Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 04/25/2019 in all areas

  1. 23 points
  2. 17 points
    For someone that chimes in any time someone posts anything about shitting on bad kids, seems like a pretty weird thing to post. Especially since it proves the opposite of what you're probably trying to get across. 60+ kills in a game of KotH to 5 minutes against kids that clearly don't know how to play is not only not worth posting, it's just mean. End the game and get a better one. By the look of the scoreboard, neither of you made an effort to touch the hill. Neat. So you statted on a bunch of kids that obviously didn't know how to play, after routinely complaining about people pubstomping and statting, to try to prove that the game is easy? Cool. Cue the part where you're totally not wrong at all and how dare I insinuate that you are, followed by your thirsty edgelord e-boyfriend summoning his discord cult to come match avatars and have the same opinion together. Sorry I ruined the thread for the next two days, everyone.
  3. 12 points
    Do people actually not understand that a game with a greater skill gap is going to produce much more lopsided scores/stats between players with a certain skill disparity, than a game with a smaller skill gap would? It's right there in the title, "skill gap".
  4. 12 points
  5. 11 points
    people who have played the game a lot don't need any such thing. they know where to aim but its a matter of reading the opponent and/or being super perfect, which visual feedback in that context won't make a difference. It's there for you to learn. The easiest example is just have someone run along the walls of creek and just shoot at him behind him, you'll see your bullets hitting behind him so your visual feedback is to aim forward. You misread me when i said people "catch their shot" or at least confused two different things. You can get in the zone and not miss. That's different than missing 5 shots then hitting your next 5. The latter is an independent event and the former applies to every battle. Though ur next clause confuses me more. If you are consistently doming people. that is 100% because of your skill. The zone is something people just refer to as "the peak of their skill." I don't know why the spread on mcc is a red flag? Go pull up split screen and aim tip of forehead at 30/60/90m, you're gunna hit the 3 every time as long as u don't hold down the trigger to activate bloom. CS's spray patterns get so much shit for being random. they riot every time valve does something dumb like fuck with 1st shot precision. they hate spread almost as much as we do. The spray pattern has the same rough pattern, the bullet spread is still random. You could shoot a whole clip against the wall, reload, step to the right, and the bullet holes aren't gunna be the same at even close range. The 18th bullet in the mag could go left or it could go right, you literally just pray. On 2nd thought, I can't remember if the recoil is random that makes the spray random or if it was bullet spread too. Googled mid essay to find out it's both. OH and there is random spread added to your gun when you get hit by the enemy (nvm they removed this). All very anti-comp stuff. CSGO's skillgap is definitely not carried by its aiming skill gap (tho it's still there, just like it is in h3 too). Bringing up csgo is really weird... like cs has so much randomness and so much of the "perceived randomness but isn't random" like spray patterns and movement affecting accuracy, different damage for different bodyparts, and falloff damage literally changes every 2.54m, etc. ur guns accuracy moving at 51% speed is literally different than moving at 55% speed. And that's just it. The leading is intuitive. That's a reason why no 1 has broke it down. The major reason is because you're talking about hundreds of hours of work just to make the mod, nvm the video editing and using said mod, to visually break it down. You have me, I'm decently knowledgable, but i know nothing of coding for halo CE. Fuck CS is a way bigger game than halo and you won't find any videos like that for CS either. You got the basic controlling spray/recoil, but nothing more than that. There's no videos showing how inaccurate u can be with a desert eagle and still hit a shot. and for the future halo scientists who pull up this post, this is the distance where you do not need to lead at all in CE. it's effectively hitscan in this distance. (its not 17.5, it's 18.1 but google doesnt have 18.1) so a little farther. And of course, you can double this distance (so basically red nose), and still not have any "perceived randomness" because technically if u aim dead center, 1 frame isn't enough to get out of the way and that's without bullet mag and that's the entirety of the map prisoner. you also can't go left then start going right within 1 frame. so if you're literally aim botting that perceived randomnesss is probably going to be starting at max distance pistol fights; Though again, I aint got the knowledge to send a controlled series of input to my controller to even prove where that begins. Though, humans don't got that, so following strafe and reading strafe is important to ensure you hit your shots.
