Forums / Games / Halo Wars Series

[Locked] February Patch notes discussion

OP Postums

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. ...
  8. 12
Idioms are lost on you and your head of hair. I apologise then, for interpreting your writing style as angry, and getting you confused with the previous responded RE playstyle. If my posts are confusing I will clarify - however, I believe you're just engaging in semantics and I’m not sure why.

However, do you see the irony in what you are saying? What I listed aren't "things dislike", they're problems with the game. According to.. you? According to 34 players? 80? Everyone? I’ve written this before somewhere, we should listen to statistics and consensus, not who shouts loudest - if the data says air is OP, supported by opinion (of which we are limited to the forum player base, not the wider game’s population) then I believe it to be OP. If the data, and the players, say the opposite, then I believe that too.

You don’t do yourself any favours by the fact you immediately assumed I was disagreeing with you regarding air and expansions. I wasn’t, I was asking for an explanation that Joker provided. In addition, when did I say that an infantry ball would not beat air?

You believe there is nothing to fix, and that’s fine. The first three people have all disagreed with my suggestion, and that’s fine too. I think balancing this game is a team effort!
I comprehend your idiom just fine, but it seems you don't pick up dry humor when you see it. Don't you worry though, I might be needing a wig soon enough.

I'm arguing semantics because we need to be on the same page. The terms you're using need to be distinguished. People of equal skill can have different playstyles. However, it can be confusing if you use the term as a euphemism for someone who is at a lower level of play than others.

The issues I listed are problems with the game according to the high level community. People who are more or less good at the game. The good kids. No other consensus matters. Balancing the game around low or even mid level players will result in a game that no one will want to stick with for the coming years. Everyone gets better with time. So balance the game at the highest possible level. It's quite literally the only method that makes a lick of sense. If you want data, don't bother factoring in the opinions of those who have been stuck in Gold III the entire season. In fact, if you really want to be empirical I would suggest you survey how many Onyx and below players think Air is OP and then compare it to the amount of Champion players who think Air is OP. You will find the difference in ratios to be surprising.

Both might be flawed methods of argumentation, but an appeal to authority is a helluva lot more persuasive than an appeal to the majority.

In regards to air securing expansions, I don't see how I didn't provide an answer. Here, I'll even let you watch why they can't secure expansions.
Well no, given as its written text and picking up anything is difficult.

I see your point regarding understanding terminology, I'm just going to let that one go.

We will just have to disagree on which player group this game is balanced to. Ive had the discussion before.

In my opinion, the "authority" of which you speak is the data and statistics collected. Believe me, I would survey all the players if I could.

I never said air could secure expansions, that was your assumption. And then you wrote about infantry?
Mr BluDawn wrote:
Mr BluDawn wrote:
How do we feel about increasing the population cost of basic air units?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the argument around air due primarily to the quantity of units fielded?

I think (?) everyone agrees that once air becomes a critical mass blob, it is very hard to defeat - they can quickly direct fire to you 6-8 supporting AA units and then wreck your remaining forces, or skirt around your army, direct fire your turrets and then ruin your base.

So why not decrease the number available and get rid of this argument of “you shouldn’t let it happen”. For example, you shouldn’t let your opponent build an entire pop of condors, but it happens - and when it does, it can be countered.

(Before you link me to any videos, please ensure they have a bit of scientific integrity.)

If you had to think more carefully about your smaller number of air units, I think it would only be beneficial to the strategy side of the game.
E.g.
1) you could still pump them out early to combat hog rushes (no cost change/ time to build)
2) you could still use them against unsupported Kodiak batteries/ siege turrets
3) you could support them with cyclops/hunters to remove the aa threat - and then push in with the hornets to remove tougher vehicle threats.
4) mix in AI to remove that threat to air and then push on the vehicles with you air units

I just feel air, with leader powers, is too good at steamrolling the map, whilst everything else is in a pretty good place now in terms of strengths/ weaknesses.

edit: changed a few thoughts!
Decimus and Kinsano and Arbiter are what make air seem so broken.
If people are fighting mass air its always one of those leaders and its usually Decimus.
Honestly we generally do say just get good because AA is fine and still does its jobs.
Last night I chased an army of Hornets with litteraly 4 Reavers and killed over half of them
Their are many mini videos showing that air isn't broken at all by TheWall and his friends, I suggest you look at them to get a better idea of the situation.
Addition: The Issue with the Hog rush wasn't solved by making Hogs 4 pop, It was solved by making AV not lose to T2 Vehicles and having tanks actually shred them now.
And Serena, with her ability to slow everything down and therefore not catch the air, or return fire. That’s 4 leaders – no small amount.

