Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Everything posted by TrueHaloMaster

  1. Great thread. Studying right now, so Ill develop a response later. However, I think it really depends on the format. If 2v2, a modified CE system would do. Instead of randoms, I would have areas that specifically give you split/cross map spawns for your partner that are already known/determined. For 4v4, a modified Halo 3 system is best. Remove the influence of LoS completely and the system should be really good.
  2. Guys, the death of Halo has nothing to do with how good the game is. It's because it has to unfortunately compete with COD, which is a giant in popular culture that Halo will never be. edit: to the neggers, im not saying Halo shouldn't be good. Im saying that no matter how good the game is, or how appreciated by the millions that buy it, it is going to die comapred to COD.
  3. Thanks. I have a couple more essays I could dig up, but Ill churn them out slowly otherwise itll reach an unhealthy level of saturation.
  4. To learn? It's a bitch. To perform, once youve learned it? As easy as jumping and pressing crouch once. Great with camo. As is the window jump when theyre at os.
  5. Okay, then. My first vid will be a demonstration of all the tactical jumps on Prisoner (excluding nade jumps). Hope there's something new in there for all of you interested:
  6. Are we allowed to post HCE vids in here or is it frowned upon (no console for a while now I can only contribute with vids lmfao) not funny actually...
  7. Edit: The big titles are not by me. There's going to be some irrelevant stuff in there that Ill hopefully edit out asap, but there should be some solid material for this discussion imo. Gonna poop this one out: One of the things we always talk about is the skill-gap. How large it is or how small it is. When we look to develop new settings we need to have a clear intent in our mind. We need a goal, an idea of where to take the game settings. So let`s start with the most generalized statement ever, one that we can all certainly agree with: We are trying to develop the most competitive game (and entertaining I suppose considering MLG`s new line of thought...though I feel they go both hand in hand, but I digress.) Now what does it take to make something competitive? One can argue that anything can be competitive; you can compete in rock, paper, scissors or in chess. However, anybody can play rock, paper, scissors which requires little more than simple pattern recognition, gut-feeling and luck. However, a game like chess demands years of training and even then it is not given to everybody. This brings us to the skill ceiling and the skill gap. The skill ceiling is the theoretical threshold for how good a player can be at a game. Now this is in large part determined by the difficulty of the game and is what is responsible for what we call the skill gap (how far ahead individuals are from one another in terms of skill). So, I think by now we can confidently agree that what makes the ideal game for us is one based on an even playing field with a high skill ceiling. But here`s the catch: Halo games do not have particularly high skill ceilings. No, not even Halo CE. There is no way, for example, that a CE takes as much time to get pro at as say a professional sport like soccer or basketball. It does not demand countless hours of sacrifice throughout your childhood and your teens. A couple tens of thousands of games and you should be pretty decent. Now let`s move on to examine how the skill gap works. It`s like a curve where your position on it is determined by the amount of time you put in. Some people reach a certain position faster and more easily than others. Some never quite make it to that level. The fact of the matter is that Halo is really something we can all get good at with the right practice and dedication. Now to the important point. The higher the skill ceiling, the farther players will be spread out along this curve. But if you have a relatively easy game like Halo 3, everybody will be bunched up together. Yes, the Snipedown`s, and Pistola's, OGREs. and Roy's are going to be better than others, but the distances are reduced drastically. And if you factor in the inconsistency of individual skill from day to day, it becomes even harder to pin-point the best players. So far, we have established our statement of purpose or intent as well as tackled some of the limitations of video games. Now we have to find the best solution to cope with the problem. As Instinct and Final Boss have demonstrated, at the pro-level, the most significant thing that separates them from the others is their level of teamwork or their ability to work with one another in-game - call it whatever you want. And that`s because getting a group of 4 players to work together so well and seamlessly is the hardest thing to do in Halo. Everybody is good at aiming, strafing, jumping. It only takes a matter of time to acquire these skills. However, positioning, movement, decision making in symphony with the rest of your team are infinitely more difficult skills. It's easy to get good at aiming, it's not simple to become smart at Halo. I guess we can say that we have established that we cannot feasibly increase the aiming skill gap. The