I don’t consider visually distinct juking ‘magical’, but I would consider an increased damage resistance ‘magical’. Evasive didn’t help fighters much against the missile destroyer in classic HW1, so I don’t know why you’d say “…then that means [evasive] would be useless against missile based weapons. That would defeat the purpose of it.”
New tactics, stances, and flight maneuver documentation is here:
Thanks for posting that. I’ll have to read into it more, as all I knew up to this point was this:[quote]Evasive. Evasive strike craft receive bonuses to speed, acceleration, and take reduced damage. Evasive ships will break formation as soon as they enter combat and attempt to dodge incoming fire. Evasive strike craft fight at longer range. This stance is intended as a delaying or harassing action.[/quote]It said, “reduced damage,” and not “reduced chance to be hit,” which seems to indicate the ‘magical’ less damage you were talking about earlier. I think that’s why we don’t seem to be on the same page, because I assumed it was modifying damage and not chance to hit.
Well, my first post is wrong. There are tactics multipliers for damage dealt and received, but that’s still far from the full picture. “Misses” have more impact on damage dealt and received for strikecraft. Assault frigates and destroyers are mediocre against moving fighters, but they will annihilate fighters that are motionless (trapped in a gravity well, sphere guarding a capital ship, sitting in parade…). As distance increases, most weapons become less accurate and some weapons do less damage. Most ships become less accurate as the speed of a target increases (defenders are a notable exception). Aggressive ships generally have a bonus to projectile speed, so “misses” that still hit happen more often.
Not sure if this has been mentioned or not but ships caught in a gravwell still fire pretty frequently, I caught some enemy and ally fighters heading in to each other and they kept firing at each other as if they where still in an attack run, this can be an issue if they are aiming at the gravwell when going in. Perhaps this can be reviewed?
Gearbox did this intentionally. I think the idea was the GW would disable engines, but not weapons. Fighters/corvs still spin in GW’s though, so most of the time they can’t face their target to attack.
Also thanks for the posts on light/multi gun corvettes under-performing. There’s a few ships with issues atm:
I am a huge Homeworld fan and just discovered this community made patch. I think it’s really great. You’ve done this community a great service for real. I wish Gearbox would take the 2.205 patch out of beta at least. I’m going to post news of this patch on Reddit so more people can hopefully learn about it.
I have a certain request for the modding team. Can the modding team update the official manual for Homeworld 1 Remastered and Homeworld 2 Remastered to be accurate and reflect all of the changes? Also, I would really appreciate it if this guide was also updated to reflect all the changes that have been made.
Is the 2.3 Players Patch team interested in other kinds of Homeworld modding? There’s a Cataclysm Remastered mod that has been dead in the water for a while now. That’s the only thing we’re missing at this point.
Is there a dev diary for the Players Patch that documents all the changes and fixes and thinking that went into it? I like reading those. I’m very interested in understanding what the official big 2.0 patch did and what the community patch fixed after it.
Something else that concerns me about this mod is not having an up to date and accurate manual. With all the fixes and changes in the big 2.0 patch plus the 2.3 players patch, I have a feeling the manual that comes with the game is no longer correct. Actually, I can’t even find the game manual…it’s not showing up in my Steam library.
But yes, I do think an up to date manual should be made and put on the mod page on the Steam Workshop. Also, would it be a good idea to petition Gearbox/BBI to integrate this community patch into the vanilla game? Seems like it should be.
@Riekopo - I myself have been thoroughly consumed with the Players Patch, and don’t plan to take on any further mods anytime soon. Really, its been like working a second job on and off again since 2015. A decade ago I worked on other mods, notably Battlestar Galactica: Fleet Commander.
@nathanbcoco Funny enough, we could really use a mission editor ourselves. There’s many campaign bugs/potential improvements that still need to be addressed! I’m sure you’ve got your hands full with the Cata mod, but you’re more than welcome to help if your interested.
As far as a dev diary, the first post of this thread lists the balance changes. You can also check out the old 2.1 Patch Balance Issues thread, the HWR Bugs & Solutions thread. Most of our team discussions are private via Discord or GitHub these days. Eventually I’d like to share more about our methodology, but I haven’t had the time yet. I don’t believe HWR ever had a manual. If you search around on google, you’ll find PDF’s of the classic manuals, and community guides for HWR like this one. We have also documented the new features added by the Players Patch in our ReadMe.
It would be great if Gearbox released another patch. They’re more than welcome to use anything and everything in the Players Patch!