Which game was that? Ill check it out on your service history.

Thanks for the clarification RE hogs. If that’s the case though, why bother increasing the pop?

Regarding videos in both cases, please see the first post here:

https://www.halowaypoint.com/en-us/forums/38bd6e2ebbb14e5b9b359bb029588800/topics/a-question-for-more-casual-players/bd6b69a7-8cf3-4bf8-a024-7891e5253838/posts?page=3

Cars, for your video, I very very rarely see an air force rolling without a heal/ detector unit. There was no LP involed, it was 1 v 1, and a small skirmish. This issue with air is, usually, a very large mixed army, in 3 v 3.
Well no, given as its written text and picking up anything is difficult.
I see your point regarding understanding terminology, I'm just going to let that one go.
We will just have to disagree on which player group this game is balanced to. Ive had the discussion before.
In my opinion, the "authority" of which you speak is the data and statistics collected. Believe me, I would survey all the players if I could.
I never said air could secure expansions, that was your assumption. And then you wrote about infantry?
Mr BluDawn wrote:
Mr BluDawn wrote:
How do we feel about increasing the population cost of basic air units?

Correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t the argument around air due primarily to the quantity of units fielded?

I think (?) everyone agrees that once air becomes a critical mass blob, it is very hard to defeat - they can quickly direct fire to you 6-8 supporting AA units and then wreck your remaining forces, or skirt around your army, direct fire your turrets and then ruin your base.

So why not decrease the number available and get rid of this argument of “you shouldn’t let it happen”. For example, you shouldn’t let your opponent build an entire pop of condors, but it happens - and when it does, it can be countered.

(Before you link me to any videos, please ensure they have a bit of scientific integrity.)

If you had to think more carefully about your smaller number of air units, I think it would only be beneficial to the strategy side of the game.
E.g.
1) you could still pump them out early to combat hog rushes (no cost change/ time to build)
2) you could still use them against unsupported Kodiak batteries/ siege turrets
3) you could support them with cyclops/hunters to remove the aa threat - and then push in with the hornets to remove tougher vehicle threats.
4) mix in AI to remove that threat to air and then push on the vehicles with you air units

I just feel air, with leader powers, is too good at steamrolling the map, whilst everything else is in a pretty good place now in terms of strengths/ weaknesses.

edit: changed a few thoughts!
Cars, for your video, I very very rarely see an air force rolling without a heal/ detector unit. There was no LP involed, it was 1 v 1, and a small skirmish. This issue with air is, usually, a very large mixed army, in 3 v 3.
Are your statistics simply the number of people who think Air is OP vs those who think it's fair? In that case, then those statistics would not prove anything. That's not an authority. Asking a noob about balance is like asking a toddler about how to drive a car. They aren't "qualified" to have the discussion in the first place. Citing them as an authority is, in reality, the antithesis of an authority.

If you don't see Air without support units, how can you claim they're good at denying bases? Support units are quite a bit slower than core Air. Doesn't that negate a good bit of their mobility?

There was no LP because he had Redline, which makes Air playable though still not exactly viable. Even if a Napalm Missiles had gone down, Nightingales could easily out-heal it. If Air needs LPs to be OP, is it really OP at all?

It is completely irrelevant that it was a 1v1, seeing as 1v1 is the only playlist which should be taken into account in regards to balance. You cannot possibly balance an RTS around team games. To explain why, I will copy paste one of my previous posts:

"While this is an 'unwritten rule', there has been speculation as to why RTS is balanced this way.

'If you're talking strictly competitively, they've experimented with team modes there as well, but, in the past, they mostly haven't worked. It's much more difficult to design interesting maps for teams, and it's significantly easier to design both balanced and interesting matchups for 1v1. Since competitive RTS mostly came from Brood War and is very competitive by nature, that 1v1s are taxing hasn't been a major factor in design. That 1v1s are also much easier (and better, imo) to watch for spectators and as esports was also a factor in that.'

