Jump to content


  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

8,360 profile views
  1. I agree with that. Also, have any of you actually played with newer players? They don't use the radar. They can't use the radar and focus on the game at hand at the same time. The only people using radar effectively are people who have played long enough to know the levels and utilize it as a crutch. It's easy and it seems important, but it really isn't. Radar is fine for FFA, because it removes some of the randomness from it, but it really has no place in other game modes. If we're insisting on Radar, we should have enemy players only show up on the radar when they are in the FOV of you or your teammate. Outlines are absurd and would not be good for Halo games.
  2. Ignoring aim assists and weapon mechanics, one of the primary reasons is because in Halo 3, there is literally no risk of the enemy actually being able to defend themselves. Sure, they can maybe throw a few hail mary BR bursts your way, but actually posing a risk to a sniper in a long-distance engagement? Not a chance. In Halo CE, you had a good chance of getting outgunned if you weren't quick with the sniper.
  3. I don't understand the appeal of cross-gen play. I mean, I get it from a surface-level advertising perspective, but who wants to buy a new console to play games that also have to be designed for the old console? Obviously there will be compromises made to the game.
  4. Utility Weapon - Pistol/DMR/BR. The important thing is to clearly establish the utility weapon rather than have 2 or 3 with slight variations and advantages, because then we lose the real benefit of this weapon. Power Weapons - Sniper, Rockets, Sword, SAW, GL, Laser Role Weapons - Shotgun, AR/SMG, Plasma Rifle, Plasma Pistol, Mauler, Carbine, etc. This is where you can add some creativity and nuance to the sandbox, and as long as the utility weapon is properly balanced, these wont break the sandbox. The function of the utility weapon is to give players a fighting chance in almost any situation, but the effectiveness must be skill-dependent. This can only be accomplished with a low TTK but high average TTK (due to the large skill-requirement of the weapon). Players should almost always have the opportunity, based on their own skill (and the lack of opponents skill), of fighting out of a situation. That doesn't mean the best shot will always win, it just means that weapon skill matters in an outcome. Here's how I view current Halo games in terms of what determines the outcome of an engagement: 70% numerical advantage, 20% positional advantage, 10% player ability. It should be closer to 30% numerical advantage, 30% positional advantage, 40% player ability. Power Weapons obviously serve to break that allocation in favor of the player who holds the power weapon. The balance of these comes from the fact that they are difficult to obtain and have limited ammo, as well as the ability of a great player to still out-slay them with the utility weapon (this is not the case in modern Halo games, but it should be how the balance works). Role Weapons serve specific roles and act as supplements to the utility weapon. They provide an advantage in their specific role (a shotgun in close range for example), but they should not have an insurmountable advantage (which comes from giving them too much aim assists and making the utility weapon too weak).
  5. I think we're conflating issues with the systems in place with the utility weapon. You can have a skill-based utility weapon and still appeal to casual players. The first line of defense is to ensure that casual players aren't paired off against really good players unless they choose to be. That solves every perceived balancing problem people use against skill-based weapons. The second level of defense is having a well-balanced sandbox that works in conjunction with the utility weapon, and clearly differentiates the relative power of each weapon. But I would further argue that players are okay with getting destroyed in a game if they see a clear reason for it and a clear path towards their own improvement. There have been plenty of games that are more accessible than Halo games that have completely bombed because the casual appeal of a game is not solely based on how easy it is to slay other players. Every feature-rich, well-made game that has a deep skill gap has been highly popular and highly regarded. Why are we operating under the assumption that a deep skill-gap turns off new players? Where is the actual proof that supports that conclusion? Just because an easy game is popular does not mean that same game with a deeper skill gap would be less popular. Would Halo 2 have been less popular if it maintained the skill gap of CE? I doubt it. I'm firmly of the belief that it would have been even more popular (given that it's popularity stemmed largely from the success of Halo CE).
  6. I wasn't suggesting the bottom edge of the reticle be on top of the players head; the bottom left quartile should be covering (or close to) the head of the enemy if they are moving left to right.
