Jump to content

Warlord Wossman

Member
  • Content Count

    1,011
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    13

About Warlord Wossman

  • Birthday 02/01/1996

Recent Profile Visitors

5,858 profile views
  1. I agree with tac sprint not being needed for a multiplayer CoD at all and yeah Battlefield has done the same successfully. Even Warzone wouldn't need this faster type of sprinting that is limited use - I honestly think they want to avoid fast infinite sprint just because that would make close combat fights harder to learn for new players, esp people trying to track with controller. (I couldn't care less but CoD catering to noobs is very important for their "accessibility" because money). And yeah it was in MW2019 before warzone was out but clearly MW2019 has a lot of shit in it where you can already tell it was done that way because they will make a BR, tac sprint might be one of the less obvious things compared to more recoil on full auto guns than the older CoD games. The stuff you are saying about balancing between 3 distinct speeds doesn't really come into play tho because the weapon you got out determines the movement speeds, so you already sprint faster with a knife/pistol than an AR or LMG - the tac sprinting just extends this rather wide/dynamic movement speed range up by a little bit. It's a non issue with CoD since map control works differently to begin with and the lower TTKs make positioning even more important so it doesn't break by people moving around the map at varying speeds as much as it does in Halo.
  2. Well if you put it like that it sounds dumb but since CoD is handling so called "sprintout" and "super sprintout" times (the time it takes to bring up your gun after exiting sprint) rather well it's not nearly as terrible as sprint in Halo. I think the reason they went with this double sprint thingy is because they wanted normal sprint to be infinite because it always feels weird to get forced out of sprinting without having a stamina bar up on screen and CoD isn't the type of game that would have a stamina bar up. So yeah "sprinting harder" makes it sound like a dumb and useless mechanic but it honestly works rather well and at the end of the day was implemented with Warzone in mind moreso than the actual multiplayer - and even with that mechanic moving across open areas is super risky if people are posted up in a power position so removing it wouldn't do the game any good while making regular sprint that fast would fuck up the CQC pacing... Until you consider what it's trying to achieve (and ironically it's better at that than most mechanics Halo introduced in the last decade)
  3. Where is that information from? Have not checked here in 3 months so idk if they showed anything official, just saw they still had double XP monster cans so I was reminded this sinking ship of a franchise existed. Also if they go hitscan in 2021 they might be serious about not adding a battle royale to this game, probably for the better since they cannot make a decent 4v4 game so I doubt they would do any better on a full BR.
  4. Nothing I said implies the timer starts when you drop a weapon, that's a specific setting I would be against tbf. Even if it's you picking up the item starting the timer it's not necessarily unfair I would say, it's a benefit from picking up the item in form of map control. If you wanted to get deeper into that you could argue initial spawns on asymmetrical maps could make this behavior unfair which I could see but in just about every arena shooter this slight imbalance from the initial spawns is largely overshadowed by the rest of the skillgap. As for how are you supposed to coordinate a push: Just like you would otherwise, you don't have to know every variable to make a push, for example the exact locations of each enemy player are also not something you know and you can still push. Sure at the end of the day it's subjective which way you would like items to behave but I feel like a lot of people apply double standards for their reasonings of calling dynamic items unfair because they wouldn't call other parts of the game unfair that would have to be called that using their own criteria. Doesn't really sound like you know what you are talking about, power positions are more tied to geometry than the symmetry conditions of a map, the only relation would be that symmetrical maps have to place unique power positions somewhere on the axis or point of symmetry. The point you bring up with always being able to push and see through 2-5 angles is much more of a map geometry point too. Well first I would bring up that arena shooters with faster pacing have people time items really well, even in teammodes (there are no coaches who time stuff externally either). Technically the predictability doesn't have to go down with higher player count but communication is def some sort of bottleneck I guess, a skillgap if you would want to make that point even. The argument about relative lethality compared to Quake would make sense if you are speaking from a duel perspective, but Quake TDM has traditionally been played with weapons on 30 second timers, and on some maps even with railgun on 60 seconds, so no it's not really just health and armor in Quake even if duel being one of the most popular modes has many people believe so. In all fairness I didn't expect people to know that tho. I am with you on the first paragraph, as I said I might enjoy dynamic which is a subjective taste but ultimately I like arguing people who use inconsistent logic to jump to conclusions, usually getting backed up by everyone here because Halo has mostly had static timers as "the competitive version". There is def room for both, and depending how you want your game to play you can go with either but I agree that it's mostly preference and not one of the 2 being objectively more suited for competitive. But yeah as for opinions I also really like how dynamic can change decision making over the course of the game and teams have to make up their mind according to the information they have, I feel like that can easily create an extra layer of depth (esp for comebacks) compared to every item cycle being exactly the same and once you have seen a single one you know them all. Well yeah, almost like static timers make for really static decision making. Afaik IcePrincess was one of the people really pushing the logically flawed fairness idea and only having static timers (better yet no items at all because it would be unfair if one team had a powerweapon and the other wouldn't am I right?) and I think she only wanted a single symmetrical map - so yeah no idea what your comment