Thought I’d share some of my ideas. Everyone seems to be doing it, but the more the merrier, right? First off, I want to list a few things that the original Halo Wars lacked or did wrong.
Non-Symmetrical maps. This made it so that one team would be favored over the other simply because of the way the map was made. Examples include Frozen Valley (on one side an infantry unit stationed inside the secondary reactor can’t shoot at the rebel turret nearby and the other can) and Blood Gulch (supply spawns and teleport placement favor one side over the other, making attacking or defending hooks easier or harder depending on which side you’re on).
And of course…
Balance Issues. The biggest thing wrong with Halo Wars in my opinion. From my experience (as a 1’s player) the advantages that the developers gave to the Covenant over the UNSC are not enough. Things like the ability to train a scouting unit (that for some reason can combat actual units meant for battle) out of the main base, having stronger units, a better economy (marginal but the numbers don’t lie), and numerous other little things like more accurate turrets make the UNSC much more viable. I won’t even go into details with specific units as I’d be here all day.
If the developers fix these things, I’ll be very happy. Now, onto things that the original Halo Wars didn’t have that I think should be in Halo Wars 2.
Forge mode. Many RTS games have a map creator that players can use to create their own maps, and the inclusion of such a feature has never garnered negative feedback. If anything, it has helped keep certain games alive. If one is to look at Age of Empires 3, people still play it. The thing is, they hardly play the default maps anymore. People love to play on interesting and unique maps that can only be created from another player’s mindset and not a developer’s, as it creates excitement and showcases the true greatness of the community. It can only be a good thing, and I think it will work out well on the Xbox One.
Covenant Campaign. I know, people request this mercilessly. People criticize the original because it excluded it. From my point of view, it was a bummer, but it didn’t hurt the overall game. However, if CA ignore one of the biggest complaints people gave Halo Wars 1 and forgo the inclusion of a Covenant Campaign, reviewers will most likely go berserk. In turn, the sales would be hurt. I want this because it would be great for marketing, not necessarily because it needs to happen or anything.
Now, things that I don’t want in the game. But first, let me say that while some of these things are a good idea, I believe that CA has not given themselves enough time to make everyone’s suggestions a reality. It’s not that they’re bad ideas, it’s just a time issue.
A playable Flood faction. Creating an entirely new faction would take a lot of time. Factor in balancing issues and time restraints and that right there is how you ruin a game. I’m sure they would patch it if they put in a Flood faction and there was something wrong with it, but I’d rather them get it right the first time (marketing issues coming into play again). Stick with the UNSC and the Covenant. That in itself is difficult enough to balance.
Space Battles. (See paragraph above)
Halo Wars is my favorite game and has been that way since 2009. CA, don’t mess up.
I don’t agree that the UNSC is advantaged over the covenant. Think about the temple, a huge advantage: only one slot for 3 technology levels (you never need more) and upgrades.
But I would standardise and rethink balancing. Like in game leaders who can die and be resurrected are ridiculous. Same thing with covenant teleportation through portal. Covenants should have the equivalent of the pelican. I agree on removing warthog upgrades from the main base.
> 2533274881534340;4:
> I don’t agree that the UNSC is advantaged over the covenant. Think about the temple, a huge advantage: only one slot for 3 technology levels (you never need more) and upgrades.
> But I would standardise and rethink balancing. Like in game leaders who can die and be resurrected are ridiculous. Same thing with covenant teleportation through portal. Covenants should have the equivalent of the pelican. I agree on removing warthog upgrades from the main base.
If you think about it, the UNSC can get to tech 2 by spending 500 supplies while Covenant spend 1000. UNSC can also get to tech 3 with 750 supplies while the Covenant spend 2000. Of course, the effectiveness of the upgrades balance it out, so I never thought that the teching up system in Halo Wars was a problem. Also, if they made it so you could only build one leader, the developers would have to buff the crap out of them.
> 2535452784065270;5:
> > 2533274881534340;4:
> > I don’t agree that the UNSC is advantaged over the covenant. Think about the temple, a huge advantage: only one slot for 3 technology levels (you never need more) and upgrades.
> > But I would standardise and rethink balancing. Like in game leaders who can die and be resurrected are ridiculous. Same thing with covenant teleportation through portal. Covenants should have the equivalent of the pelican. I agree on removing warthog upgrades from the main base.
>
>
> If you think about it, the UNSC can get to tech 2 by spending 500 supplies while Covenant spend 1000. UNSC can also get to tech 3 with 750 supplies while the Covenant spend 3000. Of course, the effectiveness of the upgrades balance it out, so I never thought that the teching up system in Halo Wars was a problem. Also, if they made it so you could only build one leader, the developers would have to buff the crap out of them.
You guys seem to be missing the idea of Asymetrical balance. That’s what Halo Wars was going for; Not simply a re-skinned 2nd faction. Much like Starcraft: Terran/Protoss/Zerg are well balanced without being identical.
Halo Wars tried something similar by making each race play very differently. Each race has different advantages that on whole work out to an even playing field.
