Jump to content

TiberiusAudley

Member
  • Content Count

    5,949
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    32

Recent Profile Visitors

38,561 profile views
  1. Man H3 BTB with randoms is not at all what it was in 2010. I just played a game of Standoff, both teams of 8 randoms. There were 187 assists on 180 kills. Both teams had clusters of players 3-4 strong pushing the enemy team's rocks at any given time. It was insane. I didn't even see teamshot like that in the MLG playlist back in the day. People are built different now.
  2. I think it was pure gimmick that enabled some interesting interactions on an already weird map. But just watching noobs play on it you can see that overall it's a bad design -- take Multi-Flag for instance, you'll often see randos hop in the elephant and drive it to the other side of the map, because "OH IT'S A BIG VEHICLE MY TEAM CAN ALL BE ON" -- but if you lose control of that elephant, suddenly you're spawning opposite of the map from the elephant and the enemy's spawning right next to it for easy flag caps. Would need to be clear to newer players it's a bad idea to take your Elephant to enemy team, or tweak spawns in a way that they're entirely 'nearby' your team's Elephant at any given time -- but even then you run the risk of the game falling to shambles around that. That said, Pirate Ships and the like are all very fun moments that came from the Elephant's existence, so I think there's probably avenues to make them not a waste of design space. A fun Invasion mode where one side gets an elephant/mammoth and the other side gets a Spectre would be interesting.
  3. There's nothing more annoying than spawning on the Elephant on Sandtrap because one of your dumb fucking randoms felt like driving it.
  4. I hope temporary area denial mechanics are not what he means, because in that case I am a HARD disagree. We've seen some awful implementations of them (Power Drain, Scatternades H5) but in general they're a good mechanic to have because it allows you to force your opponent into certain decisions or paths. In a good implementation, though, the opponent has fair counterplay in order to dispel your denial rather than just immediately walk where you want or wait out the denial. But in a game where space is the most important resource, tools that deny space for periods of time are incredibly important -- the key is that they must not hard deny the space without avenues of counterplay.
  5. Soft disagree / Agree, with a Qualifier here. RNG that offers no possibility for a reaction is bad in a competitive game. This includes random BR spread, Bloom, Dice Roll Critical Hits, RNG Ordnance, and any number of RNG-type mechanics where the moment the RNG is rolled, the RNG effect is immediate, or in the case of H4 release RNG Ordnance, the choices generated have a massive range where one person may get absolute dogshit and another may get the strongest power weapons in the game. RNG comes in some acceptable forms -- take StarCraft for instance, where initial spawns are randomized. This creates an element of the game that wouldn't exist with nonrandom spawns: blind scouting / scouting paths. If you always knew which spot your opponent would spawn in, your scouting would often come based entirely on windows of tech development to try to know exactly when your opponent would be making their build decisions for a game, or when losing your one worker is the least impactful. Instead, you have to find their location FIRST in order to be able to get any other information, so there's a bigger weight on deciding when to scout. It's a decision that is given more impact because of RNG. Another example of acceptable RNG is the game Offworld Trading Company -- where the resources on the map are entirely randomized each match. However, the gameplay itself revolves around dynamically choosing which resources to stockpile, which resources to sell, and which resources to attempt to trade with other players in order to win the economic race / buyout your opponents. Your given resources are random but your moment-to-moment decisions determine whether or not the RNG comes to fuck you, not the RNG itself. You're never left in a bad situation regardless of what the RNG yields. TLDR/The Point of this Rambling: RNG can be okay in situations where the effects of randomization are not immediate, but rather the players have a chance to react to them. Example: If in Pokémon, when crits occurred, if instead of dealing double damage, it knocked a Pokémon off-balance that guaranteed the NEXT attack ignored defense/dealt double damage, it then would create a Yomi moment for both players, where the attacker would (in general) want to use his strongest attack to guarantee a KO, but the off-balance player would (in general) want to swap out his Pokémon to something less exposed, or even