Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

Blitz Beta – Blitz Feedback Thread

OP Forum Team

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 41
Having trouble remapping my keys, I either get a message saying "Key Already Assigned" even if it isn't , or it simply doesn't register.
TheNilonim wrote:
-I can't stand the idea of an RTS game bottlenecking my APM, and that's what the card selection system is doing right now. I need to be able to play cards in quick succession if I want to and have the energy to do so. Also the cards UI should be scalable, or at least be reduced by default, since I think it occupies too much real estate on screen, and can hinder the placements of units. Furthermore, the option to pay for card pack should be removed OR remove the card leveling system, as it WILL create an imbalance between players that will eventually ruin the "competitive" aspect of it.
  • I agree with the points he made here, placing down cards can be clunky and just doesn't feel right. For example you click on a card and place it, while it's playing the animation you can't play any other card or even click on it in advance, you have to wait for the animation to completely stop before even clicking on another card.
-I also think the game pacing is wrongly tuned, to a point where as soon as someone gets the advantage, it's impossible to come back. That's due (i think) to multiple factors. First the time to complete a game needs to be longer, either by augmenting the number of points needed to win or making earning points longer... Or a bit of both. That's because in my opinion you have no point in retreating and trying to regroup a new army, the enemy WILL win if you do so. Also making games longer would allow players to really cycle through their deck and emphasize on strategy, instead of trying to spawn as many units as possible.
  • Again, he makes some good points here. Games seem to finish very quickly before you can even attempt to make some plays. And like he said, retreating and regrouping will only mean you lose. I was thinking that maybe the capture points weren't captured instantly, but took a certain amount of time to capture.
-this point is simple, and I honestly don't know how to put it other than this... WHERE ARE THE COMMS OPTIONS? I want to mute people with noisy microphones, I wanna mute myself, I want to enable / disable voice chat... It feels like the game development was botched altogether.
  • Very good point. It was very infuriating not being able to reliably mute annoying players with shoddy mics after the match starts.
Great game, been waiting for Halo Wars 2 for a while, I just noticed two related problems on blitz. When controller shuts off due to reasons such as low battery, Xbox shutting off because of not paying attention it wouldn't let me press A to continue at the game afterwards. In Halo Wars LT was used to move the camera faster and couldn't find it. I only played few games and is my first time playing Halo Wars 2 beta. Hope this helps.
I am a big fan of Halo Wars, but this blitz mode just is not for me. Everything about this game seems cool like the new vehicles, all the units look nice and polished, but the game mode just turns me away from it very fast. I know there will be normal 3v3 and everything without the cards, but that beta was a real turn off for me. I have a lot of hope for the campaign though, it sets itself up pretty well in my opinion.
CONROLS
For the PC, I feel as if the camera controls are a little weird. I would suggest adding camera inertia and setting the default camera controls to WASD. Mouse wheel is typically used to zoom in, which would be a nice feature. If mouse wheel replaced the sub unit selection thing, I would suggest moving that to tab.

GRAPHICS
I enjoyed most of the models. I would have preferred the look of classic grunts compared to the storm grunts.

GAMEPLAY
The gameplay felt a little flat. I would prefer if the units had more depth to them. Company of heroes did this by allowing infantry to take cover behind basic things and forcing tanks to only be hurt by weapons of large enough caliber to pierce their armor (with differing levels of armor on different flanks). I guess I didn't like how the marines just stood their and took it as they got shot. I understand that other games like starcraft play like this, but starcraft had just a little bit more depth. I feel like a flank in starcraft was more effective, maybe because their tends to be a front line in starcraft (Zerglings are in front of hydralisks and such). I felt like my units jsut kinda formed a big clump. Maybe having more units on screen would fix this.

I know that there is only a month left before the game releases, but these changes may make the game just feel better.
  1. Implement a garrison system where the garrisoned object and infantry garrisoning split the damage taken
  2. When a vehicle is destroyed it should make cover for infantry to garrison
  3. The garrisoned position should be able to be garrisoned from multiple sides. So if there are enemies to the north, and marines take cover on the south side of a destroyed vehicle, the infantry should split the incoming damage with the cover. However, if the enemy now attacks from the south and the marines are still taking cover on the south side of the cover, the marines should receive no garrison bonus.
  4. Infantry should auto garrison if feasible. So if I have marines near a downed warthog or a big rock, they should instinctively run behind the rock (this feature should probably be toggle-able)
  5. Vehicles should behave more like they do in the first person shooter version of halo. Where wrathes and ghosts move side to side as they fight, banshees sweep in, warthogs stop at kinda a 30 degree angle when they run up on something to shoot, ect.
GAMEPLAY FOR BLITZ
You cant deploy cards in rapid succession, it makes the game feel clunky
Mavorike wrote:
CONROLS
For the PC, I feel as if the camera controls are a little weird. I would suggest adding camera inertia and setting the default camera controls to WASD. Mouse wheel is typically used to zoom in, which would be a nice feature. If mouse wheel replaced the sub unit selection thing, I would suggest moving that to tab.