was trying to tell me. Anyways for a TL:DR I would say that I cannot see how not knowing timing for dynamic weapons would be unfair, people had to pick them up from the map to get the timing (talking about timers starting on pick up), the same logic seems to be fine with Halo players when only the person who picks up the rocket launcher gets a rocket launcher, speaking strictly logically I cannot see how one of the two would be fair and the other wouldn't. Does this mean I am saying one is better than the other? Not really, as @MultiLockOn highlighted too I think we should think more generally about how both ways impact gameplay and what sort of dynamic and flow the game wants to achieve when played. But yeah tired of "it's always been like that so I don't want to use my brain to question it" - I get it - everyone has a personal preference, and should also be bringing that up since this forum is about exchanging/discussing opinions, but don't try to make your points sound like objective facts if you cannot back them up with data.
  5. skipped last 25 pages btw, was there anything interesting or just Arlong not admitting he doesn't know what he is talking about most of the time?
  6. That's actually a weak argument, dynamic timers allow for lining up items as well, it's just harder to get the information and people have to be more aware of timing items, Quake rather easily shows this is doable but I think Halo players usually think of dynamic timers as being "unfair" because they are used to spawn with the strongest & most versatile gun in the game that usually aims a decent amount by itself and if the enemy could have an item that the enemy team timed but your team didn't they get salty because over the years the teamshot meta has been so dominant that nobody expects power weapons / power ups to be able to shift games by a lot. Static timers remove a layer of depth from map control and the way Halo pros see it seems to suggest that they think teamshot is what should win them items so static timers are just more convenient because you can play almost exactly as braindead as if there was no item spawning. Doubt many people will agree with me on this but it's the same with all the kids thinking asymmetrical maps are inherently unfair because of the spawning conditions ignoring that you can have a lot more positional and geometrical depth if not everything has to be mirrored over. Quake 1 boomstick is actually hitscan, maybe you are thinking of mods like Arcane Dimensions that change the boomstick and SSG to projectiles. Nothing wrong with either design for a starting weapon I think but hitscan starting weapons are always hard to balance because with a high fire rate they deal good consistent range damage, thinking of how people use the Quake 3 starting MG to chip away at people that are positioned far trying to hit railgun shots. A shotgun firing rays in a cone for hitscan can help with the damage at range ofc.
  7. Not breakfast but had spaghetti today and just looking at them I was thinking how similar their structure could be to the slipspace engine. At least they left a good taste so shouldn't matter too much at the end of the day.
  8. Couldn't finish 18 minutes of pointless rambling with possibly the dumbest cherry picked situation that he couldn't even justify sprint in properly. Honestly this guy reminds me of how some flat earther's make their videos, start with your belief and then build a story around it to convince others rather than look at actual data (in this case different combat and positioning examples with and without sprint) and trying to see how - in this case - a mechanic effects them. I assume he wants to cast esports events for Halo Sprintfinite so he probably couldn't be against it without possibly risking his position (could be wrong ofc but if he went "sprint is trash, delete now 343" I doubt they would be happy). Honestly I hope it's that because if he thinks his reasoning made any form of sense and doesn't consider the insane amount of other points that have been made against sprint for basically an entire decade now I wouldn't be surprised if he casts using a tinfoil hat in the future.
  9. Not out here to really defend this game but if you could elaborate why that's the case that might help. I mean their esports are a joke but that has traditionally been the case with CoD, game is not developed to compete with CS or R6S or whatever other tactical shooter.
  10. Not saying MW is ideal but I would much rather play it then MCC at the moment, tried some MCC BTB yesterday with a friend und the 2 of us (out of the 8 that make our team) constantly got 50 or more out of the 100 kills in the slayer matches we played, even with the high aim assist so many people walk around who do not even shoot their gun at you unless you shoot them first. Not sure why people cry about SBMM so much in MW, I would rather play against people who can fight back than random kids that don't think it's worth shooting back until it's too late. Not like CoD itself is all that sweaty, I keep hearing that - like maybe my perception of what a sweaty game would be like is fucked since I played too much Quake but to me it sounds like most people just want to get huge stat numbers against terrible 12 year olds, guess that's not the shooter experience I am after...
  11. This would absolutely happen if you take any Quake player you could call decent (and by decent I don't mean pro, just your average player who understands the concepts), if they every played a shooter on controller before it would be even faster but it doesn't take long to have relatively good aim with controller if you are good in shooters and know how to tweak settings. And yeah maybe you don't see a lot of people who play Quake touch Halo, but that's not because it's hard for them to transfer their skills - it's mostly because AFPS players on PC value high refreshrate gaming, mouse aiming, good input and decent netcode - things Halo does not have (in an acceptable form) as of today. Yeah controllers are less precise and feel clunky which is why the game adds aim assist and other mechanics to not make it so awkward for new players. However arguing that aiming well on a controller is more skillful than aiming well on a mouse is about the most delusional thing I ever heard somebody say on this forum, sure it's harder because your thumb isn't as accurate as your entire arm and hand combined but this doesn't mean the aiming skillgap is actually higher, in fact the opposite is true: Mouse aiming gives players very high levels of control allowing much bigger differences in skill than limited aiming with an analog stick - even with