what's the point in that? And wouldn't that become something else for the reviewer to complain about?
Xater said:
But then in order to be fun, unlike in UT2k4, bots would have to be able to do those things in Warhawk. It would have to know how to navigate in a complex manner without getting stuck or frozen and not know what to do. Warhawk's environments are HUGE and there are lots and lots of ways to get from A to B.
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
Thank God there's no bots. We need smart humans to whoop smart humans' asses :lol
Xater said:
Why don't you tell me instead?
Do they have 32 players, half of which are doing cockscrews and loop to loop in midair while trying to take each others out while people on the ground have a handful of options between picking off the planes with rockets, taking out the turrets with tanks, driving a keep with a buddy manning the gun in the back, laying mines, having gunfights, sniping and calling in airstrikes on people, and people going to and from any one of those things freely, ALL AT THE SAME TIME?
Kittonwy said:
Yes that pretty much descibes what onslaught is all about. The flying vehicles can't do corckscrews or looping and there are no airstrikes but that pretty much is wat the onslaught mode is about and it is playable with bots.
Onslaught = Battlefield in UT universe but faster paced + way better bots.
Epic gets praised for their bots not without reason.
Xater said:
ehm, I never liked UT (preffered Q3A at the time), but did anyone want to play with bots in multiplayer? I know in Q3A, people left servers that they saw bots in.
It is pretty silly argument when it those games people had strong dislike for bots.
And most importantly, there is simply no reason for bots - if you want to practice in Warhak, you simply play on unranked server.
do not care for bots. i find them too predictable in a fps game and i never use them when playing forza2 online.
warhawk is an online multiplayers game, get on one of those unranked servers and practice with real people. wtf do you need bots for??!
this game will be great! EFF THE BOTS!!!1
warhawk is an online multiplayers game, get on one of those unranked servers and practice with real people. wtf do you need bots for??!
this game will be great! EFF THE BOTS!!!1
Fellow CANADIANS:
Best buy has an awesome warkhawk deal right now:
39.99
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodd...39&catid=24374&logon=&langid=EN&test_cookie=1
Best buy has an awesome warkhawk deal right now:
39.99
http://www.bestbuy.ca/catalog/prodd...39&catid=24374&logon=&langid=EN&test_cookie=1
Shao Kahn Brewing a Stew
Banned
MoeB said:
LATE TO THE PARTAYYYYYYYYYYY *dances*
Lord Phol
Member
I really don't understand the bot-hate here on neogaf. It's not like you have to play with them just cause they are in the game, and why shouldn't people who prefer to play with bots or dislike online gaming not be able to enjoy the game in their own way?
It's just an option, if u don't want to play with bot's then you don't have to, and if u prefer to go up against AI why shouldn't that be an option?
I understand people not caring about wether it's in or not, but those who are really against it for no partiuclar reason than that THEY don't want to play with them, eh, why would you have to?
It's just an option, if u don't want to play with bot's then you don't have to, and if u prefer to go up against AI why shouldn't that be an option?
I understand people not caring about wether it's in or not, but those who are really against it for no partiuclar reason than that THEY don't want to play with them, eh, why would you have to?
WARHAK SUCKS BECAUSE IT DOESN'T HAVE A SINGLE PLAYER CAMPAIGN!
BIOSHOCK IS ONE OF THE BEST GAMES EVER EVEN THOUGH IT COMES WITHOUT AN ONLINE MODE WHICH HAS BECOME A STANDARD IN FPS GAMES!!!
How can these statements live in peace together?
They can't...
It's an multi-player only game, just like many games are single-player only, so get the fuck over it and stop trying to justify your bias.
BIOSHOCK IS ONE OF THE BEST GAMES EVER EVEN THOUGH IT COMES WITHOUT AN ONLINE MODE WHICH HAS BECOME A STANDARD IN FPS GAMES!!!
How can these statements live in peace together?
They can't...
It's an multi-player only game, just like many games are single-player only, so get the fuck over it and stop trying to justify your bias.
btw, didnt we have Warhawk requests thread? I never noticed request for bots?
p.s. there is nothing wrong with bots in the game, it is just that usually they suck and nobody cared about having them in Warhawk (people who played the beta)... If they wanted to include them, sure...
Nothing wrong with Single player either - it is just that I would pay $20 extra for something that I wouldnt play...
p.s. there is nothing wrong with bots in the game, it is just that usually they suck and nobody cared about having them in Warhawk (people who played the beta)... If they wanted to include them, sure...
Nothing wrong with Single player either - it is just that I would pay $20 extra for something that I wouldnt play...
PS
I can understand reviewers pointing out not having bots as a negative, but complaining the game has no single-player campaign goes beyone the pale.
*RANT ALERT*
I am sick and tired of you single-player gamers fucking with my multi-player games.
I have "paid" for your shitty campaigns (which I never had any interest in) time and time again and it makes me happy we can finally be free form you and your draining of precious resources.
Also...
I just wrote a review on the game of baseball..
I had to knock a few points of the score for being multi-player only...
I can understand reviewers pointing out not having bots as a negative, but complaining the game has no single-player campaign goes beyone the pale.
