#25

I’m all for HW1 feature “fixing”, but after it’s fixed nerf/buff the HW1 races based on the HW2 balance. Fit these 2 new races into the already existing meta, and we’ll all be happy.

#26

Seriously? Why is it okay to break some races in multiplayer but not others, when the consensus on the forums is that the better gameplay was found in the classic implementation of the currently broken race?

#27

We’ve been over this, the vocal minority, anywhere, is not indicative of actual player populations. The HW1 players feel shortchanged so they are the most vocal, thus they feel they are in the majority. Please stop with this ‘the majority of the forum shares MY opinion so you have to listen to me’ BS you’re pulling EVERYWHERE. Even trying to strong arm devs with it, it’s funny(not here, in another thread).

#28

If you want to play Homeworld 1, it’s included in the bundle.

#29

Balancing the game for multiplayer while stuffing up the single player will ruin these games. Games have to be as close to the originals possible. Original SINGLEPLAYER campaigns. The games those days focused on single player experience. Fixing the balance may make them multiplayer friendly but the campaigns may no longer be FUN!

#30

Ease up on the drama there, please. Calmness is required.

#31

But multiplayer for the original games has been disabled.

4 Likes
#32

The balance changes will for the most part be seperate from SP to MP. They have put a mechanic in place to do that. Mechanic or engine changes that aim to bring HW1:R closer to the original will obviously be implemented in both MP and SP. Check these threads for more info HW1/HW2 - Code/Engine changes discussion and Future MP:Beta Patches!

#33

I agree HW1 gameplay is far superior to HW2. It’s the reason I stopped playing HW2 and just modded (modeled). So, why not Fix HW1 shortcomings and balance HW2 to HW1 instead of the other way around or messing them both up while attempting to change both. People can present all the arguments they want opposing this but the fact is HW2 was a bomb for diversified strategies compared to HW1.

3 Likes
#34

I’m not even posting much about balance anymore because that double standard is pissing me off, and I will eventually get angry and trash talk about that hypocrisy and selfish behavior and psychichazard will suspend me lol.

And quit that “vocal minority” fallacy, you have no data or even a small evidence to say who is minority or majority, actually all evidences shows that hw1 balance were more successful. And population? What are you even talking about? There is no population, Mp is dead already, you pretty much only see online the players that are posting here.

3 Likes
#35

Meh, it’s a lot easier balancing a game when there’s only one race.

#36

And quit that “vocal minority” fallacy, you have no data or even a small
evidence to say who is minority or majority, actually all evidences
shows that hw1 balance were more successful.

What evidence?

#37

So…They got lazy?

1 Like
#38

(post withdrawn by author, will be automatically deleted in 24 hours unless flagged)

#39

There is a consensus on this? I thought it was the consensus was the other way around…

#40

Hey. Stop name calling. Not cool at all.

Carry on, politely. If something bothers you, flag it. Post removed.

#41

shrug it’s true but you’re right should have flagged it, my bad.

#42

There isn’t and there never will be. There’s a few factors playing into this, one: HW1 only had one race so balancing was orders of magnitude easier. The only way to replicate it in HW:R would be to make all 3 races exactly the same with 2 unique units per side. The other issue is of course that HW2 never had the after launch support to make it balanced. The fault is not with HW2 itself or the mechanics in it, but rather the lack of balancing. Many do not make this distinction. Infact there are a great many more cheese, over the top, unrealistic and gamey mechanics in HW1 than in HW2 but again because both ‘races’ had access to them it was ‘balanced’.

2 Likes
#43

Okay, so I feel like I need to weigh in on this.

At the risk of heresy, neither Homeworld nor Homeworld 2 was “better” than the other. After all, are spots better than stripes?

Of course not. They’re just different.

Naturally, within the context of camouflage, spots are better under certain circumstances (specifically: dappled shade) and stripes are better under different circumstances (tall grass, bamboo, that sort of thing). That’s okay.

As someone who played both Homeworld and Homeworld 2 back in the day, I found things to love in both games.

Between simulated ballistics and controlled formation behavior, Homeworld Classic players could innovate in terms formation composition and unit deployment to outplay their opponents. Some people like that, and that’s okay. What’s not okay is to suggest that these characteristics make Homeworld Classic better than Homeworld 2, or makes the player who likes that sort of thing superior to players who do not.

Homeworld 2, on the other hand, felt a lot smoother in certain ways, and I liked the inclusion of specialist corvettes and faster turret rotations. Combat felt much faster and more streamlined, and squadrons made it easier for me to manage strike craft. It’s okay to like that, too!

I guess what I’m trying to say is, I get it: certain players liked certain things about Homeworld Classic, and they expected to get those things in Homeworld Remastered, and didn’t. I think there is an extent to which those players should be accommodated such that they can have those things in Homeworld Remastered (within reason – without tearing the engine apart).

2 Likes
#44

Phfft…Man whatch you taking about…every one knows Spots rock and stripes stink :slight_smile:

2 Likes