Jump to content

sk0ls

Member
  • Content Count

    630
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by sk0ls

  1. officially done with this game. h2v and og only from here on out. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bus3aKo7vGA
  2. just in case y'all wanted to see some halo 2:
  3. my main game is h2 but i'm down to fill in for any game if you guys ever find yourself needing one.
  4. whats wrong with kennesaw? all the girls are super hot and there's bars everywhere
  5. just moved to Kennesaw area. always happy to LAN if some one needs one.
  6. Lot of h2 MCC live stream highlights in here thought i'd share. Also you can catch eyewitness footage of me being attacked by a flesheating flying cockroach cyborg.
  7. not sure if there is a thing called highlight leftovers but these are some clips i didn't use in my most recent highlight video:
  8. It's harder to switch back than you think, plus thats not a game wide fix. OG timing is only on gametypes with h2x in their name.
  9. lol'd at the bold. I don't really quad shot in serious games, which is all i really played on MCC. It's not that i couldn't quad i just chose not to. All the regular kids on vista are bad and i spawn with secondary in half the servers so why not quad.
  10. New installment with clips i recently got putzing around on vista:
  11. in random servers there's a bunch of cheaters on there but they're all so bad it's hard to notice. We're working on getting competitive players back together and play nightly helping test improvements for the game. we have three servers for our own use right now.
  12. For anyone wondering: vista is the real deal right now. Not perfect but miles better than mcc.
  13. I strongly disagree with this but i'm done arguing. you believe one thing and i believe another, that's fine.
  14. All you've done is speak in generalizations and pretend like everyone thinks like you do. You just keep saying that the auto aim is detrimental and say that it forces team play, which is something you don't agree with and that's fine. You're trying to make it sound like halo 2 is something that it isn't because you don't agree with the skill philosophy. the individual meta in halo 2 is FAR stronger than you give it credit for and that's just a reality. You're raving about needing a deeper shooting skill gap but you're conveniently leaving out significant portions of halo 2's meta like double shotting and pretending they don't exist for some reason. You also completely ignored my logical points about increasing the shooting skill gap without altering the aim assist in a game. This is the absolute bottom line: You lower the aim assist in halo 2. Everyone reduces their sensitivity by 1-2 ticks (most are on 5-6 at this point anyways, and a majority of pros played on 4-5 in the golden age). Barring the adjustment period, everyone still shoots the same angles. Everyone largely has the same degree of success in their fights, except power positions would actually increase in their overall power particularly areas like ring 3/p3. This is a problem for me because you literally just said this: My point has always been that Halo 2, due to how easy the aiming system was, limited the strategic depth of the game and gave disproportionately large advantages to power positions via teamshot. Your solution to halo 2 actually makes the problems you think the game already has worse. If you reduce the auto aim on halo 2, because of descope and red reticule auto aim vs. white reticule autoaim, you are giving the advantageous player even more of an advantage. you do realize that right? A player is p3, he is waiting on spawns at your door, scoped in with br... A MASSIVE ADVANTAGE which is enhanced if you reduce the spawning players autoaim. He not only has scope advantage but height and angle advantage and you want to make him harder to shoot? The only sure way to have an even shot is to peek from glass in a scoped prefire. even doing this you're still likely to be the descoped player first in the battle and to even come to that conclusion as a player that you need to make that play you have to make a lot of risky assumptions about where p3's teammates are and commit yourself to an angle that leaves you super vulnerable from several other positions on the map. Because of this, the battle takes longer, the spawning team spends more time in base... The p3 controlling team has more time to keep you forced in. One of their teammates has extra time to hit p1 and prefrag your street trapping you even longer. Because you're getting less consistent damage from one player on to p3, you're actually forcing your teammates into a position where they have to do meaningful damage vs. clean up damage. This also takes extra time which gives the team with the advantage more time to come off spawn if they died or continue to push for position. When was the last time you played serious 4's on this game? You want a reduced sense of team play from a shooting perspective and less emphasis on power positions: reducing auto aim literally makes both of those problems worse in halo 2's system.
