My (very long) 2 cents on how to improve the game.

[Mastermatta]

First i want to say i think the bones of homeworld 3 are quite good but i think there are some areas that could use improvement.

Lets start with the low hanging fruit (things that could be adjusted with minimal effort but still have a large impact on the game)

1) There are alot of complaints that the skirmish maps are small. They are not actually small if you measure them out, however they are effectively small. All the resources and spawn points are within a 20-30% center area of the map. Simple solution is push all the spawn points out to map edges and bring some of the resource spots farther out from the center. (though there still should be more maps but that is not low hanging fruit)

2) Unit balance, it seems that bombers and railgun corvettes are underutilized because they under perform (please correct me if i am wrong about this). I think railgun corvettes need a range buff (maybe at the expense of speed or maneuverability) and bombers need to have some sort of increased damage resistance (through either evasion or armor) to frigate and capital ship weapons. It doesn't make sense for them to get slaughtered by the units they are supposed to counter.

3) Skirmish pacing is way too fast. Right now games are like 15 to 20 min. You (the devs) should be shooting for a minimum of 30 min with an ideal target of 45-60 min. I think this is mostly due to how fast resources are collected and how there are simultaneous build queues. First there should be a game option to set the resource collection rate. The default for resource collection rate should be much lower than it currently is. Starting resource default should be lower than it currently is and the resource multiplier default should be lower than it currently is. You can play on the current defaults and even using as many simultaneous build and research queues as possible its hard to run into a resource shortage. This definitely reduces overall strategic depth.

4) Add a beta branch where in progress changes can be pushed out and you can get feedback without worrying about if everything is perfectly balanced yet.

Unit AI needs alot of work but i dont know how much effort is required to make fixes to it so I am not putting this in the low hanging fruit category

There are a number of problems with unit AI but one of them i have noticed is ships will always move to the same level as there target over time. I dont know what causes this behavior but im sure the logic that causes it to happen can be altered. Similarly some units seem to gravitate towards cover. This is not always desirable. There should be a use cover toggle in the UI. Lastly some ships will try and run away from the target or nearby enemies in order to increase range. This should be up to the player to command (using attack move) and should not be done automatically. Furthermore if done it should be done using reverse thrusters rather than doing a complete 180 and engaging the main engines.



Some longer term items that are not low hanging fruit but still should be considered.

1) More skirmish and war games maps with skirmish maps being the more pressing priority.

2) Higarran suppression frigate is in a really bad place and doesn't have much utility over the assault frigate. Consider scrapping this unit and replacing it with a defense field frigate as higarrans don't have many support units.

3) It would be appreciated if subsystems were implemented. In fact it seems you have the empty spaces on production ships already for them to be added. Is this the "system" you are teasing in the roadmap? If so you should let people know sooner rather than later as the lack of them has a lot of your fan base upset.

4) A short jump ability for the mothership. I think this would add variety to pvp strategies which right now are very dull.

5) Enemy skirmish AI is really not good. Overally aggressive opening and that's about all it does. Can be shut down very quickly by simply going after resource collectors.

6) Lets address story since this definitely one of the most criticized areas. The campaign story we have now is what it is (which is unfortunate), but with the way it ends there is a setup for a potentially very good story DLC. Please consider making this a reality.


I also want to end this by saying i am optimistic that the devs can make these changes happen. Alot of good changes were made since the demo that no one seems to want to give the devs credit for.

1) Controls have definitely been improved where you can really customize them almost any way you like and now very few people complain about them anymore. This is no easy feat for an rts that has some of the most complex environments to navigate to date.

2)UI is so much better. The ability to scale the UI and the small improvements you made to the menu design have made for a much better experience. During the demo a lot people acted like the UI alone stopped them from playing the game but once again after the fixes i have barely seen any complaints about this.

3) While unit AI still definitely needs work. The formations work so much better than in the demo.

4) Docking has drastically been improved over the demo.

5) Unit squishyness has been improved. Before release there was a video of a 50000 hp battlecruiser. The battlecruiser we have in the game is now 135000 hp. Once again people have stopped really complaining about this so much.

6) This is a big one. Everyone complained there was no directional armor during the demo. Either they were lying or the devs added it. The armor system is actually more complex than i initially thought. If you want to see the details they have compendium section on it.

So thank you devs for these but please keep at it. I am confidant that based on what you have done over the last couple months based on feedback you can get HW3 to a place where the majority of players are happy at least with the gameplay.