  6. 11 points
  7. 10 points
  8. 10 points
    lol. No. My point is that popularity has absolutely no useful correlation to quality. The Lord of the Rings is the seminal work of 20th century fantasy. It is a meticulously crafted modern (Catholic) mythology that has influenced countless works in multiple mediums. It made a compelling argument for genre fiction as legitimate literature instead of disposable entertainment. Harry Potter is a series of children's fantasy books that transitioned into young adult/teen fantasy part way through. It has been and continues to be a great gateway for young readers (especially the earlier books). It introduced them to a variety of mythology, values, and coming of age themes. For some reason, adults talk about it like it is comparable to more substantial, complex books that were not written for kids.
  9. 10 points
    Halo 4 surveyed and tested well with positive feed IIRC. Worst Halo game in the franchise and almost universally hated.
  10. 9 points
  11. 9 points
  12. 9 points
    Just be thankful you have your gold bar already. It'll be almost impossible for me to get it at this point. It's funny, you would think with a major HCS event in a month's time and E3 just a couple weeks after that, things would be exciting. I really think no gameplay last year at E3 was what killed most of the momentum, or at least that's when I felt it the most. I was satisfied with H5's position, but no real Infinite news followed by hearing we were going back to MCC which still has a bunch of problems just killed excitement for me.
  13. 9 points
    Me whenever I click on this thread lately
  14. 9 points
    "Good design can't be expressed as a mathematical proof OR as a repeatable, falsifiable theory" Generally speaking, it seems that everyone will at one point or another go boldly forth unto the world, shouting this assertion from the rooftops and in the faces of any who would question it until they are red in the face. They say that all experience is subjective. Design is not a science, and is only another word for and art. Objective truth does exists, but of course 'only in mathematics and science'. Therein lies the trouble. First of all, the very suggestion that Objective truth does exist, but only in mathematics, as if math doesn't form the foundations of reality to the perforation of all other things, only serves to demonstrate your ignorance on the subject and how it relates to art or design. The statistically derived 'golden ratio' comes to mind. More than this, for a person to be qualified enough to claim something so bold, it would suggest that they know enough about the intrinsic nature of both design and mathematics to simultaneously know beyond any doubt that those natures aren't verifiable. When I read something like that, I can assume one of two things. First, I could assume that you understand design theory (which is basically psychology) and its relation to objective truth to a degree that allows you to definitively and precisely point out both where that objective truth lies, or doesn't, without any apprehension. Second, I could assume that you just haven't thought about it. I could consider the fact that you haven't designed a single map, game, character, level, or story (that I know of) and that you, along with most everyone else, have defaulted to the comfortable ignorance of complete and unfaltering belief in something that you likely don't understand, all while fervently denying any possibility of an alternative. If you're reading this, you can probably tell which I assume, and you probably think I'm pretentious for it. Bear with me. On the contrary, I would say that the most arrogant thing anyone could claim would be an absolute denial of standard, or that your own personal experiences are just as important as any standard. To claim that there is no intrinsic hierarchy of value within the human spirit, and that there isn't a striking degree of psychological similarity on the subconscious level of all humans, and that good design is therefore unpredictable, is not only foolishly wrong, but extremely self-serving. I know this, because I've lived it. It's incredibly easy, especially as a designer, to subscribe in this way. Oh how I could repent of my past repentance, if nothing I did, or made, or said was falsifiable. If the metric for 'good design' becomes whatever I make it, then I can always feel assured that my creations do not energize in vain. If my own goals are the only goals that matter, then