direction we have to take is to focus on the teamwork aspect of Halo: Reach. It is a difficult thing to differentiate between teamwork and individual skill. Because after all, a player`s ability to respond appropriately to callouts and play according to his teammates are individual skills. I don`t buy that some sort of magical chemistry must occur for a team to do well. If you have the 4 best team players, then you have the best team. Thus, the skill gap ultimately concerns a player`s ability to play with his teammates, not aiming skill and other sorts of so-called individual skills. Alright folks, now more often than not people confuse teamshot with teamwork, as if the two are synonymous. Rather, the former is simply the most basic asset of teamwork. Fulfilling your role as an individual player is a form of teamwork. Positioning yourself at a lift or some other key choke point is a form of teamwork. Being able to clutch out and secure that power weapon works for the benefit of the team. Nading a weapon or powerup to your teammate is teamwork. So is spawning them safely or in a good position. Now, as I detailed in my previous post, since Halo 3 teamwork has indeed revolved around teamshooting by means of the aggressive push. I have always highlighted my disgust at this form of playstyle and have brought up sufficient reasons to back up my argument against it. As it stands, however, Reach is really Halo 3 v2.0. There are the slight differences of pace and game mechanics, but what sprint and the slow kill times ultimately do is just take that linear aggressive style of play and take it up a notch. Explanation of what each game was and allowed for Quote Halo: CE is incontestably the most competitive Halo title to date. It is by far the most fun and long-lasting title of the series as can be evidenced by the number of people who still LAN or play on XB Connect as well as the 20 000 strong who continually enjoy the PC version. It was a game that not only rewarded aiming skill, but intelligence and multi-tasking, and thus the skilled individual. I speak for myself here - but I'm sure many will certainly agree - I am still learning something about the game despite having played it for the last 7 years. Whether we are talking about the intrinsics of the game such as more effective positioning and movement or helpful tricks like nade points. The game was the most dynamic of the Halo series, the most punishing, and the one with the fastest gameplay. I often hear people saying that Halo 3 and Reach were more team-oriented than Halo:CE. I can assure them that that is most definately wrong. At the highest level, teamwork is the most important. Thus, one must be able to separate teamwork from teamshot, the latter only being a component of the former. As far as teamwork is concerned, teamshooting is only the most basic form. In Halo:CE a teammate had to be able to manipulate and control the spawn system, nade camo or a weapon to his teammate, win the individual battle to secure the power position or weapon, flank, distract, you name it. Teamwork was natural, not forced upon like in later Halo games. This ultimately brings us to the major determining factor - the primary weapon. You spawned in Halo CE with a Weapon that was effective at all ranges and was able to punish careless players at long range. If you see an enemy, you can kill him, simple as that. There was no artificial pressure on the teamshooting aspect, the 3sk was guaranteed on an opponent travelling in a straight line. Unlike Halo 3, you couldn't have an opponent simply run across the open to secure the camo on Prisoner or Hang em High then rabbit hop and StrongSide back to safety. He would simply get gunned down. At the moment, I am not trying to detail the various ways a utility Weapon would advantage the competition, but simply how it affected the style of play. In Halo CE, the game relied on the players quick thinking and strategy. It promoted flanking and earning powerups. Powerups and Power-weapons had to be earned by killing the opponent, not running there first like on the Pit. This was simply because the pistol could kill effectively at all ranges very quickly. It was an organic, logical style of play that relied on intelligence principally and in-game knowledge. Not pushing forward on a thumbsick according to your teammates' callouts. Halo 2 represents the first step in the wrong direction. With the creation of their second game, Bungie decided that having an effective long-range utility Weapon off of spawn was unacceptable.Apparently, there was this new notion that all weapons should be used equally. They restricted the range of the BR by making it a 3-shot burst Weapon with a lot of spread. Everybody detested that and Bungie fixed the spread after the patch. The starting Weapon is now accurate at long range, but doesn't kill quickly enough. Players can now escape away from you unless you have support. What happened in Halo 2 was the emergence of the setup and the support player. In Halo CE, there was no such thing as a support player. Teams didn t need one since everybody could take down opponents at long range. Instead, in Halo 2 you needed a player on Midship who would remain in the base and weaken people cross-map. The teamshot became primary