*RANT ALERT*
I am sick and tired of you single-player gamers fucking with my multi-player games.
I have "paid" for your shitty campaigns (which I never had any interest in) time and time again and it makes me happy we can finally be free form you and your draining of precious resources.
Also...
I just wrote a review on the game of baseball..
I had to knock a few points of the score for being multi-player only...
FightyF said:
LOL you obviously have not played with the Bots in Battlefield 2... when they were not in vehicles they were pretty good...
Good lord as soon as the bot jumps in a vehicle (ESPECIALLY PLANES OR HELICOPTERS) thats pretty much a point for the other team.. because bots can't last more than5 seconds in a flying vehicle... and they always crash or get stuck in walls using Wheeled vehicles...
Battlefield 2 is THE REASON games with flying vehicles shouldn't use bots
Several thousand people in the Warhawk beta seemed to learn the game just fine and there are ways to play the game in a non-competitive fashion where points don't count and you can learn just as well if not better from other players.FightyF said:
To be accurate, they weren't working on bots for multiplayer. The question in the podcast was about bots, but Jobe responded to the extent of what AI they did work on, which was for the SP campaign portion of the game only. From his answer, there was no indication that they were ever working on bots for the MP portion of the game so there's no indication they saw importance in it for MP.
UT3 has bots because Epic didn't want to let go of the sale to the single-player gamer - it's not a feature they added for the sake of the people interested in a multiplayer game. Incog OTOH resolutely decided to make Warhawk an MP only game, which is fundamentally targeted at a narrower audience. Like I said, at this point it's like dinging Madden because you don't like football and feel that EA should have coded a different game mode into the package that is to your liking.
Once you start looking at this in the sense of MP only game modes, your assertion that bots are a staple doesn't hold up. Plenty of FPSes leave bots out of their MP modes, the Halo series being a notable example.
Xater said:
Well then Onslaught shouldn't be compared to Warhawk then. Plus it doesn't have the kind of environments Warhawk has, which would make it much easier for the bots to get stuck in various objects as well as a battleground in the air that is much more demanding on the AI. They would have to completely simplify how the maps are laid out just to make the bots work, which would be stupid.
As things stand I don't see how they can implement bots for the game that wouldn't be complete shit, and it's not about having a feature for the sake of having a feature, it should be well-implemented.
It's not even like you care about bots being in the game to begin with, seeing how you're just arguing for argument's sake.
Kittonwy said:
Pace doesn't have anything to do with AI, it doesn't make it inherently harder. Again, BF2 shares the same sort of dynamic gameplay.
Kittonwy said:
Which is being done in UT 3.
Kittonwy said:
With AI.
When it comes to navigating a level, using path finding AI.
Again, these sorts of things have been done for YEARS across platforms and games.
Kittonwy said:
Yup.
The flying is actually more efficient.
Safe Bet said:
Again, for a reviewer to bring up the lack of bots, when it has become a standard in these sort of games that focus on deathmatch and team objective modes, is perfectly FAIR.
For you to cry and whine about it, accomplishes nothing.
kaching said:
That doesn't discount the usefulness of bots.
But he did say they would add it, if it came down to it, am I right?
Epic did it to give more value to the gamer.
Whatever their reasons were, why is it wrong for a reviewer to mention it in a review?
This doesn't make sense at all. If Madden had a staple "Franchise Mode" and it was missing it in 08, the reviewer would definitely mention it.
Halo is not an MP only game. Neither is Resistance, or The Darkness.
Games like Q3A, BF1942, BF2, CounterStrike, Shadowrun, etc. People even ADDED Bots to games like Tribes because they were useful.
I don't see why you're trying to argue my point.
Most level headed gamers here agree that there is NOTHING wrong with the reviewer mentioning the lack of bots, in his review.
Guileless
Temp Banned for Remedial Purposes
My PSM came today so first thing I did was check out the infamous review. Now I wasn't in the beetuh so I have no opinion on any of this and I am buying the game on day one so it's all academic to me.
The reviewer's main complaint (besides the bots) is that the warhawks are too vulnerable. And when I say that's his main complaint, it really is his main complaint. Almost every screenshot caption is about how the warhawks are weak.
"Hope you like breakfast, 'cuz that tank is about to turn your Warhawk into toast."
"You're much safer in a tank or truck."
"On the ground is the only way to win a war."
"Good luck! You're gonna need it." (referring to a shot of a Warhawk about to go on a bomb run.)
Not only that, but they have a sidebar graphic detailing how many shots it takes each ground-based actor to take down a Warhawk! :lol So while the lack of bots is part of the score, the main beef is that Warhawks are weak. Like I said I don't know, I'll find out next week. But whoever decided the strength of the Warhawks really shit in that reviewer's cereal.
The reviewer's main complaint (besides the bots) is that the warhawks are too vulnerable. And when I say that's his main complaint, it really is his main complaint. Almost every screenshot caption is about how the warhawks are weak.
"Hope you like breakfast, 'cuz that tank is about to turn your Warhawk into toast."
"You're much safer in a tank or truck."
"On the ground is the only way to win a war."
"Good luck! You're gonna need it." (referring to a shot of a Warhawk about to go on a bomb run.)
