Jump to content

OldBlu

Member
  • Content Count

    33
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  1. I'm cautiously optimistic. but even if MCC gets every fix it could possiblely get the population will still be terrible. "MCC's online component will be free to play on all current and future Xbox One platforms without a gold subscription." ^that's the news I really want to hear, because even a fixed MCC after this long will be the shell of the game it should have been otherwise.
  2. I know there are a ton of rostermania lovers here, but does anyone else just wait for things to settle so they can decide what team to cheer for?
  3. People play games because they like the front end. If all we talk about is the back end we'll get another sub par game with a shrinking population. Yes ofcourse it needs to work better, but to say all beyond talks about is the front end is a false argument. There are plenty of posters that complain about shit servers. I'm glad there are just as many who complain about Halo: In Name Only 2.
  4. Do you honestly think that if 343 listened to this forum exclusively for weapon balance in H6 more casual players wouldn't buy it? I really don't think people specifically buy halo because they want easy AR kills--maybe for the immersion of feeling like a Spartan, maybe for the lore, maybe because of the BTB vehicle chaos--but I think the only players who care about weapon balance before the purchase (outside of splinters are OP etc) are competitive players or competitively minded casuals. I think you are going out on a limb to make sure every special snowflake seems like it has a place in the grand scheme of halo, and limbs break.
  5. Still agreeing to disagree, just answering your question. Because there is balanced and then there is unbalanced. The game should have a foundation of balance in all interations. The social list that is halo, should function the same as competitive because that how we define the experience. THIS IS HALO. That's what lists that are on the top should say, whether it's Team Arena or Social Skirmish. IMO, there is no negative to this philosophy. The community is less devided, and I believe the only people who don't want change aren't adverse to competitive balance, they are simply afraid of change. That's no a good enough reason to cater to them in my eyes. You can enjoy a competitive game at a casual level. The same is less true in reverse. Reach is a good example. There is Reach, TU, MLG, and anniversary. All different. When the title update happened it should have been universal, with the exception of maybe anniversary since it was designed as a CE-like. Casuals wouldn't have quit the game if everything was TU. Heck look at the lists. Alot of the casual lists are under the TU headline. It makes no sense to overly devide the setting. Ranked and Social fine. But there is no need for them to play so significantly differently.
  6. Thats simply not as true as you'd like it to be. Warzone players are accustomed to different weapons, not all halo players. There are plenty that don't touch warzone. Now I can at least see your point if we are discussing weapons on the map exclusively, but we seem to be discussing loadout weapons too. The game should be balanced for competitive play across the board. The magnum should not be different between playlists. The sniper in social skirmish should behave the same as that in HCS. If casuals want AR with magnum and radar on, while competitives want no ARs and no radar, so bit it. I don't think weapons should behave differently. And yes I understand you are saying the sniper would have some other name in social with like a shark painted on the side, but that I think separates the lists too distinctly. I think we are at a agree to disagree point in this discussion.
  7. I am by no means for universal settings. I think changes like radar and removal of some abilities can exist between HCS and Social, but completely different weapon balance draws too strict a distinction. As someone who enjoys competitive and casual play, I don't want to be playing two completely separate games. The magnum should have the same shots to kill. The sniper should have the same magnetism. It's easy enough for players switching playlists to see, "oh this list doesn't have radar or Spartan charge." It's much different to tweek the dials on weapons. Too jarring an experience.
  8. What I'm getting from this thread right now: Competitive halo should again be based in 2v2, have LAN, and have splitscreen. Sounds good to me. Carry on.
  9. The BR is too easy. The easiest solution is to remove all the automatics and all the rifles and just have actual power weapons on the map, instead of starting weapon upgrades. You could make one or two exceptions on every map where you treat a light rifle or something as a tier 2 weapon. Ultimately 343 needs to make weapon balance changes based on HCS needs rather than Warzone. Until then we are going to be struggling with weak utility against easy power weapons. I honestly don't understand why 343 is so hesitant to nerf weapons like the sniper. You just tell the Warzone crowd they'll be able to access these weapons sooner in the game, and they might complain, but I doubt they'd quit playing. Whereas the weapon balance in arena has a more serious impact on the playability of the game.
