Jump to content

Ramirez77

Member
  • Content Count

    1,469
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Everything posted by Ramirez77

  1. You're blind if you believe this thread actually has a diversity of opinions and isn't just a rightwing circlejerk with infrequent sarcastic shitposts from the left or naive rants on Anarchism from McKeever. It's exactly why I never bother commenting in it.
  2. It's rare anyone just runs in a perfectly straight line unflinching. Human players have all kinds of subtleties that holograms in their current state do not even begin to approach. Human comes out of the top hallway on Pit. 90% of the time they're going to orientate their view towards the turret tower, even if ever so slightly, either because they're checking that area out or they're heading that direction. They aren't just going to continue staring at the opposite wall.
  3. The problem that Hologram, Decoy grenades, etc. present is that their depth is both minimal (not nonexistent, but in very low quantity) and mostly reliant on randomness / enemy incompetence. The better an enemy is, the less likely they are to fall for them. See for example the Spy in Team Fortress 2, who is used constantly in low level pubs but almost never used in competitive play. Is hologram worth the effort to put into the game? Is it worth assigning a controller button to? For the first I'd say no, and for the second I'd say in itself no, only if there are other things tied to the same button that can be exchanged with hologram.
  4. If I'm not already aiming at that corner with the Sniper I'd have to take time to flick my crosshair over to it, possibly enough time for a real enemy to get back behind cover, and definitely enough time to realize the "enemy" is just standing there zoning out. If I'm already aiming at it then I could immediately take the shot...but is there pressure to do so? Depending on map design I might either be forced to take that rare opportunity like you say, or have ample time to wait for another opportunity because the enemy is inevitably forced to pass into view again anyways. For example a tunnel with only one entrance and one exit. The enemy isn't going anywhere anytime soon. With a Battle Rifle there's no downside involved either way and I'll shoot whatever I want. With an 8-round (12? 16?) Sniper or even worse a 4-round Rocket I have to make every shot count and I'm not going to just shoot at everything that moves if there's no reason to and/or if I can't secure the kill. "The rare off chance that something is a hologram." If it's rare then your point becomes self-defeating doesn't it? You're implying tricking snipers with it will be a fairly common (and thus inevitably predictable) use of the ability. You're using that as the basis for it's usefulness. Regardless even if I choose to concede here, it's still only one application. I'm not going to go out of my way to secure an item that is only useful for tricking snipers.
  5. I do so. After a fraction of a second the hologram just stands there completely still staring at nothing. If I know holograms are in the game I'm not going to just shoot at everything that briefly pops out of cover. Maybe in that aspect you can argue holograms have a wider impact on the game than people give them credit for, but having to hesitate to shoot everything isn't fun game design. Regardless I digress. It would be obvious that it's just a hologram with those behaviors. For that to be useful the hologram would need many more behaviors programmed in. A lot of effort to go to for, again, a rather pointless mechanic. Even then, the behaviors (the way it looks around, moves, pretends to shoot, etc) I'm sure would become predictable over time.
  6. The sniper generally takes longer time to line up shots and will probably realize it's a fake in that timespan. If there's enough space between where the target is moving and where it will arrive, the sniper will have ample time to switch to their non-trailed sidearm and shoot at it to test it before wasting sniper ammo on it. Even assuming it works...it's as people have said one possible use. I again think what you're missing with all these ideas is that pickups need to have a wide range of uses to be worth going after. It both makes them more desirable and also makes them contain more depth. An item with a handful of niche uses isn't one people are going to bother going out of their way to obtain. It's nice to have if you happen to stumble upon it, but it's not a game changer worth pursuing. You can list off a few advantages of any given idea and while you may not be automatically incorrect, they still need more than that. There is also the fun factor as other people have pointed out. It doesn't care if an item is deep and balanced if it's simply unfun to play against or play with. The main purpose of a game is to be entertained.