rather than secondary, but an individual still played a rather important role. You could still 4-shot somebody across Lockout if he popped out too far. Medium-range 1v1 encounters still retained some form of aiming skill since the movement speed was fast and the spread restrained.Furthermore, it still took time and strategy and a deep understanding of the game to develop setups and counter-setups and how to break setups and when to push and when not to push and so on. You still needed your head to play and be successful. And then came Halo 3. In the next instalment of the Halo series, Bungie said enough was enough. The concept of the utility Weapon had to be abolished once and for all. According to their vision, players should start with a weak starting Weapon (Mind you, this was also the philosophy in Halo 2 with the awful SMG starts.) and try to pick other weapons from there according to their preference. It's a vision that caters towards the casual players and has no competitive merit. The Halo 3 BR was made worse than that of Halo 2 pre-patch. It had significant spread and very slow kill times. It had been turned into a mid-range Weapon that had the ability to pin snipers. Now not only is it slow, but it is also inaccurate. It had by now become impossible to kill a shielded opponent cross-map. Your opponent could secure that OS in front of your eyes, without having to earn it by killing you. If a guy is too far for you to hit him, what is the solution? The aggressive push. That, my friends, is the single worst thing that has happened to Halo. The intelligent, dynamic, power-seeking style of play of Halo CE and the set-up of Halo 2 had been discarded since they no longer worked. You absolutely need teamshooting to kill a person at long-range - it's no longer natural, it's necessary. It is pathetic that I see PRO TEAMS securing the closed/open street hill on Construct by brute-forcing 3 guys up the purple lift. It is a mindless style of play that allows teams made up of less skilled individuals (Whether in the aiming or thinking department) to win games because they were able to have all four players pushing their left analog forward and shoot in unison. That's what Halo 3 really was near the end, and the linear agressiveness-playstyle was only encouraged with maps like Onslaught and Narrows. All there is to it is communication and a response in the way of moving your thumbstick in said direction. As far as Halo:Reach is concerned, the philosophy was carried over. Slower movement speed, slow strafe speed, and this goes without telling: an ineffective utility gun. Many have the impression that the ulterior motive behind the bloom was to make it more skilful. But I ask you, since when has Bungie done something to the weapon sandbox to make it more skillfull? No, that can't be as they are geared toward the casuals. If you analyze the function of the bloom, we immediately tell that the gun decreases in effectiveness as distance increases. Killtimes in fact increase in linear fashion as distance increases. Can you see a parallel between this and the H3 BR bullet spread? You probably, do and that's because there is. The DMR addresses the limitations of the spread, but completes the same function. It is restrained to its mid-range niche and cannot kill at long-range (a full shielded opponent without help - of course it can kill a one-shot but that's besides the point and was also possible in H3). We, therefore, due to the kill times and the inherent design of the primary weapon, end up with a game with the exact same style of play as its predecessor. Lunchbox in a recent interview summe dit up well, "We just wait for us to have more numbers (as in more players alive) and then we push." Not very bright gameplay and this is coming from the top team. It's once again down to teamshooting while pushing aggressively. This is not a type of gameplay that MLG should be encouraging. If you need more proof that this is the case, look at the top players. The grand majority of them are the same ones that were excelling in Halo 3. There was no change in gameplay as the H2-H3 jump. MLG should have been taking steps to counter this type of mindless gameplay in my opinion. Instead, the official gametype settings include sprint which only aggravates the problem. Now players are further encouraged to push forward like never before and this dilemma is accentuated when opponents sprint to safety since the other team now has to sprint further to finish the one-shots. Ridiculous. It is my hope that this essay was enough to demonstrate the paramount effect of the Primary Weapon on the gameplay. It is what has in the large part determined the major differences between HCE and H2 and H3/Reach. This update is our chance to make Reach a new game that is inspired by its roots (CE). The removal of bloom is necessary not just due to the inherent luck factor, but rather due to the slow kill times and ineffectiveness at long range. How to make Reach awesome Quote We, finally, have to some extent the opportunity to make our own Halo game. We have the limited tools to do it, but how do we go about it. I think the support of the community for a particular option is going to be crucial in deciding the future of Halo reach settings, which is why I am even bothering about this. My experience and understanding of Halo stems from 6+ years of competitive Halo CE, btw, and I believe that this knowledge of game design and dynamics can be applied to Reach. To ensure that we have the most competitive game possible we need to get the best possible settings to satisfy the following 3 components: 1) Player Settings = Primary Weapon and Movement 2) Spawn Manipulation 3) Pickups (Power ups and Power weapons) + Map Design that is based on and exploits these three components. 