Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by Cavik

  1. Splitting quotes and addressing things as I go seemed to help in getting points across until recently. I used to write whole replies but then things I said started getting lost in the text and overlooked by readers so I wound up having to repeat myself a lot. Having said that, you could've just asked earlier. It makes sense that you'd accuse me of exaggerating when you seem to have a tendency to oversimplify. As far as "missing the point expertly," the feeling's mutual seeing as you've made a few claims (that I'm resisting the urge to quote), and while you've offered alterations to the wall-kick idea a number of times now during this discussion, leading me to believe I must be making some decent arguments against its initial more simple form, you've completely ignored certain observations I've made that challenges your logic behind what makes thrust such a naughty mechanic in the first place. You seem to be interested in creating rules for what kinds of changes can and can't be implemented into the game, but you're not willing to discuss the validity of those rules and trying to flesh them out. As I said, I like the latest versions of the wall-kick idea. I just don't see any harm in putting these rules of yours to the test. @@TheIcePrincess Like I told Gobias, typically players jump before they thrust. There's little reason not to. During a gunfight in Halo 5, if a player's feet leave the ground, that typically means he's going to thrust. If he doesn't, he's stuck in a predictable trajectory. So that's a warning. See opponent jump, anticipate him to thrust. You said "example" but I gave you multiple examples. Did you miss the others? Yes, Halo 5 has bloated maps, but the current iteration of thrust carries you quite a distance. There's plenty of walled pathways in Halo 5's maps where you can attempt thrusting across the width of the path and land more than halfway across it. The caves on Coli, the ramps leading up to snipe spawn, the trenches to bottom mid, the threshold between the elbows and bases, underneath bases between the rocks and the foundation wall. Hell, even the windows are thin enough for it. There's plenty of areas like this on every map. How often do you thrust into walls? I don't do it very often and I'm nowhere near pro-level. Obviously players favor thrusting away from nearby walls. And of course if a player is at a disadvantage or is otherwise panicked, he's going to attempt to thrust out of the engagement and around a corner if one's close enough, but they often aren't. In past Halos, players can be much closer to walls without it interrupting their strafe sequence. In Halo 5, if a player isn't in the absolute middle of certain areas/paths, there's going to be a wall nearby that will block his thrust from being as efficient as it can be. That's what makes the direction of a thrust so predictable. I agree that thrust being so jarring is a big issue. Think I've said that several times now. Your argument that thrust does "nothing inherently offensive" isn't true. You can use it to thrust at an opponent in close quarters when you have a close-range power weapon or if you're trying to get a melee in. In certain situations where you have a player hiding behind an obstacle (the rocks under the bases in Coli and its caves; some pillars on Eden; underneath the bases on Truth and around car-side bubble, etc.), you can peek one way around the obstacle to make the enemy move and then potentially thrust in the opposite direction in order to put shots into him. I could go on but my gut says it would be more wasted effort. How is the bubble shield from H3 offensive by nature? Same question for the gravity lift, deployable cover and regen. So if you could thrust multiple times sans cooldown but weren't allowed to spam it endlessly lest your thrusters overheat, and thrust was less rapid and perhaps carried you a shorter distance... We'd be good? The point I was trying to make with that supposed "improper argument" was there's quite a few things in Halo already restraining you from spamming certain actions to keep them from becoming overpowered. Why can't a movement mechanic have something restraining you from spamming it as well? Why is there a rule against that? This will be my last post regarding these subjects. Sorry for all the walls of text.
  2. Doesn't change the fact that in the act of throwing a grenade you're blocked from doing direct damage to your opponent until the animation is finished. Have you never been shot in the process of throwing a grenade? Have you never seen that happen to someone else? Taking the time to throw a grenade is a gamble. Right now in H5, thrusting is admittedly not much of a gamble, but if the act of thrusting was slowed so players could more easily shoot a thrusting opponent, it would be. So there's a limit to how much damage we're allowed to put out now? Since when? And why is there so many weapons that don't also comply with this damage output limitation? Good points, good points. Bubble shield, grav lift, deployable cover, radar jammer--easy kills all day long. For how many frames are you restricted from shooting upon thrusting? Just asking in the off chance that you or someone else who reads over this might already know. If not, I'll look into finding out, but it feels quite brief to me. Here's another one (you'll love this): For every semi-automatic or burst-fire gun in the game, there's a cooldown between every single trigger-pull. If there wasn't, people would be able to fire every one of those guns as fast as an automatic. It's more predictable than the initial moves of a classic strafe sequence, yeah. Here, I wrote up a kind of guideline a ways back during a similar discussion: As for predicting what direction the player will thrust in, obviously if the player is losing the gunfight, he's very likely to attempt thrusting toward the nearest cover or back toward safety. In an even 1v1, as I told Gobias, if there's a wall near this person, you can guess he's going to thrust away from that wall because thrusting into it would potentially put less space between him and his opponent's crosshair (which is inefficient). Obviously this kind of thing can't be accurately predicted 100% of the time but I'm positive from my time playing and watching H5 that it's easier to predict when and in what direction someone's going to thrust than it is to predict which direction someone is going to move to start their strafe sequence.
