Jump to content

Soapbar

Member
  • Content Count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3
  1. >Respawn gets rights to Halo >game is made unplayable by salty titanfall hackers within 6 months you no longer wish Respawn had the rights to Halo.
  2. they can probably only get it working for Reach because 343 is a gud development company so gud I can't even play the fucking game because I'm getting an infinite "Leaving matchmaking..." loop every time I want to play matchmaking.
  3. A key has one singular purpose and cannot be used for anything outside of that purpose, it's guaranteed to only affect the things that you want it to affect. A movement ability, even as a map pickup, is one that may have underlying effects on the sandbox at large. Camo allows you to cross other players sightlines but it doesn't grant you access to new areas. The entire point of this little thought experiment was how to grant players access to different areas without unduly affecting the rest of the sandbox. I was thinking something like CBRN gear in a map which part of it is contaminated by a poisonous substance, and others to similar effect. You could change it per map.
  4. Twitter is a site that rots your brain so I don't know why your remotely surprised to see this kind of awful take there. __________________________________________________________________________________________________________ I think there are ways to open up interesting map traversal options without giving the players movement abilities. Taking a page out of the classics and adding keys to maps that open certain doors is one way, but I myself am a fan of limited duration power-ups that would give you the ability to cross hazardous terrain, like the Enviro-Suit from Quake.
  5. It's not a matter of skill? I just don't like those maps in 4's, most of them devolve into grenade spam in 4v4 due to their small size and relative openness, where I feel that other maps don't have that problem even in 4's. Wizard especially has the problem due to just how many there are on that map, and Wizard is a map that I'm not exactly fond of to begin with even in 2's.
  6. A lot of 4v4 playlists need to have maps reconsidered. CE especially could do with some trimming to make 4v4's more enjoyable, since CE 4v4 is already pretty non-optimal. I think it could do with a trimming down, at the very least remove Prisoner, Derelict, and Wizard for the love of god. Those maps are (arguably) fine 2v2 but intolerable 4v4. Lockout and it's remakes just need to be removed from existence (I'd argue the same for Wizard and it's remakes but I know that's unpopular opinion)
  7. Yeah it is rather disappointing that most custom browsers trend towards extremes like that. I remember having a lot of fun back in the day with gametypes like Juggernaut or VIP, which weren't competitive obviously but weren't a party game-type. Game-types you could take just seriously enough to be engaged while also not sweating.
  8. This little paragraph should be the real takeaway from this debate. This is a matter of map design and it's a matter of player preference, and it's possible for both philosophies that are discussed here to exist in the same game. The fact that Xandrith and MLO have made maps in Halo that follow these philosophies while existing alongside the countless other maps that follow conventional philosophy or the philosophies of players like Hard Way is proof enough of that. To sort of shift topics, I think this is why Halo holds on to life despite the negative press and bad additions to the franchise. I think Halo's success, most notably the success of Halo 3, was due to a combination of base mechanics that, while inferior to it's predecessors, were still integral and competitive enough to be engaging to hardcore (not necessarily competitive like MLG) audiences while also being flexible enough that the devs, or indeed the players themselves, could change the experience to suit the tastes of a number of audiences, and this led to Halo 3's mass market appeal. Once upon a time, on a forum that is now long defunct, I once posited to a fellow of mine that Halo is not a game that is inherently designed for everyone. It is, however, a game that provides it's players with enough agency in how they play the game, that it is a game that CAN be for everyone. I argued to this fellow that this sort of philosophy and design was the key to success behind many games and franchises, such as Smash Bros, Warcraft 3, and Team Fortress 2.
  9. I mostly just remember Fat Kid and Drive or Die, along with other misc. forge games like Halo on Halo. BTB servers here and there as well.
  10. Random lurker here to chime in on the conversation regarding Active Camo and such. I don't really have any amazing credentials to my name but I do think a lot, which I figure has to count for something. I had originally typed a long post with examples upon examples explaining the philosophy but it got really long-winded and tl;dr so I'll just narrow it down to a couple bullet points. As Snipe Three said earlier, competitive games often require a wide variety of different skills, and games place emphasis on these skills in different ways. I don't think it'd be controversial to say that competitive games would be rather dull if they only required one skill, or if the skills required only fit within a narrow scope The big point: Feats of skill in one area can, and almost always will, invalidate or diminish feats of skill in another area. The maybe controversial point: Every competitive video game that ever lasted a long while and maintained a healthy scene had mechanics that allowed the one winning to snowball and forced the loser to contest the situation, even if the loser was at a disadvantage. These games also had mechanics that forced the winner to still play aggressive when when they had the lead. Games do this because it forces the leaders to be proactive in keeping their leads, which leads to more engagement and more satisfaction from the winning side. I think Xandrith and MLO's philosophies are flawed because they are seeing games forcing these things as removing decision-making and creativity, when I would argue exactly the opposite. I would also argue that they've fallen into the trap of seeing skillfulness and balance as too much of a virtue. Here's the thing: I don't think Quake, Halo, Street Fighter, Tekken, League of Legends, etc would benefit from removing mechanics that force confrontation and movement to certain areas of their maps and stages. I would argue that most creativity and interesting decision-making comes not from when the game is constantly putting players on an equal playing field, but when the game is throwing players into bad situations and telling them that they need to figure a way out of it. There's a reason all competitive games have timers, and it's because that timer forces decision-making from both players by putting them in an uneven situation. This guy got a kill on me in Halo, so if I don't even this gap, I'm going to lose on time. However, if we leave it at that, then the winner can run all game and win, which is dull and not skillful. So the game adds powerful weapons that FORCE movement to certain areas of the map, and force the winner to keep track of things. The winner can still be put into bad situations while keeping his lead, and it leads to a more fun and interesting game for both sides. This all sound pretty basic but it ties into the main argument of pickup power and integrity. I would argue that if you have made a pickup on the map that can Safely be ignored Does not need to be kept attention to Does not force interaction around it Then I would argue you have made a bad powerup and a less interesting game, because you are not forcing the leader to keep making interesting decisions and creatively to prevent his opponent from coming back. You're letting the leader coast by and saddling all the burden onto the loser. And yes, that sounds skillful, and integral, and what we want, but I want you to think about the type of gameplay this really leads to. I would argue that this type of gameplay leads to a game where the leader can be rewarded for being reactive and thus is less satisfying overall. I think that games with strong pickups/buffs/boosts that force confrontation are ones where the leaders must be and are rewarded for being proactive in keeping their lead, by pre-empting their opponents and shutting them down before they can utilize their routes for a comeback. Which leads me back to my big point, that feats of skill in some areas of the game will almost always invalidate or diminish feats in another. Timing Mega-Health in Quake is a culmination of map knowledge, timing, movement and map control, but picking it up and utilizing inherently diminishes the skill of the other guy shooting at you. Yet Quake's competitive scene has survived two, three decades now? They wouldn't be playing it so long if the base meta-game of building your stack and fighting around these powerups was as fundamentally flawed as claim, and that's because forcing players into these bad situations, as well as forcing them to develop a unique set of skills to play with and around these powerups, leads to a fuller and more satisfying experience. My ultimate opinion on OS and Camo and Quad Damage is that they are both snowball mechanics and comeback mechanics. They are routes for the losers to make a comeback and a mechanic for the leaders to be proactive about, leading to both sides being more engaged and thinking about the game more carefully, in a way that map geometry and power positions can't provide. They don't remove creativity, or decision making, but add to it, I feel. Sorry if this is really rambly and I didn't tie my points together all that well. I wrote this at close to 3:30 AM my time and I'm very much a stream-of-consciouness person.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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