  7. I'm going to focus on this, because it's an important concept. If you can't outshoot your opponents due to ease-of-aiming, you must rely purely on positioning and numerical advantage. That limits viable strategies. You cannot flank because without a numerical advantage it's irrelevant, or if they hold a power position it's irrelevant. Your strategy is forced into getting more guns on them than they get on you, and that's it. That's why Halo has devolved into holding a power position and "set-ups." Having a deep skill gap does not limit the depth of game, it adds color and variation (ie depth) to every other aspect of the game. A great shooter will have a different playstyle than someone who is not as good at shooting. Just like a great positional player will have a different playstyle than someone who isn't as great at map movement and positioning. A support player would have a different playstyle than a more aggressive, physically skilled player. Players would have unique strengths that differentiate their playstyles, but that would not decrease the importance of non-shooting skills. Having a high aiming skill-gap would in no way detract from those things; it would actually serve to increase the variation and application of them. I'm also really not sure how you can accept that a first-person shooter does not require any particular skill in aiming. That's like saying a racing game shouldn't require players to steer the cars.
  8. Aiming skill is much too diminished in recent Halo games, Halo 3 included. The ease of aiming has cascaded into a slew of other problems, such as hard-coding randomness to mitigate the ease of aiming, and slowing the pace of the overall game (recall never-ending standoffs). Geometric and numeric advantages will always provide a benefit, but they should not be the sole determining factor in the outcome in a first-person SHOOTER. Superior aim should provide a reasonable chance to overcome those other advantages if the aim discrepancy is great enough between players. A low shooting skill-gap makes the likelihood of a real discrepancy in aiming skill extremely unlikely. The game becomes a game that is solely based on who-sees-who first or has the most guns pointed in one direction. Everything stagnates from there. CoD became and remains popular because it was well-crafted and makes people feel powerful on an individual level. All of the guns slay quickly. Halo could have maintained it's prominence in the gaming community by maintaining that feeling of power, but instead they relentlessly removed power from the individual. Halo CE was a cultural phenomenon and exploded in popularity, and it has one of the highest skill-gaps in console shooters. Saying it couldn't maintain that popularity without sacrificing what made it great in the first place is complete speculation. Challenging mechanical input absolutely makes the game deeper. It's a completely different skill-type that a player is required to master, and when you have deeper shooting-skill, it enhances the opportunity set of almost every other strategic decision tree. If someone's map knowledge is far superior to my own, they also don't have to try as much to win the game; that doesn't mean we should remove map knowledge as a skill and only play in a square, flat room. Bad players can still have fun against other bad players, especially when they recognize that there is a great deal of depth to the game and see a clear path forward to improvement. I can't play in the NFL, but that doesn't mean I want to limit everyone to only running 10 MPH and jumping only so high so I can compete. A bad player has no business competing against a good player, that's just a fact of life. Why are we even playing a first-person shooter if we don't actually want to participate in the shooting aspect of the game?
  9. With the lower quarter of the reticle in the opposite direction of where you were leading. So if you were leading a player to the right, you would want the lower left quarter on their head or the edge of their head.
  10. Just some refinements. The real balance of a quick TTK is a higher skill gap; make it very difficult to actually obtain the perfect TTK. We don't need every weapon in the sandbox to have a quick TTK to balance a utility weapon with a faster TTK. I'd prefer to see some uniqueness brought back to the niche weapons, like plasma stun.
  11. Yes, I absolutely believe the Halo games would have been more popular and successful, especially over longer time periods, with lower TTK and less aim assists. The advent of matchmaking would have solved many of the (imaginary) issues people lay at the feet of challenging gameplay, namely that people don't like to get destroyed. Matchmaking works much better with a deep skill gap, because it's much easier to separate players based on ability in that type of game, rather than modern Halo games where success is completely dependent on your teammates.
  12. Classic Halo developer logic; increase aim assists and slow down strafe, which mean more people are landing shots more frequently, so to "balance" that out, Bungie decided to increase kill times rather than address the core issue of shooting skill.
  13. Are you seriously 23? Holy shit. Dude, just... walk away from the keyboard for a day or two.
  14. That explains a lot. But for real, I'm not going to argue with you because we are clearly using two different versions of reality, but you're wrong about pretty much everything relating to Halo.
  15. This is quite literally the exact opposite of what's happening. The only game where a player has a realistic chance of turning a fight around where they are down shots is CE, because of the difference in average vs. minimum TTK. You have no idea what you're talking about.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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