1) The Primary Weapon is what determines how the game is played. I have made a lengthy post on the topic, which you have probably read, but I will re-post it later. Anyway, the Primary Weapon should allow a player to kill quickly at all ranges from close to long. In other words, it must be a utility gun. This is the single biggest differentiating factor between HCE and Halo 2 and Halo 3/Halo Reach (pre-patch). It is what made Halo CE be played with an intelligence-based dynamic playstyle, Halo 2 with setups, and Halo 3/Reach with linear aggressiveness. The most ideal competitive way of playing Halo is the "CE way" simply because that is what determines the large skill-ceiling. The problem people do not realize is that aiming difficulty in Halo is not great enough in any game to significantly determine the skill-gap at the pro-level. It's the playstyle. Good aim is literally a prerequisite to becoming pro. All serious Halo players have perfected that department, it just requires time and training. It's not their aim, that made the OGRES the best players at CE. No, something else has been determining the skill-gap for the Halo games. That's intelligence, in-game knowledge, teamwork (communication, set-ups, pushes). That's why Halo 3 and Reach (especially H3) have such small skill-gaps. Linear aggressiveness doesn't require any thinking. It's a mindless sort of play based on hounding players according to callouts by constantly pushing as a team. Everybody can do that, hence the low skill ceiling in H3. 2) You will often hear that Halo CE plays better on a competitive level as a 2v2 game rather than as a 4v4. And that is certainly true. But have you ever thought why? Maybe you thought it was because of the map design or something else. The answer is simple: spawn control. In 2v2, players had absolute control over the spawns. You can give your partner a random spawn or have him spawn in the same spawn bubble down to the specific spawn point. In Prisoner, you could give your partner a top spawn in the corner of top OS by standing right under it vertically on the bottom level. On RR, for example, if a player spawns in the shields, you know his partner is in the tunnels. In 4v4, people never got to completely understand the spawn system or at least be able to completely manipulate it, so the games are chaotic rather than deterministic(I use the word in the sense of the actual chaos theory). Halo Reach map design and spawn systems have to be made on this principle. There's a reason why Heretic CTF, Onslaught CTF, Pit CTF, and Guardian Ball worked well to some extent despite H3's shortcomings. We have to encourage and allow spawn killing and trapping. Allowing spawn control is key to making a good game. 3) Power-ups and power-weapons are not gimmicks. You cannot go about with a map that is devoid of them - something that we saw on Onslaught and Amplified. They allow the game to flow by promoting movement and situational approach. They are what allow a team to keep map/spawn control or gain it. They are necessary to actually making a map work. There's a reason there's a camo every minute at the bottom of Prisoner and an overshield at the top. Removing, switching, replacing one or the other would KILL Prisoner. It just wouldn't work and so, contrary to what KC might believe, they are necessary for competitive play. Oh. did I mention that we need more, not less. We should be getting power-ups every minute like Halo CE. In summary, there is no argument to support the 5sk over 4sk DMR or pistol starts. The sandbox is broken on 5sk. We also need 4sk to balance it out. Power-up importance and function (whoops) Quote It will require testing and that is because Camo and Overshield fulfill the duality/ying-yang of Halo dynamics: Camouflage: It fulfills the offensive dynamic. It is used to push and gain control. Which is why it was never wise to have an overshield on the Pit rather than Camouflage. The Pit is a symmetrical map that exists on a single plane/level. On Prisoner or Hang em High, the camouflage spawns on the bottom, allowing the player to go on the offense and regain top control. This is why Damnation is broken if you cannot nade the camo to the bottom. Overshield: It fulfills the defensive dynamic. It is used to sustain map control. It does not have a place as an offensive tool. This is why it was extremely ineffective on the Pit (it only worked for running the flag really and even then it could get melted easily and this is all because of the BR spread. It would never work in CE, H2, or post-patch Reach) or on Construct King. KC placed them as offensive tools rather than defensive. This is why camo on Construct TS was an actual threat and was meaningful - it was used offensively to gain map control.