[A Glowing Thing]

This all seems fair to me. I really don't think people knew what they were buying. They seem to really believe that HW is some run of the mill rts. Ironically the people saying this isn't HW have no friggin clue what HW is. Yes the story is bad, but homeworld was always first and foremost about being a sci fi fleet combat sim. This game expands on that front.

[Flushing]

Originally posted by A Glowing Thing:

This all seems fair to me. I really don't think people knew what they were buying. They seem to really believe that HW is some run of the mill rts. Ironically the people saying this isn't HW have no friggin clue what HW is. Yes the story is bad, but homeworld was always first and foremost about being a sci fi fleet combat sim. This game expands on that front.

I totally agree with you.

I think the issue is that many of the grievances are from players who believe that the series peaked at Homeworld 2 ("HW2").

For me, HW2 was an anomaly to the series, in that it tried to be more traditional RTS and moved away from being a tactical space Sim.

The subsystems and mods in HW2 were essentially surrogates for traditional RTS structures. I found them to be superfluous.

By way of example. To build frigates, you build a subsystem, in lieu of a structure. Same with fighters and corvettes.

To build a Battlecruiser, which is your experimental/special unit, you need a "special structure", that being the Shipyard.

I didn't mind having targetting subsystems, it was that most of the subsystems themselves were superfluous.

I think that being able to target the engine subsystem of frigates and capital ships in HW3 would be fine, and or targeting weapon systems. Those are standard systems. And, in HW1-Remastered, it was a nice addition to be able to target engines.

What I wouldn't like is the addition of superfluous mods and subsystems that you have to build to progress through the tech tree. Like frigate and fighter bays.

But, if you could build weapon subsystems on your mothership to improve it's Defensive and offensive capabilities, that would be cool.

[garytc78]

I totally agree with the Main Post! And I really Hope developers understand that these (suggested) improvements are really vital in order to make HW3 be playable for many years!

[garytc78]

While i agree that skirmish AI Is way too aggressive, i woudn't agree to make It less challenging.. maybe more conservative! Adding more personality options to the skirmish AI would be great!

[garytc78]

I've Just noticed that in this thread there are only people that were actively defending homeworld 3 during its review bombing time, last week. We sincerely want a Better game and we believe in It because we already like It :-)

[garytc78]

One more thing, i also strongly agree that the game needs to be slower in Skirmish against AI. Thats particularly important in order to enjoy HW3 even more.
There are some crucial points to take in considerarion:
-time dilation, tactical pause must be added to Skirmish (offline)
-slower resource collection rate
-slower ship production/research rate
-slower ship movement


I dont see why devs woudn't be able to add these options to the future update.
It would be a real game changer for me!

[PeTTs0n]

Originally posted by Flushing:

Originally posted by A Glowing Thing:

This all seems fair to me. I really don't think people knew what they were buying. They seem to really believe that HW is some run of the mill rts. Ironically the people saying this isn't HW have no friggin clue what HW is. Yes the story is bad, but homeworld was always first and foremost about being a sci fi fleet combat sim. This game expands on that front.

I totally agree with you.

I think the issue is that many of the grievances are from players who believe that the series peaked at Homeworld 2 ("HW2").

For me, HW2 was an anomaly to the series, in that it tried to be more traditional RTS and moved away from being a tactical space Sim.

The subsystems and mods in HW2 were essentially surrogates for traditional RTS structures. I found them to be superfluous.

By way of example. To build frigates, you build a subsystem, in lieu of a structure. Same with fighters and corvettes.

To build a Battlecruiser, which is your experimental/special unit, you need a "special structure", that being the Shipyard.

I didn't mind having targetting subsystems, it was that most of the subsystems themselves were superfluous.

I think that being able to target the engine subsystem of frigates and capital ships in HW3 would be fine, and or targeting weapon systems. Those are standard systems. And, in HW1-Remastered, it was a nice addition to be able to target engines.

What I wouldn't like is the addition of superfluous mods and subsystems that you have to build to progress through the tech tree. Like frigate and fighter bays.

But, if you could build weapon subsystems on your mothership to improve it's Defensive and offensive capabilities, that would be cool.

I find it fascinating that you constantly keep perpetuating the anti-HW2 sentiment without anything to substantiate it. We get it (seeing you're posting it quite literally everywhere), you like HW3 and don't like HW2. That doesn't say anything about the broader picture and how other players see it. I have yet to see anything (beyond a few anecdotal examples) even remotely suggesting that there's a correlation between liking HW2 and disliking HW3.