  3. The wall-kick would be even more predictable than current thrust (which is already even more predictable than the beginning movements of a typical strafe pattern), meaning it would have practically zero impact on the game because people would very rarely use it--at least once they realize it doesn't help them in the vast majority of situations (if any). How does it complement the game's movement and "offer you more combat strafing options" if most people look at it and say, "That's not worth using,"? I disagree. When you jump off the ground, you can jump forward, backward, or to either side. Your wall-kick would be even more predictable than a regular jump because it limits the amount of directions the player can move through the air in down to one single option. In past Halos, jumping is already something people don't do much of during gunfights, why would the wall-kick alone inspire them to do it more often? Now we're talking. It would be even more predictable than thrust is currently because players would have to be near the wall in order to jump at it and kick off it so other players would see it coming, but at least it would be faster than typical strafe so there's incentive to use it. I'd definitely be willing to try that in place of thrust. However, what I said in my previous post was that it could give players a vertical boost in speed. I'm almost positive it would be possible to allow players to gain a vertical boost in speed higher than BMS upon kicking off while simultaneously keeping their horizontal speed restricted to BMS, maybe even lower, so it couldn't be used to more quickly traverse maps. Throwing nades, switching weapons, reloading, the overheating of plasma weapons, using equipment (in certain Halo games). Does all of that feel out of place to you? If I'm understanding that comparison correctly, the translation is: It's like 343 realized adding sprint and expanding maps increased the average engagement range (decreasing the aiming skill gap in turn) and, instead of eliminating the source of the problem, they introduced thrust in an attempt to further nerf sprint's negative impacts. I agree (except about it feeling clunky and unnatural). That doesn't mean thrust--or a variation of it--isn't worth having in the game without sprint, though. And you seem to agree, otherwise why continue trying to find a compromise? But a wall-kick followed by a spurt of speed faster than BMS isn't? Does that mean you'd allow players to shoot while performing the wall-kick? If so, I'd still be down to give it a try, but I would anticipate the arise of other issues.
  4. TryHardFan said the same thing a little over a year ago in a similar discussion on Waypoint. My only real concern is I could see it getting annoying if spammed. Imagine Spartan's making squiggly paths through the air over and over again like pieces in a game of tetris. Yuck. Maybe if thrust was shortened and slowed to the point that getting around maps with it wouldn't be any quicker than BMS and it could be fired off multiple times in mid-air but still require a cool down after it's used? That's a good point, that's probably true. If Halo 5 didn't have such screwy aiming, wouldn't this be a nonissue, though? You can be shot while thrusting but you can't shoot back. That's a tradeoff, but I'll admit it isn't a very significant one in Halo 5. The slower thrust is, however, the more significant that tradeoff becomes. That's not true. The best time to use thrust is when you're one-shot, to make that final headshot even more difficult to acquire. If you use it before you're one-shot, it's easier for your opponent to continue damaging you at the most efficient rate because he's still whittling away at your shields so he only needs to keep hitting you in the body. And like I said, you can keep shooting your opponent while doing any other strafing tactic, but you can't shoot back while you're thrusting. The slower the act of thrusting is, the more likely you are to be punished for it. Another drawback to thrusting is it's often more predictable than the initial moves of any given typical strafe pattern. Looking at a player, there's no prior sign that he's about to crouch. There's no prior sign that he's about to strafe one way or another. But in a Halo with thrust, if his feet leave the ground and you haven't seen him already use it, it's generally safe to assume he's going to thrust. You get an instant's warning upon seeing the player jump that he's about to thrust. It's also often easier to guess what direction the player is going to thrust in since by thrusting into a wall he'd be shortening the amount of distance he puts between himself and the enemy's reticle (which is inefficient), so if there's a wall anywhere nearby on either side of him, you can guess he'll be thrusting away from it. Those two combined seem like another rather large tradeoff to me. In comparison to sprint, I feel the difference between a map designed with thrust in mind to one without it would be negligible. Sprint is something you have constantly, thrust is something you can only use once every so often and there's no rule written that states it has to carry you as far as H5's does. Using only thrust wouldn't be as favorable for getting around a map without thrust-slide, so I imagine players would be even more inclined to save it for gunfights. If sprint is taken out of the equation, the average engagement range decreases by quite a long ways. By comparison, do you honestly think pushing it a little farther back out for thrust would be so significant? Do you honestly think it would push close-quarter engagements far enough away that those strafe tactics would be deemed ineffective? I don't. Not even close--not with how effective I've seen those same tactics be in Halo 5, which already has ridiculously bloated maps thanks to sprint. In the end, it has to do with whether or not the mechanic's upside is worth the downside. Sprint obviously isn't worth it because everything beneficial it brings to the game (or at least to 4v4) is an illusion. Thrust seems a bit more complicated. No no, you're clearly trying to find a compromise and I can appreciate that. Not being sarcastic. That's actually part of the problem with it. Because it doesn't change speed from BMS, there's little incentive to actually use it. You'd be thrown into a predictable pattern just like normal jump. Combined with increased air control, maybe it would work. Oh--or maybe if it increased your speed vertically but not horizontally, so it launched you up in the air at a speed faster than BMS but couldn't be used to traverse maps any more quickly. Or maybe kicking yourself off a wall lets your Spartan ricochet off the ceiling in certain places like they already do on certain maps, so you pick up a faster-than-BMS-speed going down. It would be even more predictable than thrust currently is but would also serve the same purpose; the tradeoff would just be harsher for the thrust user. Alone, though, I think it's usefulness would be extremely limited--to the point that it wouldn't be worth implementing. By kicking yourself off of a wall, you'd be launching yourself out into space just like you'd be doing with your typical jump. Because of that, the only players I could see using it are those who are already up a significant amount of shots on their opponent, and even then, only for the lulz. If you're weaker than your opponent, there's no reason to launch yourself out into the open, you'd be better off attempting to strafe your way out of the situation. Potentially. Who knows.