  8. One 4-3sk primary weapon which is not hitscan, not burst, and has sub 1.5s kill times should do the trick. I dont care if it looks like a penis and is called yuyertiy609 as long as it works.
  9. What about countless one sentence posts that are composed entirely of "filler crap"? It's funny you bring up Lemon of all people who has not had anything relevant to say since 08.
  10. In other words, you fell into my trap and you dont practice what you preach :P !!!
  11. I am of the opinion that some opinions cannot be tolerated, or do you have a problem with this opinion?
  12. Except you have people say Prisoner has bad design.
  13. Akademik fighting the good fight.
  14. Are you purposely trying to ignore the latter half of my post or are you obtuse? I specifically address you on the basis of your own terms there. Design (ie planning how you make a map) demands knowing what game you're making it for. Or are you telling me that you could plop "your designs" in Super Mario Bros or Gran Turismo? Who are you kidding... You're smart and certainly not stupid, you're just stubbornly trying to stick to your first incorrect statement.
  15. Incredible. You completely ignored the half of my post that addressed your use of "linearity". Your argumentative methods are disingenuous. You literally fail to address a single one of my points. Moreover, you post claims that are neither backed up with argument and evidence. Your use of design is nonsensical and variable. Design refers to planning the entirety of the components of a map within the context of the game mechanics. You characterized half my post with the term "gameplay". No, I'm not talking about gameplay. You forced the conversation into a corner: map geometry and I worked within those confines. Disingenuous and empty. Your last addendum about your "forging" is relevant. It seems that you insist on characterizing being a forger as authoritative. Don't kid yourself into thinking you're a map designer. Edit: Korlash killed it. Exactly. Edit 2: Linear aggression gameplay is predictable, yet you say it is what plagues the later Halo games. You also said the more predictable, the more competitive. You stand on two sides of a line. As the person who coined the expression, it's what makes Halo 3/Reach 4v4 so good. The gameplay is very predictable/controllable (whereas typically CE's 4v4 is not so much due to the spawn system. This is why 2v2CE is the most skillful mode, moreso than 1v1 and 4v4). The problem with linear aggression is the relative lack of "smarts" compared to the gameplay styles of CE 2v2 and H2 4v4 and "smarts" is the biggest determinant of the skillgap.
  16. Design: a plan or drawing produced to show the look and function or workings of a building, garment, or other object before it is made. I can play this game too. What you mean by design, I've been referring to as map geometry. Which is a much less nebulous term than design. I have been specific and selective with my terminology in order to put my points forward. I specifically addressed map geometry, which is not linear. But it seems you intend to ignore what I talked about in my post and will persist in your roundabout method of argumentation without even presenting any substance on your end, an important indicator of the inexperience underlying your factually incorrect opinion. So, let's go over this again. If you'll recall some of the threads I produced back in the mlg forum days, you should remember that I would constantly bring up Prisoner as the exemplar for my arguments. Most importantly, I advanced the argument that predictability of gameplay correlates with the ability of players to control the gameplay and determine the outcome - a signature of competitive gameplay - the more predictable, the more competitive. One of the most important elements of good map design is restricting map routes to power position. Midship, which is a universally lauded map, has 3 routes to pink 2. Every other section of the map inadvertently has 2-3 effective routes. That combined with the 2 (3 if you want to get technical) vertical planes is what makes the map so successful (of course there's the question of scale of the geometry). Similarly, Prisoner does this expertly. You keep bringing up how Prisoner only has 2 routes from bottom to mid and 2 routes from mid to top as if this is a weakness, but this only exposes your lack of understanding of Halo map design. That, in fact, is one of the fundamental STRENGTHS of Prisoner. The restriction on the movement of the offensive player allows the defensive player to theoretically have total control and awareness of his opponent's movements. This forces the offensive player to rely on creativity in order to achieve a successful map take back. By means of analogy, the greatest strength of Pit, Onslaught, Sanctuary was the ability for the defensive team to totally control their opponent's spawning and the resulting difficulty needed for the offensive team to break the spawn trap and gain map control. This is what Prisoner allows to do unlike any other map in Halo ever. And this is