zero aim assist. It would also be harder to use your feet to aim the mouse, yet it doesn't really make it more skillful as mice are made for hands and thus accel at helping people show their true aiming skill that way. Analog sticks requiring aim assist is a hint that it's not a very fitting input for aiming to begin with which in turn mostly squishes the skillgap because you fight the physical device more than developing your own style of tracking/flicking/etc. Also if you want to elaborate how the strategy is entirely different let me know, sure for CE it's not just teamshot like any Halo game that came after but it's still your basic combat positioning + fighting for items / timing, I don't see how Quake doesn't have that even if it's a much more complex version of it. I would argue it's a pretty extreme degree for many reasons that really does put Halo to shame in basically every aspect possible. Honestly think most people including the ones who made Halo CE would agree with that in a heartbeat. And I am not saying this to talk down Halo generally, just making a point because Halo CE was not meant to be the deep super competitive game some people make it out to be, and it really is not. It does more than any other Halo which makes it far more interesting to me than BR 4v4 on midship but at the end of the day it gives you a ton of breathing room by limiting weapons people can hold to 2 at a time to not let map control get strong, spawns you with one of the strongest guns in the game which allows a for a ton of error, has passive health regeneration that most of the time can't be punished, slowed item timing down to the point where you don't have to make the right decisions what to push as often and many more mechanics which straight up water down the differences in player skill to manifest themselves in a scoreline.
  12. 343 is lucky Halo sold okay-ish because of the hype and its past, you cannot tell me stuff has not been going down hill even more after Halo 4 (and yeah I don't like Halo 4 but it was an okay product compared to MCC and H5) - it's just a series dragging on at this point, that's why many people here say they have 0 expectations. In the right hands 5 years of development and half a billion dollar funding would have had insane potential, all signs right now point towards the money getting wasted because they didn't properly organize the project and jumped between engines. Seems like now they are desperately trying to polish what they got, especially after the initial reaction of the fanbase, probably why the delay happened but it doesn't guarantee development won't be a mess until actual release. This is not about "huehue you care about graphics? fkn casul", it's the fact that 5 years and half a billion produces something that looks worse than H5, this might give you an idea what's happening internally and for all I know that could effect gameplay just about the same way as graphics. Don't forget H5 is a shooter with aiming issues, something that you have to 100% get right if you want to look in the mirror and want to say "we are an FPS title", if you fail so bad with graphics and jumped engines there is no reason to not assume the codebase is a hot mess and the game is a frankenstein monster of issues getting hack-fixed by part time coders, especially when people who worked at 343 also said it. So yeah maybe this is why the graphics matter a whole lot more than you would think, just a little something to get the brain working.
  13. If you honestly think that CE has a higher skillgap than Quake I assume you don't understand Quake. Also the top 10 being rather tight doesn't mean anything, a game can have a big skillgap and there can still be a tight grouping of players, if you think about it some pros in that league have been at the top for nearly 15 years. Also console esports were mocked by the PC community since day one so a lot of good arena shooter players never touched Halo as the aiming is insanely simplified along a ton of other things, the Ogres didn't have the same competition in CE that people like Cooller have in QPL where you got pros from 4 different Quake games competing where the first game released in 1996. Don't get me wrong CE is my fav out of the box Halo but its skillgap is nowhere near PC arena shooters. Not sure how direct your analogy is trying to be but there is much more differences than player speed between CE and Quake, but as @Snipe Three already mentioned the core arena shooter concepts in Halo are basically taken from Quake and UT, they made it work from console which is cool and all but you can obviously tell it's a similar concept modified to squish the skillgap since CE was meant to be a casual game compared to Quake which actually kickstarted esports in the first place. If you want to go into detail about why it's "moronic" to say I will listen, but currently it seems more like you went into defense mode about Halo.
  14. Ofc nobody has 100% railgun accuracy but you get matches where people hit 75% of their railgun shots from time to time. And I am not referencing games where they only take safe shots either. Sounds bad to me, at least camo and OS are powerups which means they are items on the map that matter a whole lot (unless weak effects ofc) because they give you a stat boost even if you hold your utility weapon. The traditional problem with power weapons is that they are all situational while your utility weapon is not, especially due to long weapon swapping times. Adding a gun that counters powerups doesn't add anything of value to the game imo, feels like some gimmicky rock paper scissors system devs feared of powerups being too strong would implement. And I realize there are some guns which have an easier time to spot a camo due to higher RoF and some guns like a plasma pistol that might do better damage against shields and thus is better against OS but what you mentioned sounds way too forced and artificial. If you want to add more power weapons that people actually use you need to justify their role more than anything, in a game where the starting weapon often makes most of the kills it's usually a disadvantage having a situational gun out unless it has a true niche to fill which can hardly be said about any power weapon but rockets and sniper.
  15. hyped brainlets will always say things are positive, if they said the game costs 200 dollars at launch they would argue "wow if they charge this much they probably hired a lot of talented devs and the content will be much more than normal 60 dollar games!!1!11!"
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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