I'm always a winner. It should be apparent at this point that I no longer personally live by those ideas. Although, come to think of it, I never did truly 'live' by them, but used them only to comfort myself psychologically. With that being said, I can tell anyone reading this that while the adoption, or even consideration, of principled design theory roasted my ego alive, it made me a much, much better designer than I would have ever been otherwise. I went from making what was essentially the same map repeatedly for years, to improving markedly. Eventually, after a thousand and 1 horrid Reach maps, I would make a not-so-terrible Halo 4 map, then another, and so on. I would learn from my mistakes, aggregate the trends of my mistakes into the early formations of a design theory, and eventually create an entire set of principals that were not only verifiable, but consistent with what my peers were simultaneously discovering, and have now used to surpass me and break into the industry as professionals. Now, my creations have been featured in Matchmaking or tournament play on several occasions, I have won several contests, and feel that it is finally my time to join my friends in the industry. Weird flex, but okay? That's the thing. I don't feel remarkable, or that my successes validate any arguments. Maybe that list of 'performance' is off-putting, but I urge anyone reading this to look at it from a different perspective. I'm generally incompetent, or at least that's how I choose to view myself. When you choose to believe in the truth of behavioral psychology, or even a truth that runs deeper, your flaws are revealed. The useless parts of you are burned away in the light, and it can really sting. I do not define what is good or bad, I only do my best to interpret what works and what doesn't. I do not define the merits of satisfactory design, I simply attempt to understand them. That's my experience thus far. While I'm miles from writing a detailed and convincing thesis on objective truth, I'll continue to wield it to my benefit, and continue to occasionally help others wield the same potential whenever I can, as my peers have done for me. TL/DR; Movement is random, Projectiles are icky, and that's subjective Xandirt out
  15. 8 points
  16. 8 points
    Fuck that. I don't want to play Republic Commando, I want to play Halo. That's why I bought a Halo game.* *(a Halo game with 343's logo on the cover, because I'm an idiot)
  17. 8 points
    me like power weapon me earn them every time powerweapon good give me 4 kills make me happy no use pistol
  18. 8 points
    1.) You rip on people for pub stomping all the time and that’s exactly what this was. Nobody here that talks up how great CE is is talking about 4v4 KOTH and you know it. Next time you’re going to post a screenshot in an attempt to bash on CE it better be a screenshot of a 2v2 slayer game. 2.) Posting a screenshot of a huge score discrepancy in a social game where one player single-handedly dominates an entire team is proof of a large skillgap not of a small one. If Halo 2-5 offered the kind of individual slaying power that CE does you might see more scores like this in those Halos as well.
  19. 7 points
    There are some wicked set pieces (Mammoth!) and some cool ideas but it didn't feel, look or sound like Halo. Also Promethean's are both ugly and boring to oppose. Shooting elites in previous Halo's is fantastic because their shields glows, then grows, then finally pops. The elites roar and get mad when it's down. All these let the player know what's happening. Prometheans just sponge bullets until they Thanos snap away. They're also ugly af. Crawlers in particular are stupid ugly and boring. Halo 5 tried to fix with the the painfully obvious "soldiers" that are just bipedal enemies to sponge AR rounds. They also don't react until their "shield" pops. Makes guns feel useless. The "knights" take damage in Halo 5 with popping armour and bits falling off but your gun still feels useless half the time when you just have sparks pinging on them. Bllleehhhhh I'm not salty about the promethean design at all. Nor am I salty about the cumbersome brute-elite hybrids 343 replaced the elites with in 4/5. Don't even get me started...
  20. 7 points
    Also, @NavG123 1v1ing that guy on stream was godly aswell. The hype before that 1v1 was off the charts. Old navg -> current navg.
  21. 7 points
  22. 7 points
    Brah, the Storm Rifle was fucking hilariously overpowered before it was nerfed.