directly the result of its map geometry, this particular emphasis on restricting map routes. Now that I've addressed this particular, but fundamental character of the map geometry (restriction of movement), and demonstrated how this is one of the map's greatest strengths rather than a weakness, let us turn our attention to the claim on linearity. Your use of the term is variable and nebulous; see your initial use of it, a Chunk's "linear design", and your subsequent irrelevant definition. The map's geometry is not linear. Examples of linear maps are Narrows, Pit, Longest, etc. In other words, the map's design is "straight". The particular design in conjunction with particular game mechanics produces linear aggressiveness for example. Prisoner, on the other hand, features 3 (4 even) vertical planes. The geometry progresses LATERALLY and VERTICALLY. Evidently, this is the complete opposite of linear geometry. Furthermore, the geometric routes are antipodal. Which as we shall see produce various combinations/permutations that could not possibly concord with linearity. If, however, as you claim "linear" refers to "design and movement options" as you, you are still incorrect. Ignoring jumps (which makes no sense to do since this translates into actual design (intended or not does not matter), but we shall for now anyway), we get a variety of movement permutations: 1. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => OS ramp. 2+3. Red 1 - Red 2 ladder => PR ladder=>Top HP OR Window room (providing 3rd attack option) These two options are antipodal, on opposites sides of the map and provide OPPOSITE attack options on OS. To continue: 1. Blue Ramp => OS Ramp 2+3. Blue Ramp => (Ignoring that there are many ways to reach Red2 as goes for many other movement options, but let's keep it simple) Red2 => PR ladder => Top HP or Window Room. Without jumps, we already have 6 basic attack options which are ANTIPODAL. I will stress that as it is very important. Narrows for example has a number of attack options to the opposite base (top, low, mancannons, etc. with a number of permutations). But all of these attack options are parallel/symmetric. In stark contrast, every route from one level to the next on Prisoner provides completely opposite attack options (so now imagine a model with 2 players per team - ie opposite flanking). There are 2 Zyos jumps with the one closest to Red2/backwall providing 3 further permutations (Red3, Bridge, Top HP). I don't even want to present all the potential permutations after that. I hope I've also driven the point that the myriad of attack options are opposite from one another - because that's very important as it directly conflicts with the nonsense claim that Prisoner has linear design (lmfao). From now on, if you want to debate me (@@aPK, not a Chunk) I will ask you to please substantiate your claims with both arguments and concrete arguments. It is evident otherwise to all posters that you're just blowing air and your posts are not at all credible in light of mine. Edit: @Moa: edited, sorry. Closing: Your (aPK's) insistense on map geometry (design in his words - though his terminology is not correct) is misplaced. Geometry can only be understood in light of game mechanics. Think jetpack. Think jump height, speed. The scale of the geometry for example is relative according to movement speed and effective range of the primary gun for example. It cannot be analyzed in a vacuum no matter how much you insist on it to stubbornly hold on to the first hipster-like avant-garde statement: "prisoner has terrible linear design".
  17. Is English your second language by any chance? The definition you provided is basic causal linearity, in which case everything is linear. You know youre not making any sense when you degenerate the conversation to the level of semantics, and yet provide an irrelevant definition because it contained four key words (lmfao, you're not talking about geometry, but sequential (chain) events).
  18. No, a linear map is a map whose geometry creates linear play. Linear aggressiveness is the sort of gameplay that you'd see since H3-era due to both linear maps and the gameplay mechanics (slow killtimes with range etc). Firstly, going from top to bottom, there are a quasi-infinite number of routes. Already, for the defensive dynamic, the geometry, BECAUSE the map is vertical, cannot possibly be considered linear. A restriction of movement imposed on the offensive player is something that all good maps must (and in fact do) do. If you refer to my post on the previous page 2 pages ago, though it probably got lost with the flow of the conversation, you'll appreciate how the geometry of the map cannot possibly be considered linear. Routes are antipodal and we are not even counting the various jumps which are a huge element of the map, moreso than say Guardian. I encourage you to watch the linked video at the 3:57 mark and you'll see what I mean. And that's only a very simple example amongst a plethora of other offensive strategies only possible within the context of prisoner's non-linear geometry.