  7. The problem isn't that no one is capable of making a classic Halo game other than Bungie, who often fucked up at that job anyways. Halo is simple to understand and anyone even remotely familiar with the franchise would at least know how to get the basics of the formula right. It's that no one wants to make a classic Halo game. Every AAA developer is too busy just blindly following trends. The most damning thing about 343i isn't that they're technically incompetent (although, in several ways they are). It's that they're pigheaded and unwilling to listen even when they're told what they're doing wrong every second of every day.
  8. I guess one thing I have to wonder is this: advanced map traversal is useful, but is it useful enough in itself for players to fight over it? I think the first three powerups on that list offer combat advantages that make them more appealing (I won't speak about the actual balance of those advantages at the moment), but the last one seems rather specific and pointless in general. Aside from flame weapons it has no combat applications, and I can't think of many situations where blocking someome through a firewall couldn't be done in other ways. You could turn it into an abyss that has to be double jumped over. You could put a wall with a mousehole there. You could even make it so the fire doesn't damage players if they speed through it fast enough. I.e. if you can eliminate complexity by having another similar powerup perform a similar function, you should do so.
  9. Obviously you should try to minimize complexity as much as you can, but I think it's okay for games to have a high amount of complexity *IF* it adds a much higher amount of depth and isn't entirely necessary to all know at once just for someone to be able to start playing. Very niche powerups that only apply to one aspect of the specific map in question's design wouldn't really fit that statement. If the powerups aren't going to be spread across the entire game then don't bother. I'm not saying every map needs every powerup, but they should at the very least appear on more than one map in the game.
  10. Thing is the majority of games I play on PC are either pretty old or otherwise low-end (2d Indie). That is one of the main draws to PC gaming, being able to play games from every era on the same machine. I'm sure being a new gaming PC owner you're first going to want games that actually take full advantage of your hardware though. Doom2016 Darksouls 1 and 3. DS2 is decent but a significant departure in a lot of ways, arguably lower graphics than both too. Rainbow Six Siege Quake Champions (when it's patched / F2P). Overwatch (Plays better on PC and the graphics are much better.) Rust / PUBG GTA5 Fallout 4 Skyrim (Absolutely demolish it with combat overhaul and graphic enhancement mods.) Metro 2033 Redux Arkham Series (Not sure what state Arkham Knight is in, probably fine now).
  11. It really depends on what specifically you're talking about. Some forms of map modification are okay even in a multiplayer environment, some are not. In the case of the destructible entryways it's like...what's the point? If all they take is a melee to open then you might as well just leave them as already opened paths to begin with because the player is already exerting almost zero effort to open them. If they required a tool that you had to acquire elsewhere they would at the very least provide some meaningful addition to gameplay, otherwise it's just entirely cosmetic. I.e. the glass windows on Prisoner look pretty and are fun to destroy, but you could just as easily leave them out of the map without making any difference. Say for example there's a room in the campaign that houses an overshield but you have to fire two rockets at the wall to actually destroy it. You would have to first acquire the rockets, and then decide whether they're worth expending or not. It provides something meaningful to the level. Now take that same room and make it so you only have to spartan charge the wall. Everyone is going to spartan charge the wall no matter what, and it takes no effort to do so, so you might as well leave the room open to begin with, thus defeating the entire point. Also coincidentally I immediately thought of the tiny mushroom powerup in New Super Mario Bros when you mentioned shrinking down.
  12. IIRC meleeing or shooting them also works. I guess if your game is going to have a mechanic it might as well utilize it? I don't have a problem with things that require spartan charge to open being in the campaign, but I do have a problem with spartan charge being in the game in the first place.
  13. No. Primarily because the two can be designed to have significantly different properties, and also because the thrown frag works better in tandem with other weapons while a launcher works better on it's own. Ex. Ce frags settle to a stop instead of bouncing a lot and can be precisely landed over long distances. H2 Brute Shot bounces off of surfaces, can burst in the air, explode on contact, don't arc anywhere near as much, etc. I think there are ways to design most weapons to function in both. Example, the Shotgun could be given unique knockback against land vehicles, Sniper can explode vehicles by hitting vital spots or simply snipe out their occupants, etc. I guess that applies to the rest of your questions as well. I'm sure some BTB weapons could be altered to fit into an Arena setting like your Spartan Laser idea, but I'd assume some could not and would be stuck in BTB only. I don't think it's a huge deal if there's a few BTB exclusive weapons.