  5. What I like about thrust is that it adds more verticality to gunfights. In past Halos, jumping while in the middle of a gunfight often ends up being a bad idea because it puts you on a predictable trajectory you can't deviate from. It makes you an easier target. Because of that, jumping in the middle of a gunfight is much less common in those games than it is in H5, where you have a way of altering your trajectory in mid-air. In Halo 5, I often see people jumping when they've already used their thrust and don't have it available--which is a mistake because it puts them on a predictable trajectory just like in past Halos, but I understand why they do it. Jumping during a gunfight is more common in Halo 5--so common that it becomes habit. That makes me think the addition of thrust also adds a bit to the knowledge gap and a little more need for self-awareness/self-control. The whole "Don't jump while in a gunfight" rule no longer applies in Halo 5, it's now: "Don't jump in a gunfight WHEN you don't have thrust" instead, and that seems to be harder for people to remember and creates a habit that's hard to break. I think a lot of the problems people have with thrust right now isn't with the mechanic itself but how it's implemented. Couldn't the increase of auto-aim necessary to kill a thrusting opponent be negated by a decrease in thrust's speed? I don't see why not. So, if thrust is implemented in such a way that it doesn't force the devs to increase auto aim, that means the typical strafe would still have the same effectiveness as it always has. Right?
  6. Yup. It took Epic two months to make Fortnite's BR mode. Imo 343 chose to stop following trends just a little too early. Also there's a massive difference between the trends 343 have been chasing up to this point and the Battle Royale trend. One has an impact on the gameplay--the bread and butter--of an entire game. The other is just a gametype. Instead of letting 343 invest (waste) more time on another Breakout, why shouldn't they try their hands at a gametype that's already been proven to be insanely popular? Especially when they have a decent track record when it comes to designing large maps (hell, they might already have large maps that would work for BR, with some tweaks). Not to mention that all signs point to Battle Royale modes being pretty simple to design so it's less likely 343 would fuck it up. I'll admit it, I've put way too much thought into this.
  7. What if he's sprinting and shooting at the same time?
  8. Right, but do you think they'd be expecting the venue to overflow with people looking to compete in an H3 2v2 tournament? I doubt it. If that did happen, I imagine it could be quite an eye-opener for the higher-ups at 343/Microsoft. I think what happened with the launch of MCC is about as embarrassing as it can get and I don't think underestimating the turnout for a classic-Halo tournament in 2018 could come close to measuring up to that. I'm just hoping that, in Atlanta, they get a glimpse of the market (and the amount of fans) they've alienated by releasing games like 4 and 5. I'm hoping they get a wake up call. So yeah, like Teapot said: Promote, promote, promote.
  9. Would've been more funny if you posted the meme. Just saying.
  10. They do. Do you have the balls to start a debate or do you just want to retreat to your support group and bitch about it?
  11. Holy shit! Show the footage of that game to any FPS enthusiast and they'll be hooked. Incredible.
  12. That's one team. Do you think Optic would ignore such an agreement with Liquid when players between those two teams are such good friends? What other teams do you honestly think would pull that kind of stunt on each other?
  13. I don't think that would work out. Players would be bound to forget. I was thinking only once a game off initial spawns and maybe just in the first game of the series. After that, I could easily see players getting distracted while talking strats pregame and forgetting.
  14. During next pro-league, imagine if in the first game of a series between two teams, before any of the eight players even moved off their first spawns, they just held down their right triggers and fired their AR's until they were completely empty and then played like normal for the rest of the series. Casters and spectators would have to sit there, watch and wait until all players emptied their assault rifles. That would be an interesting form of protest.
  15. But Liquid reverse sweeping Str8 in a bo7 with Spartan repeatedly telling his teammates (according to him), "One game at a time," and going on a killing frenzy in game 7 doesn't show a lot of resolve?
  • Create New...

Important Information

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