Jump to content

RVG E Nomini

  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Recent Profile Visitors

5,309 profile views
  1. I don't think this is good because not all opponents would be seen by the player, only by the game. There are lots of reasons for this, such as concentration on making a play and an opponent is briefly off in the background, or you're turning to respond to a callout and your field of view connects with an opponent but you don't notice them. Seems very game breaking. It seems more authentic for callouts to be directly tied to the awareness of the players making them and not automated by the game, resulting in opponents being revealed without intention.
  2. I have friends who play CoD but hate Cold War because it takes so long to take out opponents, saying it's almost like Warzone in MW where people have additional armor plates. So yeah, TTK is probably a big deal.
  3. It's mutual homie. I've been enjoying the theory-based discussion from Xandrith and MultiLockOn because this is the only place on the internet I visit where I encounter it. While I disagree with some of their positions that doesn't remotely mean I don't want to hear them. Hopefully they still want to continue sharing their insight.
  4. That's an interesting idea for a power up, no doubt. I was really hoping for some ideas on camo though because CE can be modded and there's people here who could test it out on NHE. If you're stuck in non-disclosure mode because of your work then that's fine. Good luck with your game dude, definitely drop a post here when it's finished.
  5. If that's the case then we should be strictly talking about how to make camo in halo better. Maybe I just got the wrong idea from your posts. I made a pretty explicit differentiation between 2v2 vs larger team size matches. Power ups forcing map movement is a good thing, same as with power weapons, it prevents the game from turning into halo 2 which is centered around controlling one side of the map or the other (for the most part) in matches that can get very standoffish. You're forced to take more risks and venture out of your comfort zone, it's deeper than camping a base because there's no incentive to leave. Another catalyst in H2 for this was also dynamic weapon timers (as well as map design, ie lockout) but that's a different topic. There's probably a balance to be found between forcing map movement with powerups/weapons and that's where I'd be interested in your take. What's a better design for CE to strike that balance? On your Empire comment, I don't play any halos but CE (2 on occasion) so I can't contribute anything there. What powerups do you think would be good for CE and what would their properties be? How would they change the current dynamic we're all familiar with?
  6. Well to me camo is fun to fight against and fun to use, incineration cannons and BFGs don't enjoy that trait. Camo adds some depth without being over the top, while still myself and others have been bringing up ways to improve its role in the game. Powerups are important in video games because they add a dimension to play that transcends real world individual combat limitations (so far) to give just a little bit of power fantasy, hence their name. Like I said, it makes it more interesting and fun while fitting the entire context of futuristic FPS games to begin with. It's okay to have competing theories, if camo is some sort of deal breaker for multiplayer in a game set 500 years in the future then I'll fully admit I don't understand your theory.
  7. I'm with my boy Hard Way on this camo discussion. I would argue that camo maintains integrity of gameplay in 2v2 as well as 4v4 or big team gameplay (no comment on 1v1 cause that isn't my jam). At 4v4 or larger gameplay, there are enough players to respond to an opponent with camo and buffer how effective it is, assuming each team is equally skilled and communicating. I've gone on tears with camo against great teams but more often then not I'll make a move that turns into a mistake and my advantage is taken away. For 2v2, the way CE works best, camo is a high-risk high-reward opportunity because it's always placed in a disadvantageous location (arguable: battle creek and chill out). Teams controlling the map have to sacrifice their positioning to acquire camo which their opponents can capitalize on and swing the game to their favor at least temporarily. I've lost a lot of games because my team failed to control camo effectively. It's not because camo is overpowered, it's because my teammate and I didn't make good decisions, whether it's bad positioning or bad timing that leads to lost fights near when the camo spawns. To me the game is also more interesting because it's so gratifying to stop a good player who sneaks away with camo because you predicted their path. Sure there are games where you get destroyed by the camo guy but your team let them get it and that's entirely on you, it's not, at least in my eyes, an unfair advantage granted to your opponents through no control of their own. They contested it and beat you, next time do better. To summarize, the merits of camo are: High risk & high reward (as long as its spawn is in a vulnerable location), satisfying to defeat, encourage teamwork/timing to acquire/fight, tactically fun to use, gives less common weapons more utility (quick camo), teaches you nade skills, and interesting to play against. I'm trying to think of better spawn locations on chill out and battle creek, maybe dark tunnel on chilly and in the creek under rockets on battle creek. Hang em, damnation, derelict, and prisoner have great spawn points. Damnation you can contest with nades or pistol relatively easily and the others are in very compromising locations. Maybe on derelict it could spawn down below because top control on that map is so powerful, it would give players a better chance to recover a losing match. These are the kind of fixes I'm far more interested in vs just removing camo completely. I think it's only unfair if you let it be. Again, all these points are contingent on equally skilled teams, of course imbalance will grant the far better team more freedom to exercise power up advantage against their opponents and saying "do better" is meaningless.
  8. The incentive for quick camo was to give more utility to weapons you don't normally pick up or use very often even when you have them, and in that context it makes sense.
  9. Won't happen til CoD has health packs.
  10. In multiplayer for Halo CE, the plasma pistol fired as fast as you could tap the trigger and had a freezing effect on opponents, making it worth picking up if you couldn't get to a plasma rifle. It also allowed you to quick camo. All it needed was slightly more tracking with the overcharged shot (only a little) to make it worth using in the more open spaces of maps.
  11. Both, given the sort range, random spread, and terrible TTK of their rifles.
  12. You must be new here. Every time a dev came here to chat about H4 before it came out, they had reams of constructive posts that they mostly ignored and instead chose to focus on the few who were rather impersonal in their replies. Then they stopped showing up. That has been the cycle. They've even misled if not outright lied on this forum about their games (who remembers the H4 gameinformer article?). Our viewpoints don't get considered and they're the ones who left the bad taste. These people aren't susceptible to rational discussion, they show up when it's convenient for their marketing and weave their narrative to try and turn us into potential customers before going silent after launch. It's dishonest and nobody who was here for that harbors any respect for the company because they've done nothing to deserve it. You're welcome to urge civil discourse but the only thing on the line here is getting in trouble with the mods over disparaging 343, not Infinite becoming potentially an alright game. Figured you should know where we're coming from.
  13. Gameplay occurs on maps, maps must account for what players can do and how the gametypes work, sprint boosts movement speed, movement speed boosts on arena-sized maps breaks map control, ergo arena-sized maps don't work. While movement-wise, larger maps still feel arena-sized, there is a significant combat cost because battles take place at longer ranges on the smallest maps. Targets are smaller so the mechanics of the weapons become important, so a much larger percentage of the combat takes place zoomed in through scopes. Plus there's the obvious get out of jail free card for bad positioning on top of the fact you can't shoot while you sprint so combat is one-way when open areas are traversed. This all amounts to I'll save my money and stick to CE on MCC because the direction of the halo series has dramatically shifted away from the successful fundamental principles of design it was founded on. Enjoy your sprint, I'll enjoy my $70.
  • Create New...

Important Information

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