Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

About Ender

  • Birthday 01/01/1969

Recent Profile Visitors

1,994 profile views
  1. How Bungie came up with the idea to implement AAs: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPTiTTJ9mWw#t=1h9m30s
  2. 1. Midship 2. Warlock 3. Sanctuary 4. Lockout 5. Beaver Creek 6. Ivory Tower 7. Elongation I couldn't tolerate any of the other maps.
  3. It's hard to care where either game is on the popularity chart when they're both still trash.
  4. Idk the details of when the first FG tournaments started popping up, but the core of competitive FGs started in the arcades.
  5. If someone plans on making a Halo documentary, I highly advise against trying to just copy and paste from Melee's. It doesn't make much sense to have sections based off of players because as influential as some players were, they never really defined a part of Halo history. You could expand each episode's focus to particular teams instead of players, but that doesn't really work because FB was such a dominating force for so many years that they take up like 50% of the timeline... lol What you should do is divide it by each Halo game's iteration, especially since the evolution (or perhaps devolution) of the Halo series is the whole impetus for the documentary in the first place. For each game, you can give insight into the competitive scene at the time and detail the teams and players who influenced the metagame that way. Idk my Halo history nearly as well as my Melee history, but here's a rough outline: Halo 1: - development goals concerning H1's design (innovative console shooter, etc.) - explain the basics of the game (the pistol, power weapons, health system, powerups, map design/control) - pre-MLG competitive scene (if there's anything to even talk about) - beginnings of MLG (background info about notable players and teams) - a look towards the future (what people had hoped to see in the sequel to probably the greatest console FPS to date) Halo 2: - minority dissent among H1 players in reaction to the relatively drastic changes - overall success of the game due to XBL - community behavior over XBL (mainly how deplorable everyone was with their newfound anonymity; cheating, trash talking, etc.) - BR patch making competition feasible - MLG's continued growth; introducing live streams - Final Boss dominance continued from CE - MLG's exposure blowing up with USA TV special - Carbon's win over FB in '06 - Final Boss reclaiming the title as best in '07 Halo 3: - gameplay mechanics that seriously hindered competitive play (BR spread, slow movement speed, pre-patch melee system, weak map pool) - the community moves on, MLG continues to grow with huge sponsors Halo Reach: - loadouts added seemingly to appeal to players of other shooter brands - MLG's refusal to remove sprint despite widespread agreement that it hurt gameplay - v7 finally getting a no sprint, no bloom Halo back to the community - too little, too late; MLG drops Halo Halo 4: - loadout trend continued from Reach - sprint not only added in addition to other AAs, but the toggle option from Reach was removed - camo powerup removed - flinch replacing getting knocked out of scope - flagnum replacing the dynamic flag carrying in the previous Halos Summary: - a look back from H4 to H1 to see how much everything is changed, almost entirely for the worst - how developers have played a role in Halo's decline - decline of the overall Halo population outside of the competitive community - a look to the future with Halo 5; I know everyone wants a feel-good documentary, but any realist will tell you it looks grim
  6. This made me LOL. The core FGC never stop *****ing and moaning about the awful sequels they are herded into playing. The community is basically the same as Halo except they actually host tournaments. In terms of bitterness and disrespect among players, they are just as bad, maybe even worse. It's kind of hard to tell because the players that go to tournaments are much more mature than the ones that sit at home and stream monster or complain on forums, but either way they are no role model. To be perfectly honest, it just doesn't seem logistically possible to maintain a grassroots Halo community without a MASSIVE population. 4v4s are the core of the series (at least for H2 onward), and the only way you're getting a decent amount of teams to a tournament is to have huge numbers. No one wants to organize a team of 4 from local players, spend time and money driving to a tournament, then play 3-4 other teams in <10 games and go home. They could have gotten online and scrimmed all day and saved money/hassle at the same time. Even if you're just trying to organize casual LANs where you hang out and do whatever, you still have the issue of split screening or having to bring an Xbox + monitor for each person, and the most you'll probably ever be able to do is play 2v2 unless you are going to play online together, in which case what was the point in getting together really? The biggest factor is no one wants to host the tournaments. Successful games have players hosting tournaments on their own because they love their game. Most Halo players don't even love the game enough to stick with it after a sequel comes out so they definitely won't want to go through the huge suffering of the average tournament organizer (probably the hardest and most thankless job of any competitive community). I hosted tournaments myself for Halo, CoD, and Melee, and they are a pain. I was working at a LAN center so it was actually my job and I still hated it. The Melee tournaments ran very smoothly despite me being clueless because the