Another theory: 'It is theoretically impossible to work backwards from a balance standpoint. The reason for this is simple: for a developer to test if something is balanced, he needs to be able to test it in an extremely controlled environment first to make sure that it is not too effective on its own, and the only thing that could make it 'overpowered' or 'underpowered' would be directly how you use it, and not how team-play manages into it.'

Another tidbit to keep in mind is that RTS does not lend itself to team games in the first place. Most normal RTS games focus on 1v1 with team games there for 'teh lulz' so to speak. Halo Wars is an exception as it draws from an audience that is full of FPS fans who will no doubt value team play higher than a veteran RTS player. Team games are inherently casual, and the Halo Wars playerbase is disproportionately casual because of the franchise it's attached to. This means that while team games are not the main gamemode, they are much more played than the main gamemode itself, 1v1.

To sum it up in a remark not my own, 'If you want to play RTS team games competitively, you're doing it wrong.'"

This game is not to be balanced around 2v2 or 3v3. Air is not OP in teams either, but even if it were, the focus remains entirely on 1v1. That is how the world (of RTS) works.
Are your statistic simply the number of people who think Air is OP vs those who think it's fair? In that case, then those statistic would not prove anything. That's not an authority. Asking a noob about balance is like asking a toddler about how to drive a car. They aren't "qualified" to have the discussion in the first place. Citing them as an authority is, in reality, and antithesis of an authority.

If you don't see Air without support units, how can you claim they're good at denying bases? Support units are quite a bit slower than core Air. Doesn't that negate a good bit of their mobility?

There was no LP because he had Redline, which makes Air playable though still not exactly viable. Even if a Napalm Missiles had gone down, Nightingales could easily out-heal it. If Air needs LPs to be OP, is it really OP at all?

It is completely irrelevant that it was a 1v1, seeing as 1v1 is the only playlist which should be taken into account in regards to balance. You cannot possibly balance an RTS around team games. To explain why, I will copy paste one of my previous posts:

"While this is an 'unwritten rule', there has been speculation as to why RTS is balanced this way.'If you're talking strictly competitively, they've experimented with team modes there as well, but, in the past, they mostly haven't worked. It's much more difficult to design interesting maps for teams, and it's significantly easier to design both balanced and interesting matchups for 1v1. Since competitive RTS mostly came from Brood War and is very competitive by nature, that 1v1s are taxing hasn't been a major factor in design. That 1v1s are also much easier (and better, imo) to watch for spectators and as esports was also a factor in that.'Another theory:'It is theoretically impossible to work backwards from a balance standpoint. The reason for this is simple: for a developer to test if something is balanced, he needs to be able to test it in an extremely controlled environment first to make sure that it is not too effective on its own, and the only thing that could make it 'overpowered' or 'underpowered' would be directly how you use it, and not how team-play manages into it.'Another tidbit to keep in mind is that RTS does not lend itself to team games in the first place. Most normal RTS games focus on 1v1 with team games there for 'teh lulz' so to speak. Halo Wars is an exception as it draws from an audience that is full of FPS fans who will no doubt value team play higher than a veteran RTS player. Team games are inherently casual, and the Halo Wars playerbase is disproportionately casual because of the franchise it's attached to. This means that while team games are not the main gamemode, they are much more played than the main gamemode itself, 1v1.To sum it up in a remark not my own, 'If you want to play RTS team games competitively, you're doing it wrong.'"This game is not to be balanced around 2v2 or 3v3. Air is not OP in teams either, but even if it were, the focus remains entirely on 1v1. That is how the world (of RTS) works.
I suppose my stats would be looking at how often certain units fight, at what upgrade level, in what numbers and see the outcome of those engagements. Not as videos with variables. But I have no idea what kind of data 343i are running from.

I am assuming, dangerously, they make their decisions based on something other than opinion, given some of their choices the past few seasons. Evidence is what I would make my decisions on. But no, it wouldn’t be a questionnaire, because like you say, I wouldn’t get an accurate response to the problem - considering that some people don’t even consider it to be one.

Support would negate mobility, yes, but you're well aware that they increase the longevity of the air units substantially, and are thus usually a worthy trade off. Without support air is much more of a glass cannon, but a cannon nonetheless.