GRAPHICS
I enjoyed most of the models. I would have preferred the look of classic grunts compared to the storm grunts.

GAMEPLAY
The gameplay felt a little flat. I would prefer if the units had more depth to them. Company of heroes did this by allowing infantry to take cover behind basic things and forcing tanks to only be hurt by weapons of large enough caliber to pierce their armor (with differing levels of armor on different flanks). I guess I didn't like how the marines just stood their and took it as they got shot. I understand that other games like starcraft play like this, but starcraft had just a little bit more depth. I feel like a flank in starcraft was more effective, maybe because their tends to be a front line in starcraft (Zerglings are in front of hydralisks and such). I felt like my units jsut kinda formed a big clump. Maybe having more units on screen would fix this.

I know that there is only a month left before the game releases, but these changes may make the game just feel better.
  1. Implement a garrison system where the garrisoned object and infantry garrisoning split the damage taken
  2. When a vehicle is destroyed it should make cover for infantry to garrison
  3. The garrisoned position should be able to be garrisoned from multiple sides. So if there are enemies to the north, and marines take cover on the south side of a destroyed vehicle, the infantry should split the incoming damage with the cover. However, if the enemy now attacks from the south and the marines are still taking cover on the south side of the cover, the marines should receive no garrison bonus.
  4. Infantry should auto garrison if feasible. So if I have marines near a downed warthog or a big rock, they should instinctively run behind the rock (this feature should probably be toggle-able)
  5. Vehicles should behave more like they do in the first person shooter version of halo. Where wrathes and ghosts move side to side as they fight, banshees sweep in, warthogs stop at kinda a 30 degree angle when they run up on something to shoot, ect.
GAMEPLAY FOR BLITZ
You cant deploy cards in rapid succession, it makes the game feel clunky
  • Ok well most of the points you made are bad. I'll try to dissect a few.
  • For #2, imagine there being a giant clutter of dead vehicles on the map that would cause fps drops and just an unpleasant thing to look at, potentially having a giant armada/graveyard of garrisoned units on the control point is not a good idea.
  • For #4, so you just want units to play themselves? What...?
  • For #5 again, you're just asking for units to just play themselves, you're supposed to micromanage units yourselves. banshees flying around on their own and ghosts and wraiths dodging is just units playing theselves, you're supposed to manage them yourself, however I haven't personally tested if it's effective to, for example, make a wraith run around while it's shooting the bad guys. I know in Halo Wars 1 you could make your scorpions roam around so they can dodge some hunter fuel rod hits. Aesthetic design choices like the warthog thing are nice I admit, but actual gameplay is currently more important. Another argument against that is units just being unreliable and unpreictable when trying to control them. A warthog just doing donuts on the battlefield looks cool, but try controlling it's movement while it's in the middle of doing a backflip just because, it wont work so well. And FYI, the grunts ARE the classic grunts witht he exception of the suicide grunts :D
Units tend to not listen to commands.
I have completed 6 daily challenges and all 3 of the weekly challenges so I have an idea of how blitz works. The only complaint I have is that when you control one territory you don't receive points. You are forced to send an army that probably isn't as strong as the opposing force, hence the fact you only have one captured area. I know it's called blitz but it would feel more strategic if the games were longer, so that way you could build up counter attacks without the game ending on you in under 3 minutes. In regards to the card system, *PLEASE DON'T SELL PACKS FOR REAL LIFE MONEY* I understand that the money you'd make from that is too much to turn down, but you will turn so many people off from blitz for that sole reason. I myself work a full time job and could easily drop some serious cash on blitz but I won't because that's how you break a game. Look at Halo Reach's currency system. Similarity to halo wars 2, you had daily and weekly challenges to obtain currency. This was perfect and you could take pride in your account. Since I know me saying this is a joke, please at least find a way to make blitz enjoyable for the people who don't use Daddy's credit card.
A few pros and cons for the Beta:

Pros:
1. The graphics are superb and unit models are stunning.
2. The game is quick which could be a good thing if you want to jump into another match.
3. I like the cards but in the long run there will have to be more diverse cards added to the library, otherwise it will become repetitive and predictable very quickly.