  15. you're the one making a strawman argument right now by saying halo 2 is deeply hurt by aim assist. It absolutely does affect a games entire system but you're assuming they're negative effects because you inherently believe high aim assist is a bad thing in halo 2, and it isn't. It was it's own game in it's own system and it worked just fine. If you don't like that system then that's also fine. But just because you don't believe in the design philosophy doesn't make it bad or severely hampered or whatever you're trying to say. it just means it may not be the halo you want to spend your time on. Aiming skill will never be large on console games strictly because of a raw aim assist value. CE is the perfect example, it still has fairly significant auto aim but the pistol skill comes from lead and pacing not reduced auto aim. Nothing is holding halo 2 back. It's a dead game that had three wonderful years in the sun as the premier "pre-esport" esport. halo games now would be INSANELY LUCKY to enjoy the competitive success that halo 2 had. You are making this claim that halo 2 is held back competitively but the reality is that it never was. it was a great success on the professional level and produced a number of the moments that people refer to as being the golden age of competitive halo. Why does this game need to be changed or improved in arbitrary ways like reducing aim assist ten years after the fact? The core population interested in halo 2 plays the game because they enjoy the natural system of the game. The worst thing you could do to the game is change something arbitrary like aim assist when you could be focusing on something that it's player base actually wants - which is what i referenced with powerup control. Halo 2's levels of skill right now make it accessible at the lower levels of the skill gap but harder to master at the higher levels. I think the spread is a great combination. It will never be as skillful as a game like CE but has it's own merits in it's own right because of the system it had and still has... what is the problem with that? What is the problem with making changes that will actually increase the skill gap for it's community as well as maintaining it's presence as a game that can still be accessible to new players coming in? It's just like every other watcher on the wall. you love to make these arbitrary arguments about making games more skillful but the reality of our environment as competitive gamers is that there is almost no interest in games that are ultra competitive. Look at the landscape of CE. 60-100 viewers (of which i am one) for the top lan tournament each year to watch the best halo players play? it's a joke and i don't like it but it's reality. to add to that, there's no guarantee that lowering the aim assist in halo 2 will actually do anything. My assumption would be that it would largely play and operate the same way after a period of adjustment so what is the end game there? what is the point? there isn't one. We have a game like halo 2 which is is more user friendly but still boasts a significant skill gap and was actually a game that bridged that gap between popularity and skill and people still want to tear it down for absolutely no reason ten years after the fact. what a joke.
  16. it absolutely is stupid argument for a number of reasons. aim assist is a reality of console gaming first and foremost. Raw aim using a controller is not the primary basis for overall combat skill on console shooters for this exact reason. after having a gaming pc and using a mouse and keyboard this year it's become even more obvious to me. Joysticks are imprecise by nature. They're clunky, hard to control and ultimately random to some degree. How much auto aim a game has becomes more and more irrelevant the more peripheral tools the player has at his disposal in combat. It becomes less about aim and more about how well you use all your other combat skills - halo 2 happened upon a number of these skills by accident, but it also influenced by map features like wall glitches as well as core mechanics like descope. A game like halo 3 is not automatically more skillful because it has less auto aim. Adjacently, Halo CE is not a more skillful game because it has less autoaim. It's a more skillful game because it requires a higher degree of creativity and critical thinking, more stress on map awareness and movement as well as all the peripheral skills that come with combat itself. I've played CE on mcc against some really good players, as well as having the opportunity to play NHE against some really dedicated locals - in that case, i got wrecked very badly. Though the pistol in CE is a much more skillful weapon no doubt, i felt comfortable in pistol battles and with my shot. I lost battles not because my shot was bad. My pistol was fine. it was everything else i was bad at. Me getting shit on for a full series had nothing to do with my aim. By your logic, since everyone can aim on a competitive level and "it takes no skill to aim", every fight should be considered a 50/50. Why doesn't halo 2 function like that? why do better players continually win battles against less skilled players? Why is every player who plays halo 2 competitively not a top tier player? This is because at the highest level in halo, everyone's pistol/br/dmr is more or less exactly the same. Aim is essentially irrelevant at this point in the skill gap. In terms of halo 2 just because your aim can get to that level much quicker because of the auto-aim, does not limit it competitively. It just means one aspect of combat out of many is easier to achieve - Halo 2 is lucky in that it has it's fair share of skills to make this a reality and keep it competitive, particularly on an individual basis. Like every person i have this conversation with you're more than welcome to play halo 2 with me, though i only get on once every week or so these days. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong since, in your mind, aiming is the critical basis for what makes a halo game competitive on a combat level. That's not a challenge, that's an invitation. People say this shit all the time like you've said because it's common rhetoric that people regurgitate and everyone nods their head and says "yeah yeah yeah it's been said a bunch of times so it's true" but it's not. Halo 2 has a pretty rich skill gap, not nearly as significant as halo 1, but still fairly rich and i think lowering the autoaim wouldn't have a significant impact on the overall skillgap because the game is still strong peripherally. I'm sorry if that's being "willfully ignorant".