  10. Okay. I misunderstood the discussion then. And I agree to a point. I'm all for changing weapon locations and reducing ammo in many cases. Too many maps have weapons in positions that reward the team that is set up, when they should be forcing the winning team to give up their position. (I will say I prefer the snow balling of CE to that of H5, but i guess that's subjective.)
  11. But what incentive is there that tempts the winning team to lose their advantage? You are actually just describing how teams snowball. What's the point of having a 50 kill limit if we only reward the team that wins the initial push with the incentive of collapsing on spawns? All things even, the only chance the other team has is to wait for a mistake. I could see how certain pro's might like that meta, but as a spectator I sure don't want to watch it. I'd rather a situation where the winning team is prevented from collapsing on spawns, and the only way to do that is to give them something else to do. And while we're at it, why not give them two something elses to do? Then they have a choice to make, and that's what the game fun to play and interesting to watch.
  12. Copying this to the settings discussion as t is more relevant here. Many factors contribute to snowballing in Halo 5 and I think it could be just as easily argued that tier 3 power weapons and power ups need to be MORE FREQUENT. A weak utility and radar both work as crutches for the team that is set up. This is obvious to me, but if you'd like more detail I'll happily provide. Also if Snipe was nerfed (maybe just reduced ammo even) and came up as frequently as rockets, every time weapons came up teams would be forced to choose which weapon to set up for or risk spliting their attention. The more top power items that spawn, the more often the underdog has a chance to take back the advantage, especially when multiple items spawn simultaneously. As long as radar and the magnum are a thing, and ANY weapon spawns on the map (even just BRs), the team that wins the initial push has a heavy advantage. Reducing the number of weapons to anything above ZERO, will maintain this effect. I have no problem with having a single map that comes down to gun skill to appease fans of that type of halo, but power items are the movement incentive of this game, and ultimately what allows a losing team to come back. Imho, to say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand halo. The fewer weapons the fewer reasons a setup team has to leave powerful map positions. I'd rather have more weapons away from power positions spawning frequently and simultaneously through staggered timers. And I honestly don't see why at least one powerup isn't on every map in a weak location. Let the unpopular opinion negs flow.
  13. Many factors contribute to snowballing in Halo 5 and I think it could be just as easily argued that tier 3 power weapons and power ups need to be MORE FREQUENT. A weak utility and radar both work as crutches for the team that is set up. This is obvious to me, but if you'd like more detail I'll happily provide. Also if Snipe was nerfed (maybe just reduced ammo even) and came up as frequently as rockets, every time weapons came up teams would be forced to choose which weapon to set up for or risk spliting their attention. The more top power items that spawn, the more often the underdog has a chance to take back the advantage, especially when multiple items spawn simultaneously. As long as radar and the magnum are a thing, and ANY weapon spawns on the map (even just BRs), the team that wins the initial push has a heavy advantage. Reducing the number of weapons to anything above ZERO, will maintain this effect. I have no problem with having a single map that comes down to gun skill to appease fans of that type of halo, but power items are the movement incentive of this game, and ultimately what allows a losing team to come back. Imho, to say otherwise is to fundamentally misunderstand halo. The fewer weapons the fewer reasons a setup team has to leave powerful map positions. I'd rather have more weapons away from power positions spawning frequently and simultaneously through staggered timers. And I honestly don't see why at least one powerup isn't on every map in a weak location. Let the unpopular opinion negs flow.
  14. I agree with those saying sword top mid on truth. I think fuel could still be used in comp halo if it had no spare ammo, but it doesn't have a place on truth. On Rig I like the idea of delaying camo. Another half idea for balancing Rig (slayer?) might be to replace camo with ov, and put camo outside the base somewhere. Give each team a powerup and a power weapon off spawn. I'd like to see a slayer with two powerups at least, maybe rig isn't the map for it. Edit: and replace casters with nade launchers goes without saying
×

Important Information

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