Valid point RE the LP. But, as explained elsewhere, its not a situation that is replicated outside of those individual experiments parameters. If it had been an Izzy, with a Mac or hologram, a Cutter with ODST or any type of mine drop... different outcome, surely?

Perhaps if there were no LP's in the game I would agree with you there.. but there are. So the problem, as many see it, remains.
Anyway, Cyrax out, this is enough procrastination for one day.
Support would negate mobility, yes, but your well aware that they increase the longevity of the air units substantially, and are thus usually a worthy trade off. Without support air is much more of a glass cannon, but a cannon nonetheless.

Valid point RE the LP. But, as explained elsewhere, its not a situation that is replicated outside of those individual experiments parameters. If it had been an Izzy, with a Mac or hologram, a Cutter with ODST or any type of mine drop... different outcome, surely?
They're glass cannons and yet Hornets are in the bottom 5 units in terms of damage to bases... Interesting how that works.

If it was any other leader, he wouldn't have even bothered going Air. Air with Redline is meh. Without it, there's absolutely no reason to field it.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.
*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
what yall should fix is the ranking ssearch system becuz i seem to find all the terrible players😆
what yall should fix is the ranking ssearch system becuz i seem to find all the terrible players😆
I think you're one of the "terrible players" with that win rate..
Support would negate mobility, yes, but your well aware that they increase the longevity of the air units substantially, and are thus usually a worthy trade off. Without support air is much more of a glass cannon, but a cannon nonetheless.

Valid point RE the LP. But, as explained elsewhere, its not a situation that is replicated outside of those individual experiments parameters. If it had been an Izzy, with a Mac or hologram, a Cutter with ODST or any type of mine drop... different outcome, surely?
They're glass cannons and yet Hornets are in the bottom 3 units in terms of damage to bases... Interesting how that works.

If it was any other leader, he wouldn't have even bothered going Air. Air with Redline is meh. Without it, there's absolutely no reason to field it.
I think Redline II Air is great, Just not as good as Decimus Banshee's obviously.
Redline Vultures is really fun honestly
Mr BluDawn wrote:
They're glass cannons and yet Hornets are in the bottom 3 units in terms of damage to bases... Interesting how that works.

If it was any other leader, he wouldn't have even bothered going Air. Air with Redline is meh. Without it, there's absolutely no reason to field it.
I think Redline II Air is great, Just not as good as Decimus Banshee's obviously.
Redline Vultures is really fun honestly
Redline II air is playable. There are still vastly superior options. CT Marines with Nightingale support and/or Flamehogs are both much better in most scenarios.
You made serina Frost ability too OP she is almost no contest to fight especially when she has kodiacs. My friends and I were in a 3 v 2. Two serina’s and my friend was cutter and my friend and I were colony. And we kept getting cyroed every min could not do anything the kodiacs would freeze the units and could not move them in and both serina’s Would drop their cryo-one right after another and that they would have it back again and they just kept dropping it and it was ridiculous Serena does need a tiny bit of some adjustments because she just no contest to go up against.
Thankyou for making this game a broken mess by creating airspam meta 3.0 with no effective counter... Hornets especially need to be nerfed to the ground as they destroy any and all units faster than all units in the game and thankyou for making anti air -Yoinking!- pointless, I love this game but these “balance changes” have me questioning if you even know your own game or are just listening to all the people who want easy wins with no strategy or skill...
In every single game I’ve played a full pop of air outfields a full pop of anti air... ever single game except for when they slightly buffed the anti air before merging it and buffing air in the latest patch, it is beyond a joke. Even using leader powers
As for your air cannot secure expansions that is -Yoink- they can destroy and secure better than any other force even with a composition & a game like this shouldn’t have the ability to have an army of one unit completely out do an army of their supposed counter and should actually require a composition which this game does not cater to
Even if we're talking about Decimus Banshees, 100 pop of AA beats 120 pop of air. That is admittedly not the best ratio, but AA still beats air even when it's buffed by Boundless Siphon and Fury. Kinsano isn't any different, even with Redline II. If you think this is inaccurate, you can watch these games in which Kinsano air gets beaten handily.
AA dos nothing now after new patch/buff air tumps all now. in 1z it can be handled but 2v2 3v3 u have no chance even tryin 2 stop 360 pop of air. one game i had 15+reavers easy and got smashed in like 10 secs he had like 20+25 hornets no leader power was used air is broken and been 4 a long time new patch killed the game(its iceing on the cake for air now)P.S i never liked air units but now air or lose..
Nasty0303 wrote:
Thankyou for making this game a broken mess by creating airspam meta 3.0 with no effective counter... Hornets especially need to be nerfed to the ground as they destroy any and all units faster than all units in the game and thankyou for making anti air -Yoinking!- pointless, I love this game but these “balance changes” have me questioning if you even know your own game or are just listening to all the people who want easy wins with no strategy or skill...
In every single game I’ve played a full pop of air outfields a full pop of anti air... ever single game except for when they slightly buffed the anti air before merging it and buffing air in the latest patch, it is beyond a joke. Even using leader powers
AA dos nothing now after new patch/buff air tumps all now. in 1z it can be handled but 2v2 3v3 u have no chance even tryin 2 stop 360 pop of air. one game i had 15+reavers easy and got smashed in like 10 secs he had like 20+25 hornets no leader power was used air is broken and been 4 a long time new patch killed the game(its iceing on the cake for air now)P.S i never liked air units but now air or lose..
Whether or not what you say is completely accurate, the game isn't meant to be balanced around 2v2s or 3v3s. Those playlists are sideshows.
Is anybody else seeing retriever sentinel counting only 24 population after it's deployed? I need 30 pop available to call it in, but it seems like it's only taking up 24 against the cap.
Is anybody else seeing retriever sentinel counting only 24 population after it's deployed? I need 30 pop available to call it in, but it seems like it's only taking up 24 against the cap.
Yup, just checked and you are correct. This will be fixed in the next patch.