players were enjoying themselves and were fairly responsible about playing their matches and stuff. CoD players weren't too clear on what was going on, but at least they socialized a bit and enjoyed playing each other. Halo was just awful with everyone talking **** for no reason. It was hard to convince anyone to show up in the first place so some tournaments had really poor turnout, and players were constantly whining about other stuff completely out of anyone's control. After one tournament had completely finished, two kids got in a literally bloody fist fight... I don't mean to propagate this hopeless idea of "Halo is dad", but I think it's also important to manage your expectations and realize a grassroots Halo scene is simply not happening. Even if MLG had dropped Halo before H3 launched it still would never have picked up in popularity in local scenes. With that being the case, there's no way it's happening after the most recent title bombs and everyone's in disagreement about what game to even play. If everyone unanimously wanted to go back to H1 there'd be a pretty good chance of grassroots tournaments popping up, but most people playing Halo today have never even played H1 competitively, let alone gone to a tournament for one.
  7. The first clip wasn't an Exterm because it was TS and the first guy he killed respawned before the Overkill.
  8. The only flaw in this plan is that Halo 3 is a barely mediocre game in its own right.
  9. I made that post before everyone switched to H3.
  10. Not sure why everyone thinks delaying the game will improve the multiplayer experience. Do you really think if 343 had an extra year for Halo 4 they would have reduced aim assist, added red Xs, added descope/remove flinch, removed sprint, adjusted/removed AAs, or made any other necessary gameplay changes? If anything, the more time they have to make the game, the more extra BS they will include. Like I said in another thread, get ready for 20+ AAs and different base traits depending on your choice from multiple Spartans.
  11. Yeah, it's dumb. A modded gametype with Carbine starts would be even better than a fixed BR, now that I think about it. Not that anyone would play it because kids would rather fap to their burst fire weapon with spread. -_-
  12. Well you'd be right about being able to conclude Narrows was objectively bad if everyone agreed that linear aggression was a less competitive form of Halo. Unfortunately, that's not the case. See: Station 9 discussion in v5 thread. Like I said before, I'd love to see a study analyzing the score disparity of all of the Halo 3 gametypes, but even if we see Narrows showing closer games on average, not everyone would agree that indicates a lower skill gap. To me and you that probably sounds ridiculous, but if their definition of "skill" is different than ours, we'll never see eye to eye on the subject of skill gap. There are subjective opinions about definitions and meanings that will always be there to introduce controversy and disagreement.
  13. First of all, SPECTATOR VALUE? GTFO of here with that ****. Giving a single **** about what spectators want when it comes to designing settings is the biggest bonehead move any competitive gaming community can make. If you dumb down the competitive experience to draw in more spectators, you end up exactly how Halo has. No depth and no fans. Great job on taking 7 versions of Reach to remove Sprint, MLG! All 5 spectators loved the Sprint and AAs being incorporated! Compromising the integrity of a sport to get a few extra people watching the stream is not only a disgusting disgrace to the game, but it doesn't even work! 95% of the spectators MLG ever got for Halo were players that wanted to see the most competitive Halo gameplay possible. Not somewhat competitive Halo. Not even mostly competitive Halo. The MOST competitive. I want to put two teams of 4 on even ground and watch them fight for their lives. The intelligent, resourceful, and dedicated survive. The rest get forgotten while the best are immortalized. I cannot fathom a world in which that same spirit can coincide with prioritizing spectators over the competitors. Secondly, game flow is an extremely abstract concept. You cannot possibly wrap your head around the flow of a map or even a game because if the game has any depth at all the flow will constantly be evolving and changing. The flow of H2 in it's first year was so drastically different from its flow in 2007 because of how insane the game had gotten. I don't doubt that Solace has poor flow and probably never would have improved much at all, but it's certainly not an objective fact. Some people still consider two teams staying on their side to be a good flow. Like I said, the problem with using terms like "good" or "better" are that they are entirely opinion based. Just because someone says they think Solace has good flow or is a good map overall doesn't mean they are lying or somehow wrong. They just don't agree with you. If you can agree with them on what it means for a map to "flow" and can objectively prove that by looking at actual matches, then you'd have some ground to stand on when you say it has "objectively" poor map flow. As far as your food analogy goes, the problem with that falls apart when realize the role of judges. They have multiple judges in sports without OBJECTIVE scoring methods (cooking, movies, diving, gymnastics, ice skating, etc.) exactly BECAUSE the judges are expressing their opinions, not facts. You could take a dive that received three 10s at one competition and show it to three different judges and get three 8s. That's the nature of those sports, and competitors are