  14. Imagine if people applied "ITS A ROCKET LAUNCHER" logic to Quake. Really I'm at a loss though. What is the point in nerfing an already weak weapon that doesn't typically appear in the arena section of the game in the first place? Only 343i could make a move so baffling.
  15. To me it stands apart from the rocket launcher more than the GL does, could be used for grenade jumping to better effect, has multiple shots so is better for locking down an area, it airbursts if timed right, is more intimidating than a single lobbed grenade to be on the receiving end of and in a Ce esque sandbox you'd really want that extra firepower. Projectile weapons don't require line of sight like hitscan weapons. You can spam tons of projectiles down a hallway and end up hitting people that happen to walk into them at the wrong time even after you've ceased firing. I.e. Plasma Gun in Quake. Though to be truly effective at area denial in Halo they'd need additional properties on top of that one.
  16. @@Boyo Strictly speaking it only needs the Magnum, more weapons are always nice though provided they're unique in role and function. A unique weapon with a versatile range of applications adds depth and entertainment value. Redundant weapons contribute nothing to the experience but pointless clutter. The sandbox doesn't have to be small to avoid pointless clutter, but it does make it much easier to ensure only unique weapons are added and is less information the player has to know before going into the game, which is why I'm always saying it should strive to be be as small as it can. Some additions to that list that would be useful: Camo Counter - Some weapon with spread. Replace energy sword with shotgun and you've got this. Or add the AR and relegate it to this purpose. I'd go with the former to consolidate the sandbox. Indirect Fire Weapon - Grenade Launcher or H2 Bruteshot. I actually prefer the latter for a couple of reasons. Area Denial - Grenade (Launchers) can fill this purpose if designed properly. Otherwise you have multiple options. Flamethrowers, projectile weapons, etc.
  17. I see no problem with just telling people the changes up front so they know what to look for and test for. Any momentary bias that might occur will fade over time as cold reality starts to settle in. Yeah people might honeymoon and say "the BR is great now" but if the BR isn't actually "great now" they'll inevitably come to their senses and realize it. Know the exact changes also allows for more specific feedback. Making invisible changes then expecting people to figure them out on their own over time is a flawed system. Maybe your testing phase ends before the impacts those changes have become widely apparent, just because people didn't find problems during that phase doesn't mean the problems don't exist. Since people don't know what has changed maybe their imaginations also run wild and they start to invent changes and problems where none exist, and waste the developer's time complaining about imagined issues. Just my two cents.
  18. I agree with ripharambe in that the biggest, most noticeable change for me isn't the champions, it's the player stack and amount of health/armor pickups on the map. It used to be you had tons of different kinds of both, they were all over the map to be contested, and half of those types were capable of raising them past your max value. Now there's only really two types of pickups for each, only the big versions of those two types are actually capable of raising your stats past max value, and at least in armor's case it's so scarcely placed on the map that you'll be forced to go without armor far more often than you ever would have in Quake 3. I kind of understand why they did it this way, having tons of pickups can cause massive differences between players and champions already do that so they didn't want things to go even further in that extreme. It's still shocking nonetheless though. Balance...ironically most of the champions people had kneejerk reactions about are actually in the middle or bottom tiers. Even Nyx, strong as her passive is, still isn't the best champion (don't get me wrong she's still high tier but so are many others). Visor is pretty low tier, his active isn't good enough to make up for everything else about him (his passive basically never comes into actual play for several reasons). Blazkowicz is basically in the same spot as Visor. Clutch is the worst champion in the game and is currently caught in a TF2 Pyro style situation so people worried about him can rest easy. I will say that aside from Clutch none of them strike me as useless or being far below anyone else, so that's a good sign. Anarki and Sorlag are perhaps too strong and need some tuning, though that could also be tied to other issues going on in the game right now. Duel is...eugh. Nothing about the new Duel makes any sense. What is this pick three, round based one-life nonsense I'm hearing about? Just make a 1v1 deathmatch where both players have the same champion and call it a day, really not that hard to get right. Don't pull a 343i and reinvent the wheel for no reason. Speaking of pulling a 343i, this game unfortunately struggles to get the core basics of a shooter right. The netcode is still wonky and people still report FPS stuttering even on high end PC's, and there's limited gameplay options as well, crosshair customization is confirmed to be on the way but somehow isn't here yet. These are all things the developers need to focus on before worrying about microtransaction shit.