Thanks for catching this.
Not sure where to post this, as it may be related to the recent patch, but there is an Anders glitch/exploit/cheat which allows for spamming of Arc Defense, and what looks like at least a reduced cool down on the ultra unit. Just ran into this, only one Anders on the opposing team but three arc defenses were deployed concurrently, i.e., overlapping with one another, often two at the same time. Happened throughout the match, have a game clip.
Not sure where to post this, as it may be related to the recent patch, but there is an Anders glitch/exploit/cheat which allows for spamming of Arc Defense, and what looks like at least a reduced cool down on the ultra unit. Just ran into this, only one Anders on the opposing team but three arc defenses were deployed concurrently, i.e., overlapping with one another, often two at the same time. Happened throughout the match, have a game clip.
Send the recordings to a developer
Not sure where to post this, as it may be related to the recent patch, but there is an Anders glitch/exploit/cheat which allows for spamming of Arc Defense, and what looks like at least a reduced cool down on the ultra unit. Just ran into this, only one Anders on the opposing team but three arc defenses were deployed concurrently, i.e., overlapping with one another, often two at the same time. Happened throughout the match, have a game clip.
Yes, please send that my way.
Not sure where to post this, as it may be related to the recent patch, but there is an Anders glitch/exploit/cheat which allows for spamming of Arc Defense, and what looks like at least a reduced cool down on the ultra unit. Just ran into this, only one Anders on the opposing team but three arc defenses were deployed concurrently, i.e., overlapping with one another, often two at the same time. Happened throughout the match, have a game clip.
Are you sure there weren't just so many kodiaks shooting in those spots to the point where it seemed like there was an Arc Defense being used?
still needs a few changes but still enjoying Halo wars 2
I put up a post of some bugs I came across but it got shoved into the support thread to die, so I’ll just post them here as this is feedback.

So since the last update, I’ve seen a few more texture bugs and other bugs.
1. Atriox’s Chosen has untextured parts of his brute shot (appear white)
2. Jerome’s hydra rockets / mantis rockets’ trails disappear weirdly, not properly fading out but just vanishing after the rocket has hit the target.
3. Flame hogs have an untextured neon blue part of their bar under the ‘doorways’
4. When upgrading flame hogs, they come up as ‘N/A’ on the garage.
Thanks for reading! Hope these get fixed soon.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 8
  4. 9
  5. 10
  6. 11
  7. ...
  8. 12