Not only that, but they have a sidebar graphic detailing how many shots it takes each ground-based actor to take down a Warhawk! :lol So while the lack of bots is part of the score, the main beef is that Warhawks are weak. Like I said I don't know, I'll find out next week. But whoever decided the strength of the Warhawks really shit in that reviewer's cereal.
Warhawks were weak...in the hand of inexperienced players. But they were powerful ships in that:
-they could do strafing bomb runs and weaken enemy transports/guns
-they could easily infiltrate enemy bases and drop two guys loaded with rocket launchers in the heart of the main base, instead of having to go through the front defenses
-snipers in remote areas could easily be thwarted by Warhawks with gunfire and missiles
-you can literally go anywhere on the battlefield in less than ten seconds, compared to a tank or jeep that could take 2-4 minutes sometimes (Euchadia, with it's twisty road infrastructure, is a great example of this).
-go invisible and scope out enemy bases to report back to the troops, and scout out any traps along the way
-be "angels in the sky" and give air cover to transport jeeps carrying the flag
So yeah, they were weak for a reason. But if you knew how to handle the Warhawks, there were many defenses:
-you could use the double boost and get out of a hairy warzone in just three seconds
-you use corkscrews and twists to try and dodge groundfire
-deploy chaffs to kill any homing missiles your way
-grab some of the many air-health kits on levels
Beginners need to stick to the ground...Warhawks are for intermeds/advanced players who can dish out the pain while bringing on the defense. I loved that part of this awesome, awesome game.
-they could do strafing bomb runs and weaken enemy transports/guns
-they could easily infiltrate enemy bases and drop two guys loaded with rocket launchers in the heart of the main base, instead of having to go through the front defenses
-snipers in remote areas could easily be thwarted by Warhawks with gunfire and missiles
-you can literally go anywhere on the battlefield in less than ten seconds, compared to a tank or jeep that could take 2-4 minutes sometimes (Euchadia, with it's twisty road infrastructure, is a great example of this).
-go invisible and scope out enemy bases to report back to the troops, and scout out any traps along the way
-be "angels in the sky" and give air cover to transport jeeps carrying the flag
So yeah, they were weak for a reason. But if you knew how to handle the Warhawks, there were many defenses:
-you could use the double boost and get out of a hairy warzone in just three seconds
-you use corkscrews and twists to try and dodge groundfire
-deploy chaffs to kill any homing missiles your way
-grab some of the many air-health kits on levels
Beginners need to stick to the ground...Warhawks are for intermeds/advanced players who can dish out the pain while bringing on the defense. I loved that part of this awesome, awesome game.
AKingNamedPaul
I am Homie
I think kittonwy is right about the bots thing :x
Also i want my fcking wowhawk so i can snipe ppl, and have epic games of ctf >;o
Also i want my fcking wowhawk so i can snipe ppl, and have epic games of ctf >;o
chubigans said:
Agree completely. However, if there was one gripe I had with the warhawks, which i will shamefully admit I was pretty damn good in was that the power missiles were really all you needed. I really never used any other weapons besides power missiles. One power missile + 3 seconds of the machine gun = dead Warhawks. I hope they can at least make the multiple missiles a little more powerful so it doesn't take like 6+ to take someone out.
Trevelyan said:
you mean against other warhawks? With experienced players, it is really hard to take them down... As soon as you lock, i deploy countermeasures, go behind mountain to run from power missile, run for the health and do some crazy stunts to get behind your back. Warhawks are almost perfectly balanced against Warhawks...
yes, you can take them down easily with ground to air, but at the same time thats the whole point... when we discover someone arming the missile launcher, tow is deployed and target is destroyed.
It is really well balanced game when it comes to Warhawks.
Yeah, the Warhawks are good for supporting your allies and the like, but they're not the powerhouses that people tend to think of them as at a glance. Trying to kill someone with machine gun fire takes forever. When you used the cluster bombs on the ground, you'd be lucky if you killed one or two people. And of course, the AA guns are really powerful so they're easy to shoot out of the sky as well. They shouldn't be all-dominating, but they should be a bit stronger.chubigans said:
Of course, that shouldn't result in a 6.5, but whatever.
spwolf said:
But thats what the mutliple missiles are for. you fire one or two of those so you know they've deployed their chaffs, all while firing your machine gun. and then just switch to the power missle and finish them off. However, I always made sure i was pretty damn close behind the other warhawks when firing them.
I dunna, just me I guess.
Yeah, power missiles do take quite a while...so once those two "dummy missiles" are shot towards me and I'm out of chaffs, I get the hell out of there before a power missile gets me.
Basically, if you're in the air and you don't have at least one chaff, you need to switch to defenses before it's too late.
Basically, if you're in the air and you don't have at least one chaff, you need to switch to defenses before it's too late.
narcosis219
Member
GAF Canada in the works? Count me in! Vancouver ftw 
.
Best Buy is too far for me, so I'm gonna try and price match at Futureshop. Hopefully it will still be in stock by the time I get there.
.Best Buy is too far for me, so I'm gonna try and price match at Futureshop. Hopefully it will still be in stock by the time I get there.