Towards the end of Halo Wars competitive popularity, it was considered to be decently balanced. Most of the real balancing issues that did not get fixed were in the imperfect symetrical placement of Hooks.
> 2533274809541057;6:
> > 2535452784065270;5:
> > > 2533274881534340;4:
> > > I don’t agree that the UNSC is advantaged over the covenant. Think about the temple, a huge advantage: only one slot for 3 technology levels (you never need more) and upgrades.
> > > But I would standardise and rethink balancing. Like in game leaders who can die and be resurrected are ridiculous. Same thing with covenant teleportation through portal. Covenants should have the equivalent of the pelican. I agree on removing warthog upgrades from the main base.
> >
> >
> > If you think about it, the UNSC can get to tech 2 by spending 500 supplies while Covenant spend 1000. UNSC can also get to tech 3 with 750 supplies while the Covenant spend 3000. Of course, the effectiveness of the upgrades balance it out, so I never thought that the teching up system in Halo Wars was a problem. Also, if they made it so you could only build one leader, the developers would have to buff the crap out of them.
>
>
> You guys seem to be missing the idea of Asymetrical balance. That’s what Halo Wars was going for; Not simply a re-skinned 2nd faction. Much like Starcraft: Terran/Protoss/Zerg are well balanced without being identical.
>
> Halo Wars tried something similar by making each race play very differently. Each race has different advantages that on whole work out to an even playing field.
>
> Towards the end of Halo Wars competitive popularity, it was considered to be decently balanced. Most of the real balancing issues that did not get fixed were in the imperfect symetrical placement of Hooks.
I understand that they wanted the two factions to be different, and I’m glad that Ensemble made them so unique when compared to each other. Still, I think the UNSC is slightly more powerful than the Covenant. I think the only thing that would have to be changed would be the ability to make scouting units out of the main base. That way, hog harassment won’t force Covie players to build turrets and in turn have a worse eco, prompting the UNSC to take charge and spam tanks before the Covenant can get a decent number of hunters. I’m not trying to say that the UNSC should be nerfed into the ground or anything. The difference is very slight, but the UNSC are definitely more viable. I’m hoping that Halo Wars 2 balance will hit the nail on the head.
… And yet the Covenant have a higher win% against usage than the UNCS does. If there were indeed any serious balancing issues remaining, Covenant would have a lower lifetime win %.
This translates into roughly 49% wins (lifetime) for UNSC, while Covenant have a roughly 51% wins (lifetime). Covenant win more games % than UNSC do.
Much like Starcraft, Covenant may be somewhat harder to use, but provide certain advantages in the hands of a competent player, just like the Zerg of Starcraft. And yet there is still balance.
The difference in play style and technical skill required to be a decent Covenant player is what causes the lower Lifetime use, but higher win % for Covenant.
The UNSC has a more traditional and intuitive play style, making them the more common choice for lower skilled/inexperienced players.
The Rudy misunderstood me a bit. I think the game is generally well balanced. And I understand asymmetrical balancing makes the game much more fun.
But, some things don’t make much sense for canon and common logic. I think it would be cool to have spirits for the covenant too. And the leader fact simply doesn’t make sense. If you are the leader and you die, you should lose the match. And if he dies for sure he can’t be resurrected. Also, the prophet is canonically OP.
Not saying they must keep the game as it is and put in that death of the leader means defeat, I believe that they must rethink it totally.
@YearlongAlarm96
I’m not sure what you mean. Price of UNSC reactors is:
1st 250
2nd 500
3rd 750
4th 1000
And if instead of wasting 4 slots you make and advanced one it costs 1200 (to be added to the initial price).
I think you find yourself better with the UNSC, but that doesn’t mean they are objectively stronger. Rudy is right. I’m more effective with the covenant, although using tactics like scarabs (sometimes+engineers) or counter units, while wraith, normal infantry and maybe banshees don’t seem much effective to me. Or at least not as effective as ODST, hawk and grizzly.
> 2533274881534340;4:
> I don’t agree that the UNSC is advantaged over the covenant. Think about the temple, a huge advantage: only one slot for 3 technology levels (you never need more) and upgrades.
> But I would standardise and rethink balancing. Like in game leaders who can die and be resurrected are ridiculous. Same thing with covenant teleportation through portal. Covenants should have the equivalent of the pelican. I agree on removing warthog upgrades from the main base.
Think the covenant should be stronger as they usually were at the start
PIX24 I guess we’ll just have to agree to disagree.
I understand the Covenant win more games, but think about it. More inexperienced play as the UNSC because they jumped onto multiplayer after having finished the campaign, which teaches the player all about the UNSC but nothing about the Covenant. That’s the reason why the win percentage is slanted. Here is a well known fact in 1v1- At the highest possible level play, Anders is the only viable leader. I think that should be fixed in Halo Wars 2.
It’s Halo Wars 2. The developer will most definitely look at what worked and what didn’t in Halo Wars and try to improve/re-work/or completely cut those shortfalls.