frequently at odds with how judges make their decisions. Even with efforts to standardize scoring for things like gymnastics has failed because different judges value the skill of different techniques more or less than others. Maybe you just don't understand the meaning of the word objective: "not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts" When people rate movies, they are expressing their opinions. If they were expressing facts, then how could they possibly disagree so wildly on almost every movie ever made? Some will inevitably average higher ratings than others, but that doesn't mean it is objectively better than other movies because it assumes the goal of the movie was to appeal to as many people as possible. What is probably the most ironic part about your post is that you disagree with me about what I value in competitive maps and try to tell me I'm wrong. You say we should "obviously" base it off of map flow and spectator value, but that is (wait for it) your opinion. All these years I've tried to give idiots on the internet the benefit of the doubt when I see them expressing their opinion as fact. "Surely they are just getting emotional in the moment of typing their post!" I would tell myself. Even reading your post I had to believe that your username is appropriate and you're just trying to make people like me mad. If that's the case, then you win, but somehow I doubt it (though you may claim it was the case to save face). Your post has actually enlightened me to the truth that no, all of those people were actually ignorant enough to believe they were right in a matter that is completely subjective. Congratulations on relieving me of one of the few remaining slices of faith I had left in humanity.
  14. No map is "objectively" better than another because there are tons of different opinions on what it means to be "better". To some people Narrows may feel like the epitome of competitive Halo. To myself and others, they consider it linear aggression personified. If you want to determine which maps are objectively the best, you must agree on a definition of what constitutes a good map. For noobs, it would simply be how much they enjoyed it. If you have 100 people playtest Narrows and Midship and 90% of the people consider Narrows more fun, then by the standard of noobs, Narrows would be a "better" map. Ofc, if you did the same test with hardcore players, you'd probably get a much different result (though some of the posts on these forums make me not so sure). To me, a great way to objectively determine the competitiveness of a map is to look at a the key components of competition. Two basic ones that hopefully everyone on these forums could agree with are: 1. How well is the skill gap represented in the score? 2. How consistently is the skill gap represented in the score? #1 is tested by taking statistics of score disparity on each map and the preferred gametype (because you can't play maps in a vacuum ofc). If both maps are being tested for competitive viability with TS, then a map which frequently ends close to 50-45 can be said to be a poor competitive map. Assuming you are sampling a wide range of player/team skill levels randomly, you should not be ending with a lot of close games. A map that ends with a 50-30 to 50-35 kill disparity is a much healthier competitive map because when you get more evenly matched teams competing, the score must reflect the skill of each tmie with more and more precision. #2 prevents "broken" maps from being perceived as competitive. If a map allows super broken spawn killing that is nearly impossible to get out of, it will seem to be competitive in the statistics when you are looking at component 1, but if you notice that teams are winning about half of their matches on a certain map, you can chalk up the score disparity of each game not to a reflected skill gap but to the map being a virtual coin toss. The best team should always win, and while that may not be the case in reality where emotions run high and teams choke, consistency is still a great thing to look at. With all this in mind, it's important to realize these are not everyone's opinions about what makes a map good. It's dumb to argue with someone about whether a map is better than another when you have two different opinions on what "good" is. It's unlikely two players experienced on the same two maps have had relatively different experiences. Their perspective is what makes them disagree with you, not their experience (though it can play a factor when you start talking about drastically different skill levels and such). If you want to brag about how some maps are "objectively" better or worse, I'm all for that because I'm pretty confident my opinions would reflect the competitive aspects most people (claim to) value in their Halo games. All I'm saying is at least collect some statistics to back up your claim if you're going to bring objectivity into the discussion. Just saying something is objective or even a FACT without any quantitative evidence is embarrassing and frankly pitiful to watch. Quantitative evidence to support a change for v9: Amplified gets vetoed 99% of the time in the MLG playlist. Source: my years of watching the veto counter hit 8 in under 3 seconds every time it get chosen
  15. Is there any reason people haven't tried to make a modded gametype that fixes that BR spread (or just outright makes it single shot)? I'm guessing it's just not feasible, but if it could be done, it should be. The only thing that frustrates me playing H3 is the BR. #PickingUpCarbinesInMLG
  • Create New...

Important Information

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