Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


About careh

  • Birthday 09/24/1987

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. Giving people the option to disable individual pieces of haptic feedback is smart in that it drives engagement. A legitmized spring jumping option is the perfect example in that it introduces an unfamiliar concept [to a lot of the Halo population] and makes it easier for people to engage in said concept. It's similar to custom keybind mapping, if you're actively thinking about how you want things setup you're more likely to use them: e.g. Mapping melee to a mouse button for Winston increases the likelihood you're going to try cancelling the melee animation with leap OR use melee to burst the final small chunk of health OR use melee to conserve ammo in longer engagements OR use melee more frequently because of the relationship to armour / sheilds verses his tesla cannon. e.g. in one of Shrouds most recent youtube videos he talks about how he doesn't have sprint toggle in PUBG verses other quicker BR games. You're already taking the second step by rebinding the key / selecting the option so that assumes some base knowledge and your willingness to commit to that idea in the first instance. Basically yes it's a good idea, yes it can be done much better than we've seen before, be useful throughout the skill gap AND the engagement theory behind it should be applied across the board.
  2. That's the point of the asymetrical timers, you could theoretically have situations where they come up at the same time, come up in almost complete isolation or one leading quickly into the other. Also countermotion, just call it Vamp.
  3. Late to the party but I would absolutely love Quake style powerups in Halo, IMO the way TDM functions is something that Halo's Team Slayer should be striving for. Being in or out of control when it is known a powerup/s is/are coming, how you deal with that situation becomes objective gametype in and of itself. If everyone is reading the game and you lose the powerup then really you forego the advantage, much in the same way you would lose a cap in CTF or time in KOTH. However powerups have the added advantage of having the objective efficiency be entertaining as fuck to watch or play while one person terrorizes the other team for 20-30 seconds. In my mind it works much in the same way that the ultimate economy works in Overwatch, if you're reading the game correctly you can mitigate the effectiveness when the other team has a distinct advantage but if they do execute correctly and vaporize your team that's not the sign to 'pick up your ball and go home', if anything you should be thinking how much harder you're going to hit them when it's your turn in control. However powerups have the advantage of not gifting individuals/teams powerful abilities purely by existing in the game. I think we saw a glipse of what that kind of power could be like in Halo in the Lethul vs Snipedown showmatch on H5 where Snipedown gets the 'CE pistol' and goes on a spree. I want to see the best raw slayers in the game get to tear through enemy teams. I want to see how that emphasis on items really shapes teams interactions in Slayer. I'm picturing something akin Quad and as mentioned previously some implementation of a strong Vampirism powerup on asymmetric timers (so that at points they meet). Make them however skill based you want (reduced AA, increased speed) but to me that is how you refresh Team Slayer and make it its own competitive discipline rather than wishing it were replaced with an objective gametype. EDIT; does a full charged shot with a plasma pistol again OS with Vampirism in turn give you full OS? I want to live in that world.
  4. Someone start paying the server bill again at MLGSanctuary I beg. Considering you thought you needed a space to speak more freely you're doing a pretty good job fucking up the shared space where you would actually get any discourse. I'm mustering up the last of my long gone moderating powers and I'm going to spirit bomb this whole thread. I don't think that's true is it really... I mean I've seen a few 'iNhErEnTlY's knocking about and a good couple of 'FuNdAmEnTaLlY's from both sides. Someone even had the good manners to correct themselves, I'm not sure who but good on them all the same. It is far too easy to reduce and simplify to suit your needs but it doesn't come off well at all. Take Basu's post or Hard Way's post where they have come out as having an individual opinion that doesn't coincide with the idea there is a singluarly thinking opposition. I mean shit I prefer projectiles for Halo and have argued the toss in this thread yet every second post of mine is about Counter-Strike.
  5. I tallied up all the uses of "yikes" and projectile supporters said it less so they win and that is what we will be using for the franchise from now on. In all seriousness knowing how familiar people are with each other makes the whole incestuous nature of the thread much more understandable. In fairness there has always been some tight nit group in these threads for as long as I've known them but usually opinions diverge even within that group to the point you get meaningful conversation when these types of polarizing topics roll around. Unless there is some goal (content creation?) having conversations with people doesn't make sense because it's just ping-pong but with more chance for people to say what they don't think because of the direction of the conversation. Watch any of the old discussion content Gandhi used to create and you see how quickly (and happily) people fall off topic. That is the beuty of posting these types of discussions, someone like Multi can do a long ass post detailing not just specifics of projectiles verses but the overall essence of why he prefers projectiles. Really that's what needs to be tackled, it is very easy to shit on mechanics anything by hanging on a few details to try and tear it down but honestly in something that is as subjective as this the positives should outshine rather than whoever can tear down / simplify / demean the other opinion quicker.
  6. I think so long as you accept that prediction is a skill (i.e. something that can be improved on) then the curve for projectile vs hitscan is infinitely larger. So when talking about the theoretical benefits, projectile stands out because there is a quality that scales to the point that it is seemingly unmasterable. Consistency is really the only leg that hitscan stands on, there's nothing particularly interesting in anything you do with a straight performing hitscan rifle, especially balance wise, which is why developers use it as a starting point and then move away using other mechanics e.g. bloom, spread, spray patterns etc. Go and watch shroud play a game of Apex/PUBG. Especially in Apex, he is leading instinctively to maximise his damage output to a level that is just crazy.
