Jump to content

potetr

Member
  • Content Count

    67
  • Joined

Recent Profile Visitors

594 profile views
  1. Might be that the controller is low on battery if you are using a bluetooth connection.
  2. Radar could be better than no radar. First, the motion sensing aspect needs to go. Halo 5 did that mostly right. That's the most important part because it punishes movement and rewards waiting. Fights in radar range are also less interesting because of it. Secondly, some information makes the game so much more playable for most people. most people aren't talking together, so the game should be designed with that in mind. It can also make for some "information warfare" gameplay at higher levels if done right. Third, to actually help new players and not negatively affect anything, it should help them learn maps. So it should be larger and show outlines of geometry, objectives, pick ups etc. That would make backwards navigation more feasible too. Maybe pick up timers could be shown here too, as bubbles on the edge when outside the maps radius. The current radar doesn't help new players understand the flow of maps or where to expct enemies because it only shows people when they are very close. Something that would help players find enemies is a longer ranged radar with new rules. Maybe a diameter of half of Guardian. Players appear as dots, and along the edge if outside the map radius. Enemies appear: 1) When they fire - this is way more interesting than it appears. It adds a risk to shooting, and it opes up for some mind games. You can act on the enemy knowing where you are/were and they can act on you knowing that again, and so on. It adds depth. I know a Battlefield 4 player who prefers playing without a suppressor because it makes the enemy more predictable. Anyways, just the part of letting players easily find people to fight would be huge for onboarding and casual play. 2) When you shoot at them - this would be a nice passive communication feature. Voice is still way more powerful and necessary in competition. 3) As several people have discussed, when looked at. Essentially the same as above except you don't have to shoot, which you dont always want to. No button-bound ping system is necessary, though it would be a nice addition for other purposes. A ~0.25s requirement of aiming near an enemy indicates intent of marking him and prevents sweeping to tag people. This should just make them appear on the minimap as if they fired a shot, on a short cooldown (1s?) so you can periodical ping someoneby tracing them. So yeah, that's essentially the CoD radar +. They get some stuff right sometimes.
  3. If anybody replies to that I'm adding them to the ignore list (Recommended feature!) as well.
  4. Evade doesn't need a locked door.
  5. This forum needs the best rule from the previous forum I frequented. "Do not reply to terrible posts."
  6. My grandma always used to say, "don't base your understanding of things on simple geometric shapes".
  7. Yes, it comes first, but problem solving needs to be challenging to be engaging. In multiplayer games this is ensured by matchmaking. Your solution is the enemy's problem, and vice versa. If the game is balanced (no solution is fit-all or too strong in a specific situation, and no problem is unsolvable) that works out to be a fun competition. So yes, all you have to do is design that depth. The reason I think this is that - Deep games are universally enjoyed, both by comp and casual players, good and bad. That points to the activity being the engaging part, because the challenge is subjective. - the activity players are engaging in, even before skill differences or ability comes in, is problem solving. It applies to everything from chess to Halo. Solving problems, and getting better at it, is fun. You see it in singleplayer games too. Enemies, AI, abilities, encounters are designed first, then difficulty is tuned. I think brainless, challenge games (games that are more towards the "one solution that's hard to execute" end of the sprectrum) are a different type of game altogether, just like strict puzzles are (games with one well hidden solution). Using and improving some specific skill might be the bedrock for the former of those, but it isn't a helpful design tool for multiplayer games like Halo. Games that offer difficulty, but no new things are fun in their own right, but I don't think they have the longevity, just like puzzles. That's why we play Halo multiplayer and not LASO campaign over and over. Your examples in the last paragraph miss my point. Counterpicking is a solved problem, that isn't fun indeed. PP vs OS is a too strong solution at any level of skill, too easy, I'd personally redesign it where you'd need additional micro plays to succeed with it or counter it, like reducing how many shield layers it destroys, how much it tracks and perhaps you should be able to shoot it out of the air. To connect this with some more established design speak, problem solving is kinda the same as decision making, except it also captures the motivation for making decisions.