[Flushing]

Originally posted by PeTTs0n:

Originally posted by Flushing:

I totally agree with you.

I think the issue is that many of the grievances are from players who believe that the series peaked at Homeworld 2 ("HW2").

For me, HW2 was an anomaly to the series, in that it tried to be more traditional RTS and moved away from being a tactical space Sim.

The subsystems and mods in HW2 were essentially surrogates for traditional RTS structures. I found them to be superfluous.

By way of example. To build frigates, you build a subsystem, in lieu of a structure. Same with fighters and corvettes.

To build a Battlecruiser, which is your experimental/special unit, you need a "special structure", that being the Shipyard.

I didn't mind having targetting subsystems, it was that most of the subsystems themselves were superfluous.

I think that being able to target the engine subsystem of frigates and capital ships in HW3 would be fine, and or targeting weapon systems. Those are standard systems. And, in HW1-Remastered, it was a nice addition to be able to target engines.

What I wouldn't like is the addition of superfluous mods and subsystems that you have to build to progress through the tech tree. Like frigate and fighter bays.

But, if you could build weapon subsystems on your mothership to improve it's Defensive and offensive capabilities, that would be cool.

I find it fascinating that you constantly keep perpetuating the anti-HW2 sentiment without anything to substantiate it. We get it (seeing you're posting it quite literally everywhere), you like HW3 and don't like HW2. That doesn't say anything about the broader picture and how other players see it. I have yet to see anything (beyond a few anecdotal examples) even remotely suggesting that there's a correlation between liking HW2 and disliking HW3.

Thank you for the feedback. I'm a fan of HW3 and like what you have to say.

[VinBG]

+1

[Mastermatta]

Originally posted by garytc78:

While i agree that skirmish AI Is way too aggressive, i woudn't agree to make It less challenging.. maybe more conservative! Adding more personality options to the skirmish AI would be great!

Yes i don't think it needs to be easier i just think it needs more than its single strategy of just sending wave after wave at the player. It seems challenging at first but its actually quite an easy AI if you know how it works. It leaves everything undefended so you can kill it by just sending railgun corvettes to kill it's resource collectors.

Unfortunately AI programming is not such a simple task i think. So it could take awhile before we see improvements.

I think expanding the maps to give more space between opponents though will help make skirmish at least a little more interesting.

[garytc78]

I agree, lets hope to see improvements in the near future

[Nate]

I'm not even really a fan of RTS but I make an exception for HW. But looking at your list gives me the impression that BBI (& Gearbox?) are missing genre fundamentals. Maybe this is a learning experience for them? Maybe they are out of their breadth? Maybe they need to restructure? Maybe they need to abort the project and license to someone who knows what they're doing?

I love HW and I hope the franchise prevails.

[S7ven]

Oh man. I so agreee with OP. "Low hanging fruit", items 1-3, all the way. The game feels so rushed, way too fast, on small maps. It's an all-out slug-fest that's over in 20 minutes. HW2 was SO much more relaxed and strategic.

And yes, I am disappointed at the lack of subsystems and hyperjumps too. Subsystems are one very good example of what made HW2 so much more strategic. You had to make choices between capabilities because of limited subsystem capacity, and it slowed down the game a little. Weapon targeting on larger ships added tactical depth. Taking out production facilities on production ships could be done as a harassment strategy with small units.

The larger maps + hyperjumps made for real surprises on the battlefield that you could actually plan for and respond to. It's supposed to be "big space", but it feels like you're fighting the next door neighbour. Even resource collection has been sped up and dumbed down by bringing resource collection to just one unit instead of two (used to be separate collector + "collector handler" instead of just the collector, and because of larger distances on old maps, bringing down a collector handler meant resource collection was actually disrupted for significant amounts of time).

Overall, the game feels like 2/3 of what HW2 was, rather than 3/2. Why take away so many things and not add anything new? Terrain is very cool, granted!

Edit: found another excellent point: slow down production of units, make ships feel they're precious.

I write this as a fan, by the way, and I want the game to improve. I loved HW2, and I want to love this version just as much if not more.

A big "please" to the devs: (much) larger maps, slower game, and subsystems... the game looks amazing and it's definitely fixable. Let's make this happen!! :D