  23. 7 points
    Good game I think CE is literally packed with flaws and systems I would remove or rework if I had the chance, but I still like to think of the game as a good place to start. I think Its 'soul' points in the right direction
  24. 7 points
    The last two major Halo titles made a mission out of throwing away everything good about classic Halo in an attempt to appeal to CoD kids/Battlefield kids/people who hate Halo because of X, and a result shat the bed more or less immediately after launch, the community and franchise is in the fucking gutter as a result, and people still have the balls to give the "things have changed since 2003" lecture? Unbelievable.
  25. 7 points
    It's incredible that after the incredibly specific and exhaustive arguments made about EXACTLY this, you still think you can say that incredibly reductive summations of complex design choices are "objectively" more competitive/skillful. Part of the problem is that no one has bothered to define what exactly they believe "competitive" means. Yet another huge assumption that is treated as a given. So, let me provide a simple working definition: Immediately, we already have a problem. The better player absolutely will not win 100% of the time in any game, so we have to settle for "most of the time." And beyond that how do you define a better player? How do you quantify or measure that? Different players have different subjective strengths. Different strengths will provide more or less of an advantage in different scenarios. Different strengths will be affected more or less by tuning various aspects of the game. Absurd mechanical skill won't help you if you're facing the wrong direction. Smart positioning and situational awareness won't mean much if you miss your shots. Skill is not a single, simple variable that can be controlled for. We've already covered the draw backs of projectile models and the fact that people seem to only think of lead in terms of a target moving in a straight line at a constant speed. I'm not going to break down the problem with consistently tracking pseudo-random movement with projectile travel. You can watch plenty of clips of high level PC players waving their cross hair back and forth in the middle of an enemy strafe instead of actually tracking their target. There are no big brain lead adjustments involved. In Quake, the plasma gun is not more mechanically demanding than the lightning gun. That is a fact. "Less auto-aim" is not a clear cut issue either. Or rather "aim assist," which covers a number of different systems used in console games. If we were talking about a binary (on or off), this would be more clear cut. With PC controls, that is a clear cut issue. No aim assist is obviously more competitive. Even that is simplistic because aiming difficulty in general is a multivariate problem. But aim assist in console games is a RANGE of values in turn affected by non-assist tuning values (player and weapon properties chief among them). No aim assist is not viable with console controls. Pure aim-lock is not desirable for obvious reasons. But determining the ideal middle ground for a given game is an exceedingly complex problem and there is absolutely no way to objectively measure the success or failure of a given aim assist tuning. Part of the reason is that it is effectively impossible to clearly define what that means. There is tangential data that can be measured empirically. There is also plenty of qualitative information that can be used to inform that decision. But there are no metrics that correlate exactly to anything resembling "optimal competitive viability." I think part of the fundamental misunderstanding here is that difficulty is relative. Creating a compelling challenge isn't just about making it as hard as possible. You can't just say "I want players to fail at this X% of the time" and call it balanced. It's a subjective design goal for every game, because there is no way to quantify difficulty in any consistent way, even assuming all players are the same (and they aren't). That's why platformers will still let players jump a certain distance beyond an edge. That's why enemy AI has to strike a balance between being smart and SEEMING fair. That's why aim assist is used for input devices that suck for shooters. These are all things that ease the challenge for players to make the game more satisfying for the target audience. These sorts of concessions exist in all kinds of "hard" games. Making something more difficult doesn't inherently make it more competitive. Silly extremes like aiming with the face buttons or playing a game without vital visual information demonstrate this point pretty clearly. If you make it so hard or ambiguous that everyone is struggling to perform basic actions consistently, it's not going to be a compelling competitive game. This is why I have brought up consistency more than once and why abstruse, unintuitive bullshit like "bullet sway" is an awful, awful idea for a competitive game. Making a game technically "harder" in a way that even the best players will not meaningfully account for is in no way an objective improvement to the skill ceiling. You could make a game so impossibly difficult that it might as well be random, but would that be a very competitive game? No. So the issue becomes how difficult do you want the game to be? And in what ways? For what kind of audience? That is not an objective line of reasoning.

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.