Cons:
1. Battles are too chaotic as I always couldn't tell which armies are my allies/opponents - I'd have to navigate my selection circle onto the unit to see if they're attackable or not.
2. Having the radar showing enemy location is a deal-breaker in RTS combat like this. You have no way of using ambush/guerilla tactics since you're easily spotted by the enemies.
3. Selecting individual units is very difficult. We should be able to cycle through the same type of units quickly so we can micromanage and deploy them to tactical positions.
4. This is probably true for most of the Beta testers. It feels like once you lost the first battle there's no way of coming back from behind. The enemy armies just get bigger and bigger.
5. The potential pay-to-win end game might be bad for the longevity of the game. I can totally imagine people with a good number of legendary cards just destroy opponents with only one or two in a battle.
For one thing, I'd like for decks to be editable during matchmaking. Its really boring waiting for a match, and we could easily be using that time making changes.
I feel like the UI needs a lot of tweaking, along with the graphics options. When the game is loaded, full screen by default is enabled but the game is not full screen as i can see the top white bar and Windows 10 task bar. In order to fix this you have to enable windowed mode, and re enable full screen every time the game is launched. When the party leader either starts a matchmaking queue or leaves the stat screen post game, it pulls the other users (whom may be tweaking their decks) out onto the main screen or onto the party queue screen. Extremely annoying as it doesn't save any changes that may have been made in that time. I have really enjoyed the game so far, and I want to see it succeed. Keep up the fine work!
RhysWX wrote:
Not specifically gameplay related but more user interface.

When opening a pack of cards, the player needs to press a button (LT I think) to reveal each card, or they can press Y to reveal all cards at once. I don't know why this was added, I can only assume to make each card reveal rewarding or something but it just seems like a pointless extra button press, especially when you look at Halo 5's REQ system.

Opening a pack should just reveal all card contents rather than forcing the user to go through an extra button press. It would give the player much more time in the menu during games to open packs, grab their cards and get back into it.
Personally I like opening packs slowly. It does give that sense of mystery. Just click the Y button and have fun :). This is the exact system in battlefield 4 battlepacks.
So I after a game it said I got 2 packs, but I only got one? Bug or what?
Yea it's a bug. I doubt you would be able to get packs as fast as it was saying for me which was one or two every match
Mirloriak wrote:
Halokid003 wrote:
As epic as the Condor is I think for the cost it takes it doesn't get enough time on the battlefield (same applies to the scarab)
Ultimatley I don't think it will matter how much time they are on the map. If the enemy just runs away ultimatley you have spent a ton resources on a unit that will just die. Its far more cost effective to spend your resources on building a bigger army.
Actually, the Condor might be a good option due to its range and since it flies, he can still pursuit the enemy for a while.
The Scarab its too slow to pursuit so I guess its used to corner the enemy.

I have to admit I only ever managed to deploy one of each but the Condor did seem to perform better.
I think invisibility ruins blitz.
ParkAir024 wrote:
RomanAtol wrote:
I dont know where this hate is coming from..... I actually quite enjoyed it and think Blitz is a great game to increase longevity. The game ran silky smooth, except for a few hiccups with friendly no responding to command. I feel that they could tweak the way i can choose the card. It feels clunky and personally takes a good amount of the screen, perhaps make the cards a bit smaller or sort them in a way that it looks pleasing.
I played 3v3 and was very chaotic and pleasing to play. Superb music and great graphics with awesome gameplay is what i feel like i got in the beta. Fix the minor things and this game will be ready for retail.
People don't like the fact that the game type is only really in the game for micro-transactions. Myself, and alot of other people, hate micro-transactions in AAA games. Thats one of the reasons why I hated halo 5.
Halo 5 micro-transactions allowed us to have zero paid DLC and a bunch of free content for longer than they initially intended, while having near zero impact in PvP. At most it gives you a single life edge where you could call in that cool tank or ship.

For Halo Wars 2 the micro-transactions seem to be limited to this one game mode, and since they already track deck level I am assuming that when the game launches matchmaking will be made taking in consideration that as well. But it sure would be nice for them to explain if that will be the case... That and to really explain/show unit stats and how their "veterancy" affects those stats.

For myself, I am on the fence about this game purely because the range of battle seems to be too short and battles tend to be a blobby mess which is zero fun.
Bring on the micro-transactions if they don't screw the balance of the game and will help us have free content. At least this way the community doesn't get fractured like it happened with previous titles.
Its hard to cycle through your units the cards are in the way. For some reason HW2 seems a lot harder to micro manage.
I just have one minor complaint, remove the voices, that's all I ask, and by the voices I mean the "Welcome to Blitz!" and the countdown.
  • the interface menu is just perfect. ;-)
  • but for Gameplay in game i think that adding dynamic action event after X minute in game can is really cool. [exemple] :
In Snow map theme : [after one minute] Avalanche -> (somewhere in the map create a avalanche can kill all soldier except air vehicles) or Tempest of snow : all (infantry soldier in the map is slow and lost health.

In desert map theme with sand : SandStorm -> (create a sandstorm in the map can lost health for all vehicles) or Giantworm -> (a giantworm monster spawn in the map and attack the grounds vehicles)

[ ... ]
I'm a level six and have won probably 23 games out of 27!! It was hard at first hence the lost games but, once I figured it out I was having so much friggin fun, literally had the closest match I have ever had in video game history
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 7
  4. 8
  5. 9
  6. 10
  7. 11
  8. ...
  9. 41