  19. Time: 3:57. That is the complete opposite of linear gameplay. Your pretentiously authoritative garb really cannot hide your total ignorance. Stop making a fool of yourself. Instead of ragging about thesauruses (Note: I don't consult dictionaries to make forum posts), how about you actually reply to the points advanced. You confuse linear gameplay with predictability. Prisoner restricts movement routes - which reduces chaotic gameplay and makes gameplay more predictable (ie more controllable and therefore more competitive). Linear gameplay is what you see on Halo 3/pre-patch Reach maps (hold forward on Narrows). How can it be linear if there are 3 vertical planes?
  20. I actually think it's a good thing we're going back to H3 (wtvr that means, competitive scene is permanently dead). It's just when you see some ridic claims, its imperative to challenge and squash them.
  21. Prisoner's design is awful. Right. Ahem. Here we go. As menotyou characteristically observed, an analysis of a map's design demands that we adopt a teleological perspective; as form corresponds to function, we cannot appreciate a map's design from a vacuum but within the constraints of a game's particular mechanics and the nature of the gameplay. It is fallacious to do otherwise, like comments that any map ported to CE would be great - no, that is demonstrably false. A good map fits the gameplay and vice versa. You described Prisoner as conducive to linear play due to its geometry. Already, anybody with any experience on the map knows that this is false: Prisoner is asymmetric and features gameplay on multiple planes whilst successfully restricting movement from the bottom to the top. It not only adheres to but sets the benchmark for basic defensive/offensive dynamics fundamental to halo which are enabled by the camo on the bottom and the os at the top (a perfect concordance of the offensive powerup being available for the offensive player trying to regain map control and the defensive powerup being available for the player with map control). Going from the bottom to the top is done either via blue ramp and r1-r2 ladder (pr jump aside) in conjunction with spawning your partner vertically, fostering a myriad possible strategies of map-takeback. Note that this would not be possible without HCE's spawn system (remember that form fits function) and Prisoner is the one map in CE that best fits the spawn system (a point of tremendous note as this is what makes it the best). Spatially, blue ramp and red1 are entirely separated. One is outside the LoS of OS, while the other is. The next paths to the top are either OS ramp, providing the direct offensive approach, and PR ladder which are also spatially antipodal. An example of a possible strategy would be the camod player to spawn his teammate at pr who can attack from that angle and distract/stay alive while the camod player makes his way up os ramp. This is not to mention the Zyos jumps, probably the most important trick jumps in any Halo map ever, which truly deepen the meta-game. Thus, you can appreciate how varied strats for map takeback can be specifically due to the 3-level asymmetric design in conjunction with the camo powerup AND the buddy spawn system. But it must be remembered that it is the glorious fit of CE's game mechanics and the perfect design of Prisoner that produces this deep, relatively sophisticated gameplay. Controlling the map in and of itself is an art. The beauty of Prisoner is in large part due to the very large volume of the playing area and yet the constriction/proximity of the horizontal surface area. This provides the best conditions for actually controlling a map. We all know that the singularly most important character of competitive games is the degree of probability and the reduction of chaos. As a player, you have the means to control the entire map both due to the proximity of everything and the pistol's range. This is unique to prisoner and is an important character of all the great Halo maps to lesser degrees though. The predictive power of the spawn system means that you theoretically have total control on your opponent's movement (spawn killing) while they also have total power on where they spawn their partner. So in many ways prisoner uniquely features this fight between the two teams over the spawning. As the defensive players, you have to know how to appropriately position yourselves in order to maintain control over the power items (rockets require you to drop) and the very real possibility of getting 2 dead and the other team spawning favourably with regards to your positions and OS (power position). This enormous emphasis on spawn killing is very similar to the deterministic 4v4 systems for Halo 3 and Halo Reach which is what made those respective modes actually quite competitive. Think Pit for example where you'd try to stay alive and spawn your teammates mauler while the other team forces you to spawn court. Now that is a microcosm of what is going on in Pris. Prisoner 2v2 is THE staple, the most perfect example of what Halo CE IS. No map comes close. You speak of hyperboles and then we see that you claim that Pris is a terrible (linear? LOL) design. Edit: shit, now im reminded why I left the community.
  22. WOW. Calls the GOAT map shit. What in the fuck.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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