better, immune/resistant to that attack. Then back to Player 1, does he instead predict the swap and make a swap of his own, setting himself up for an advantage on the next turn by likely getting a free set-up turn to initiate a Sweep -- and back to Player 2, does he predict the predictive swap+set-up and instead stay on his current Pokemon / take a set-up turn / swap into something that would counter the predicted prediction swap. This huge Yomi Layer 3 moment comes from the implementation of an RNG moment (Off-Balance) that, in current implementation, is instead just likely your own Pokemon being knocked out -- but in both cases, the existence of the RNG serves to help reduce the chances of the game becoming 'solved'. Hard agree for the context of this style of Shooter. No one should feel like they're in a Warthog turret when they're on foot. Unsure what you mean by "hard AoE" in this case, but it sounds like you mean outright closing doors -- which I don't think we've seen in Halo outside of H2C Zombies on Foundation where people would punch boxes until it blocked the door and the zombies couldn't come in, so it was a battle of attrition of Zombie infinite lives vs finite shotgun/Magnum ammo. These are all pretty given, but as far as "Player Randomness" your description seems to just boil down to choice overload vs intuitive flow for players -- I don't think "player randomness" is a bad thing if it's ultimately "Bad players making bad decisions" nor if it's "Good players doing something that doesn't make sense in order to trump a predicted play." Blunders should be blunders, mistakes should be mistakes, but Halo isn't chess and a player's path shouldn't be limited to only a few options just because giving them more options makes it harder for someone to know exactly what they might be doing. Best options should still exist, but other "Excellent" and "Good, not great" options should exist, as well as options that are "Excellent because you're expected to do Best" options.
  6. How are you going to come in here and disrespect Medabots like that?
  7. On a side note, one of the best daily upload channels on YouTube right now is Bing Bong. Every day he releases a new video (going in order) of the Yu-Gi-Oh dub shortened to about 1-2 minutes long. And every single "Heart of the Cards" or "Egyptian God Card" line is included.
  8. Battle City Arc: egyptian god card egyptian god card egyptian god card HEART OF THE CARDS egyptian god card
  9. A child can always be forgiven for their sins upon repentance. Welcome to the Sovereignty, brother. Even back in the old PS1 days, Vanu was underpopped because their weapons were just... less powerful than the other two, so it was the faction that (generally speaking) attracted the more skilled players. Anyway, back on the subject of PS2 gameplay slogging: A large part of that is the importance of the facilities and how much more exposed the AMS is in PS2 than it was in PS1 -- mobile spawn points are a lot harder to keep alive/protected unless you're already in the process of pushing a facility. Another part of it was how bridges were on all the continents PS2 gave us...they shied away from designing with water because technical constraints, so bridge battles were usually over vast canyons...which, as a VS player was super frustrating because like, the ONE MAJOR FACTION ADVANTAGE VS had for open fields was their tanks levitated, which meant they could cross water, which meant Vanu bridge battles were a lot more fun instead of just back and forth artillery shelling and praying for kills (in PS1). Then when it comes to facilities themselves, PS2 gave a lot more strength to medic revive/engineer repair so the already strong NC Scattermaxes and TR Dual Cycler maxes at mowing down infantry became even harder to uproot so zerg battles just became a grinder. A lot of that could be fixed by changing how facilities and spawning points in general work, but also just by not making MAX suits capable of being effectively immortal so zergpushes can actually have tides one way or the other.
  10. ...before we continue this conversation, what faction? (Knowing whether or not you picked the objectively correct faction or are one of the two losers will help me frame any further comments regarding LARGESCALEHALO re: PS/PS2)
  11. Imagine if Microsoft/Halo teamed up with the team that made PlanetSide 2 and made a Halo universe version of PlanetSide.
  12. Every single BTB game since H3 has also been murdered by the lack of a projectile utility weapon making precision starters incredibly oppressive (and it's only gotten worse with the introduction of MKB). It's nuts how powerful those precision weapons are, especially the Reach DMR relative to the rest of the sandbox in the game's given ranges.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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