  19. I love that the Halo 4 population chart is just hanging there on your wall.
  20. Shooters aren't an ideal storytelling medium, both because their fans expect the primary emphasis to be on gameplay, and because (relatively speaking) they simply don't lend themselves well to it on a mechanical level anyways. You only really have two means of storytelling in a shooter, cutscenes and dialogue. Cutscenes are almost always viewed as a nuisance that get in the way of combat, while there's less room for dialogue relative to other genres simply because the game is always rushing you along missions and action is always occurring. RPG's and Adventure Games are the exact opposite. The gameplay itself tends to be fairly shallow, but there's tons of emphasis put on story and worldbuilding. They are expected to be focused on these things, and their gameplay mechanics can even be beneficial to that end (item and enemy descriptions, attacks exhibiting personality, constant dialogue at a relaxed pace, etc). This is why I strongly disagree with "games should prioritize gameplay over story", at least when it's presented as some universal game design truth. Playing Life is Strange and asking "where's the action" would be idiotic, just as idiotic as if I were playing Quake and asked "where's the immersive storytelling". They're both intentionally designed to provide a specific experience, it would be judging them on an experience they aren't even intended to provide. Here is a better statement: "games shouldn't compromise their design goals". If your game is about combat, don't let story get in the way of the quality of combat mechanics. If your game is about telling an interactive story, don't shoehorn in tons of out of place minigames to make it more action packed at the cost of immersion. Figure out what kind of experience you want to provide, then deliver that experience without straying away. Anyways I'm getting off track. You need to ask yourself if the plot is the primary aspect here, or if the plot only exists to give the game a sense of direction. If the former I definitely wouldn't make a shooter. If the latter then work out some vague details before focusing on the mechanics themselves (i.e. even the most plot-lacking games like Doom1 still need some vague story to give context to things like map appearance and enemy types), then revisit and rework the plot to fit the mechanics if necessary.
  21. Most developers are fine to support or partially support (buy their game, but don't give them a dime in microtransactions and other bullshit). I have a lot of hate for AAA developers in general, but the only companies I outright condemn are Microsoft, EA, and Activision, for their constant and absurd levels of consumer abuse. If the developer isn't one of them they're probably at least acceptable to support. Indie developers in general should be supported. Yeah occasionally you get pieces of shit like Sergei Titov or Sean Murray who constantly release never-to-be-finished games as a quick cash grab, but other than that you have fine developers like re-logic who really go above and beyond expectations. AAA developers with some modicum of integrity (Coalition) or originality (FromSoft) should be supported.
  22. Frame rate is more important than resolution, and I refuse to go back to 30fps in 2017, at least as far as shooters go. It just feels completely awful. If your console hardware can't deliver 60fps at 4k then don't bother attempting 4k. 120fps at 1080p and sometimes above is becoming more and more common on PC, for consoles to still not have 60fps locked down is just sad.
  23. What is to stop someone from plugging in a controller to get matched with controller players, then at the very last moment switching to KBM?
  24. That anecdote was like one of those over the top greentext stories you read where you're like "this has to be fake, no way" exactly because of how over the top it is. Except I actually believe it because hell, 343i and Microsoft have shown me any level of incompetence is feasible.
  25. >Trying to make a playlist that feels like Halo 3. >Trying to make a playlist with actually good settings. Pick one.
×

Important Information

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