  7. Agreed. Overwatch is what happens when you try to curb behavior and make peoples statistical contributions vague, it just becomes even more of a blame game. If anything they should put more stats on screen in game so people can actually see in what areas people ARE contributing as well as where they're percieved to be not contributing.
  8. What I'm saying is you're peddling redundant opinions that have no wordly basis. Having kept up with the thread for a bit the only thing I know you would do with a Halo game is make the weapons shoot straight and have a hitscan based primary. And that's about as far as it goes beause everything else you seem to have a problem with.
  9. I'm talking about the reductionist imagination of some of the people in this thread not games themselves which prove contrary to a lot of those beliefs in here. I actually play and enjoy lots of first person shooters, this weekend I've played Apex, PUBG, CS and Overwatch so quite a bit of variety. You will rarely find me arguing against mechanics or ideas that promote creativity.
  10. People argue in this thread because there is something to argue about, or in a lot of cases nothing really important to argue about. Can you actually imagine a world in which the design team are discussing power-ups in the next Halo game and someone comes out with all that crap saying Camo shouldn't be a thing in console shooters, then when pressed about an alternative they argue that pickup advantages (including Halo's rediculously easy power weapons) are cheap. They'd be laughed out of the room. It's dumb reductionist Halo theory to its core that ignores anything potentially fun, challenging or engaging and focuses on what is completely airtight from a theoretical perspective. You ultimately arrive at an aim training simulator for console and then are completely stumpted on where to go next.
  11. Camo is hard to see... That's erm... kinda the point? Of course you're going to have an advantage that is why items are on the map in the first place - advantages for teams to fight over. Prediction is still relevant as map motivations are very much still in play, give them the infinity gauntlet to travel through space and time too, they're still going to show up at the next OS spawn because they're still fixed within the narrative of the game. The risk / reward of travelling through open space is something that can be considered by both parties, you're not going to be dumbfounded when someone with a 45 second powerup makes a beline for you. Similarly you can reduce the effectiveness of camos advantages with your own positioning, compositional changes (both offensively and defensively) in relation to ultimates in Overwatch is a great visual example of this, but the concept is no different in Halo where you KNOW someone holds a specific advantage over you.
  12. It's just how the movement mechanics work in Halo. Go into custom settings and turn up the base movement speed (200%+) to exaggerate the effect of strafing in one direction at full speed then hitting hard on the sticks to the other direction to see how far you keep sliding / how long it takes to reach full speed again. It has been probably the main consideration in deciding the base movement speed for comp Halo for as long as the option has been available.
  13. First cereal: Rice Crispies Favorite cereal: Sainsbury's Choco Hazelnut Squares First sugary cereal: Frosties Least eaten cereal: Crunch Nut Choco Clusters (awful) Favorite milk: Skimmed Favorite time and place to eat: First thing in the morning watching the youtewbs at my desk Favorite cereal mascot: Tony the Tiger First Halo: Halo CE Favorite Halo: Halo 3 First Competitive Halo: H2/H3 Least Played Halo: Halo 4 Favorite Gun: Halo 3 sniper Favorite Map: Guardian Favorite Pro: Lunchbox
  14. There is always drama when new generations realize first shot accuracy isn't 100% on any of the weapons in CS or that there is deviation within the spray patterns. Counter-Strike has always been like that, first bullet accuracy is relatively comparable between the games and infact 1.6 has multiple spray patterns for each weapon so in theory it was more random. What makes the older game feel more consistent was much more to do with the following: Slower max movement speed. Better feeling of feedback in the old school arcade graphics e.g. bulky blocky bullet impacts (not 100% reliable). Bigger hitboxes. More player slowdown when tagging . More consistent tagging because of increased wall penetration. Bugs and tricks e.g. switch or reloading weapons made the first shot more accurate. running holding both forward and either left or right made the deagle accurate moving etc. If any of the shit people said in forums was true the game wouldn't be alive today as it has always and will always be like that. I would actually argue from the eye test that GO is much more of a duelers game where you see a lot more first bullet headshots than 1.6. Of course you COULD remove all of the random elements from the game but you would be losing the identity of game, would have to alter a lot of things to maintain balance and really what would you be gaining? This is my problem with 'competitive integrity' as a box ticking exercise. IMO the randomness in CS doesn't present itself negitively, the individual skill gap in CS is still enormous and the balance is logical to the point that they accept it at face value until they're physically presented with the fact that it is random. The game fundamentally is about managing, mitigating and gambling with constantly changing variables: you hedge your bets with economic resources, you gamble with inequal bomb site resources (utility + man power), the timings and positioning are readable but essentially random and the mechanical choices you make are mitigating randomness. Part of the allure is that on the surface structurally you're playing the same game but every round plays out differently and there is always something to be revisited - it is poker with an individual skill component.
  15. Implementation is everything. I love me some straight shooting arena shooters as much as the next nerd but Counter-Strike is a list of everything an arena shooter purist would put on their naughty list and yet it plays beautifully. That is not to say the bloom has ever been implemented in Halo properly (because it hasn't) nor that it ever should be (because it proably shouldn't), just that personal preference should guage the viability of something never rule it out completely. There will always be a Counter-Example that goes so far in the other direction that it creates it's own masterpiece.

Important Information

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