  17. Saying lockout is stand offish and saying halo 2 was standoffish (untrue) are two really really really different points so i'd be more careful in what you're trying to say. People make this argument all the time, it's an insanely stupid one. Anyone who has been in a 1v1 fight with a pro on halo 2 knows this.
  18. As a halo 2 player who openly credits halo CE as being the most competitive console game in history i thought the bold was ironic. you seem to be operating under the assumption that the team holding BR is the team that is always in the lead which absolutely is not the case. You're also reducing defensive rotations, counter nading for area control and smaller windows for communication to a "brainless" activity which is also not the case. In my experience trying to hold a setup can be more demanding than pushing but it's extremely situational on both ends. I've never played lockout at a professional level but i have played it against a full team of pros and the pushing part was fine for me in this example. I had no problems initiating challenges, getting underneath and flanking or going up top to challenge etc. I did however have a minor panic attack when trying to hold a setup. A lockout push isn't based on winning one full set of spawns like it can be with objs or other slayers like midship, it's about working your way through the other teams spawns (BR for example) and providing consistent pressure enough to force them on an out spawn like blue or s1 - that is especially true on this version of the game. The purpose of this is to force the defending team into those pure 1v1's that you believe do not exist on this map. I can tell you as some one who played 4s on lockout less than a week ago, they exist, and frequently if your team is working together. All of that is really besides the point though because my original post doesn't at any point state that lockout is just as fast as other maps, or is not standoffish. My point was that that type of rhetoric shouldn't be an excuse or cover up for being shit at the map. The reason why i made that point is because the only people i see complaining about lockout are people who can't play it or those who can but refuse to play it at a slower place. You see more complaints about it now because MCC exacerbates the symptoms of lockout. But that doesn't mean that og h2 lockout games, both slayer and ball, weren't some of the more exciting games on the MLG circuit. Sure there are some games that ran slow and stand offs occurred but that's the nature of the map and i accept that fact. Saying something shouldn't be that way just because it shouldn't be that way is silly. I used to think like that, i used to say literally the exact same shit you're saying now so i get it. But lockout is what it is for a reason and i think it's place in the 11 core competitive gametypes is fine. There have always been one off style gametypes in halo's competitive scene (at least when it was CE/Halo 2) that stress one specific aspect of the game far more than others. That's why we had sniper style games for example in 2005-2006. For one map out of eleven in halo 2 i think lockout served it's purpose in being that super heavy area control and teamwork map which provided an edge for more coordinated and patient teams, not just teams with talented players. I think that's a good thing for halo 2 because overall it lacks so many of the nuances and creativity that it's predecessor had. Furthermore, there are already so many situations where an individual can make an insane play for no reason at any given time on any part of the map in halo 2. The last thing the rotation needed was another midship or warlock slayer (which you yourself basically stated earlier). I agree. While i think fully symmetrical arena maps are the backbone of halo and i think their inclusion should be a necessity, at the end of the day halo 2 needed something to balance that out. enter lockout. So you can cry and complain til the sun comes up about how lockout as a map is not balanced but it's purpose in the rotation was. As a side bar, you want to see unbalanced? Play Ivory at a high level - It can always be worse (Ironically, Ivory was taken out during halo 2's tenure at MLG, lockout was not). There's always going to be the bad guy when it comes to maps... the question you have to ask isn't whether it's design philosophy is in line with your personal philosophy but whether it serves a purpose and contributes to the competitive environment it's in, or the game it's in. You don't grade a game by one map, or a competitive scene by one map so i don't see the point in arguing about whether a twelve year old map is or isn't something because to put it plainly, it's the perfect map. It's the map casual players love, it's the map montagers love, it's the 1v1 map, it's one of the maps that helped separate the men from the boys on a team level.... It's literally the dust 2 of halo... So saying what it should be is moot because it is what it is: A map that did it's job on all levels - that's a fact. Maybe it wasn't pretty at times, but a fact nonetheless.
  19. i agree with your example of CE. lockouts failures as a map aren't because of the overall design of the map itself but the positioning of the power weapons and the lack of a power up to control that would help you make a push or a play. that's halo 2's biggest shortcoming as a competitive game overall is the lack of relevant power ups. The only power up, even throwing power weapons into the mix that is solidly contested every time it comes up across all the gametypes is the OS on beaver creek. If only we had more customizable options lol.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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