  8. People love engaging problem solving. That’s the fundamental truth. Skill floors and ceilings are functions of the game mechanics, which means whatever the game is doing to achieve them is the real cause of its popularity. It’s not a given people love high skill ceilings either; most never reach it. It shouldn’t be very relevant. Skill is a good indicator though, as deep games typically have a large gap between beginners and pros. However, complex games also have a large gap, but they aren’t necessarily good, which again points to skill being a poor design guide. So what do popular games have in common? Lots of emergent, engaging problems. Games that present new problems forever, are fun forever. To explain how, first some more about depth (Multilockon is spot on about it). Depth is interaction between rules, viable options, etc. Complexity creates redundant, unviable options, rules that don’t interact. Peak complexity would be strict rules without interactions. Peak depth is when every rule interacts with every other rule. Now, depth is what creates engaging problems and solutions. Complexity without depth creates pre-solved problems. For example, if Overshield (OS) made you invulnerable to everything except the Plasma Rifle, you would always have to use the Plasma Rifle to counter it. That’s not an engaging problem as it only has one solution. From what I’ve read about Doom Eternal, they upped the focus on using specific tools for specific demons. That’s more pre-solved problems. On the other hand, lets look at how OS actually is. All weapons can damage it, but plasma is better, but also harder to land. You can backsmack for an insta kill, which makes not shooting preferable in the specific situation where you can sneak up. Grenades can be used without exposing yourself to a stronger foe. Etc. The "rules" are how OS, Plasma Rifle, melee, movement and other weapons work, that’s the complex part. Interactions between all of them creates depth which creates solutions with varying viability depending on the situation. It’s always fun to fight someone with OS, because even though all the rules are the same, the experience never is. Another example, the simple "rule" of plasma dealing more damage to shields has interactions with OS, melee, headshot weapons and more. Maximizing depth per complexity, or interactions between rules is elegant design. Halo CE is very elegant. Gameplay loop? Just a weird (often misunderstood and misused) term describing what problems the player solves over and over again (you need to have a motivation for driving the gameplay loop). In a good game, this is never the exact same problem, or the exact same solution applied again. Ideally many different problems and solutions emerge depending on the situation, like with the OS example. Testing that theory, Battle Royale has lots of emergent problems that are never the same. Every firefight is a problem. Fighting is the primary gameplay loop. Completing this loop over and over drives an outer gameplay loop that is the “winning the game”-problem. As Shekkels is saying, polishing what the player does the most is very impactful. As for why Halo isn’t popular anymore, I think the latest games simply haven’t been up to par for the population segment that matters. Some hold up at a high level, but at lower levels, there are too many things that ruin engaging problem solving with simple solutions. H2/3 Teamshot REACH: Jetpack - how to get an angle on your enemy? Just go up lol, don’t think. Weak ass DMR reduces agency Armor lock, hurt? Just wait Sprint, hurt? Run away Sprint+sword? No need to position carefully, just run straight at them. Grenades in reach are much easier to land damage with due to shorter fuse time. HALO 4 I barely played this when I was 14. HALO 5 “Advanced”, burst movement options removes a lot of the preemptive, strategic positioning caused by slower, consistent movememt. Map naviagtion no longer a puzzle. Just go where you want, whenever. Predictability suffers. Escape is easier than ever. This undermines or reduces skill as Mulitlockon put it, because good players can no longer choose better solutions. So the ultimate adage on what makes a game fun shouldn’t be phrased as “Low skill floor, high skill ceiling” because that is a consequence of the game being “Easy to learn, hard to master.” Which is pretty good, but a colloquialism for Easy to know the rules, hard to always know the solution. Which is caused by the game being deep and not complex. Which is what I’ve found to hold true for every popular game. And then comes the part on designing engaging problems and solutions, but I’ve written enough for now. ------ I did write some more though. Points that didn’t fit neatly into the above post, but someone might want to read anyways: ------ Complexity / depth example Complexity is MW gunsmith where there are literally millions of attachment combos, but only a handful at most of them are viable attachments and combos per gun. Depth would be having a few, viable attachments that all create viable loadouts. ------ Casual and competitve is a mindset. Good games are enjoyed equally by both groups. Shitty games are played competitively and deep games with lots of room to improve are played casually. ------ Battle royale have one more advantage. High-stakes games like Battle Royale demand your attention, because you are guaranteed to waste your time if you don't pay attention and die. And so people are engaged and have fun, even if the game might not be very good. Difficulty does the same thing I think. ------ Starcraft: Only the top players can actually make new strategies, but at any level lower than that, APM wins, i.e. executing predetermined solutions. ---- CS has some textbook complexity, rules that add nothing except "do this, always" (spread/recoil patterns) This is from very deep in my head, and I’m not a native English speaker, so please ask if something is unclear:)
  9. If looked at substance I don't think I would've greenlit a single post.
  10. Well, thanks for filling me in. The community can still be influenced though. ^
  11. @Aphex Twin Read my post again, part of the point was that we can do something about it. I'm also not telling you to be complicit in terrible mechanics, I'm telling you to voice criticism without vitriol. That only prevents people from considering your viewpoint seriously because it leaves a bad taste already before doing so.
  12. There is a lot of smart talk on this site, talk that can change minds. I have no doubt several 343 employees (used to) come here, and there are people here who are involved with 343 too. However that's all in vain when shit like this drags the forum down to below reddit idiocy. Your legit points are completely lost in the petulant noise For me who recently started playing Halo again, this forum has been a great resource for bettering my understanding of the games (I've been reading many old posts), but it almost wasn't, because the first posts I read a few months ago was just childish bickering about something I can't remember yeah sure, a forum is for airing thoughts, but when airing those thoughts just makes the situation worse, keep it to yourself
  13. I think the Fuel rod gun is pretty cool and worth saving. If it could kill in two good hits, and had increased time between shots so a third shot brought it above starting rifle TTK, you'd have a similar playing FRG as rockets, as you'd be able to punish anything but perfect kills. Maybe less screen shake too. I'd also keep the overheat, making it able to fire two quick shots, with a third overheating it. If you don't use the third shot it will cool, being more efficient than a reload. Lastly, make impacts deal lingering damage on the ground for like three seconds so you can deny areas, like where someone or something is going to land. Using shots on area denial costs both heat and ammo from the magazine. Tying the lingering damage to a surface or short volume (like the H3 Firebombs) means you have to be a bit smart when placing them too. Now that's a different, difficult to use, and more versatile launcher. I think it's pretty fun to fight in Halo 3. An ok timed jump together with the first shot will launch you out of the range of follow-up shots. Several times in Fiesta I've just kept jumping and it has just kept working
  14. Not sure why knowing the rules of the games needs a learning curve. Unless the game is shallow as a puddle, knowing the rules should only make it more fun.
  15. Not following your distinction between "earned" and "free" info at all, what makes in-world info ok? I agree tracers are good because they add counterplay and risk to shooting. But they would be good even if the were a HUD element. I just don't care wether or not info is diegetic or not. What info you make available should only be decided by what gameplay you want, if you can convey it cleary in-world or with diegetic HUD, great, but not necessary. You probaly don't want footsteps that fill the exact same role as motion sensor, but rather have a system where for example footsteps pass through openings more easily than walls, so you have to think a bit to discern more exact positions, which I assume you mean by "earn". At it's worst, you can literally watch netflix while camping with a shotgun, waiting for footsteps. Doesn't matter if the info is in world then, still terrible. And it isn't like a radar can't be tuned to be good for gameplay. Merit of teammate outlines is up for debate. Deathcam is bad because it reduces the earned advantage of a kill too much (which is subjective), not because it's free.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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