Jump to content

Gobias

Member
  • Content Count

    2,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Everything posted by Gobias

  1. Reducing the ammo doesn't make it any less frustrating if it's too easy. Removing the crosshairs also doesn't change much at all, besides a couple of people putting tape on their monitors. The projectile speed is where you will see the most reductions in effectiveness. Here's some old Reflex gameplay where two highly skilled players (CPMA veterans) are trying out the stake gun, since removed. This is about the success rate I would want in a noscoped sniper, but the strafe is much better than Halo's, there's wicked air control, and the projectile speed is far slower than Halo 3's. https://youtu.be/vwFHlcCPVpE?t=45s
  2. Fortunately, 343 already has the perfect solution. The sniper on PC would be as you expect—hitscan or fast projectile, and pretty easy to land a body shot or headshot noscope with either using m+k. But here’s the catch: it’s the exact same experience on console. The bullet magnetism is even higher than Halo 5’s so it’s just as easy to hit noscopes with a controller. Starting with Halo 4, this is what they’ve been preparing us for, ramping up the bullet magnetism so it wouldn’t feel jarring. They also intentionally made the mouse aiming feel bad in Halo 5 PC to make sure the sniper was balanced. They knew Halo 6 would be coming to PC. They care about us.
  3. I think 1.2s still poses a slight issue with escapability. Based on your analysis, let’s assume that that’s the longest perfect TTK that prevents the average escape attempt in a game without thrust and sprint. Going with the generous estimate of 25% of kills being perfect four-shots, the disadvantaged player can safely abandon any isolated engagement and reset the battle because he has a 75% chance of staying alive (help from teammates notwithstanding). Those are great odds for someone who should theoretically lose that engagement. So unless you’re willing to rely on teamshot to negate that escapability and screw over every experience that isn’t 4v4, there needs to be a buffer zone that ensures a higher percentage of battles can’t be escaped because of a gamble. If the perfect kill time plus one shot equaled the “minimum escapable time” of 1.2s, then a larger portion of battles, we’ll say 50%, would be inescapable by default. At this point, disadvantaged players are better off putting out the guaranteed damage on their opponent even if they end up failing the reversal. In my opinion, 0.3s doesn’t feel spammy for a shot interval in CE. I think what sets the pistol apart from Halo 5’s Magnum in this regard is the amount of shots required for a kill and how often you need to reload. For example, a 4sk DMR with a 16-bullet magazine would feel significantly less spammy than Halo 5’s 5sk Magnum with its 12-bullet magazine, even with the same firing rate. I suppose it also helps that in CE you have more time to spare in securing a kill, so pacing shots is actually quite common when you’re up. 0.33 seconds would also probably be a fine shot interval, but any longer than that starts to slow the perfect kill time down unreasonably. Regarding having uncomfortably low amounts of aim assist, I’m with you, then. I would like to mention though that bullet magnetism is still an essential part of the game. Without it, long range encounters would drag on forever, or more likely would end in constant stalemates. The bullet magnetism brings parity to long range shooting so that your gun is actually a threat beyond mid range. Looking at Halo 1 as a guideline, the bullet magnetism dies down dramatically as you get closer to your opponent—there’s no chance for them to ignore you and escape at close range, so the game pulls back and just uses friction to smooth out the larger aiming corrections. But I would still be interested to see how a console Halo game would play with zero bullet magnetism. “Open” map design might be exploited to segment maps through distance like in Halo 3, just in a non-random and not terrible way. Edit: looks like I originally quoted you twice in the same post. Quite the double kill.
  4. I’m resurrecting a recently deceased conversation since the forum ate my previous attempt a few days ago. I think a four-shot perfect kill time of 0.9s would be perfect for the next Halo. It would work just fine for all modes and it has benefits over 1.2s even in 4v4. I hope this doesn’t count as moving the goal posts since your post was against a 0.6s TTK, but there are some fundamental things I disagree with. The first thing is that I don’t think 343 should be going into this thinking, “How can we make a great 4v4 game?” They should just focus on making great 1v1 battles. If it’s not fun there, it won’t be fun when you add more players and reduce individual empowerment. Unrelated: I think the weapon balance would be a little more palatable if approached from the perspective of just one player fighting another, instead of the idea of team "roles" acquired through functional upgrades. Yes, a large disparity between perfect and average kill time is a huge factor in promoting interesting gameplay, but it’s not the only one. Being able to outshoot my opponent is an incentive to stay in the battle only if that battle is likely to continue. Let’s take a look at a common 1v1 exchange where player 1 lands a shot on player 2, who is previously unaware. Player 2 now has the choice to return fire or try to escape. If the perfect-average disparity is great enough, player 2 is more likely to stand ground in the hopes of winning the fight. But if the perfect kill time is slow enough, escape is still a viable option, and also an attractive one since player 2 is disadvantaged. To compound this, player 1 also has the option to back down at any point even if player 2 puts in better shots; he has the advantage of being aware of player 1 longer. This negatively influences player 2’s decision to hold ground since victory is less likely; player 1 could quite easily back down early, leaving player 2 with low shields and a high risk of being cleaned up. So the solution is both a high perfect-average disparity and a sufficiently low kill time, around 0.9s. 1.2s is clearly enough time for players to react and attempt escape, which reinforces defensive decision making in the two ways described above. And if the average kill time is extended by increasing the difficulty, the perceived (and actual) risk of dying while trying to escape a battle is naturally decreased—players will tend to run away more often and try to “call your bluff” that your shots are good enough to punish them. Responding to the bolded, I don’t think that’s a solid argument for making the kill time close to 1.2s than 0.9s or even 0.6s. All that accomplishes is making the game less fun for competent players in both close and easy matches. Furthermore, the kind of player that thinks the utility weapon (also known as the weapon that balances the sandbox) is overpowered is also the kind of player who thinks automatic weapons should kill faster than it. The beauty of balancing with difficulty is that a sufficiently difficult precision weapon will have a disproportionately higher average kill time at a lower level of play compared to automatics. But you also have to consider that players with worse aim also have worse strafes, so if they are playing competitively (i.e. against players of similar skill) they have no reason not to use the utility weapon. To enhance this effect, reticle friction (aim assist) could be increased while bullet magnetism (auto aim) is lowered, meaning that noobs have an easier time while pros are all but unaffected. TLDR: 4v4 Halo might need a slower perfect kill time than Halo CE’s, but it also needs to be faster than Halo 5’s so players have more incentive to play aggressively. 0.9s in four shots is the perfect recipe. Balancing this out with significantly more difficulty would produce good results at all levels of play, even allowing lower-skilled players to appreciate more of the automatic weapon usage they seem to prefer.
  5. So who’s hyped for the Halo 5 4v4 side event at Dreamhack?
  6. It might make more sense as equipment—it could work like the teleport dash in Dishonored. IIRC there was a scrapped Promethean teleport dash armor ability in Halo 4 that was probably replaced with thruster pack, so it’s not out of the realm of possibility. It does seem like something that could be abused for escape, though. Splitgate looks pretty cool, but you shouldn’t be able to shoot through portals, especially if enemies can’t see you on the other side. You can’t see through others’ portals because it would be too visually demanding. But there’s still time for that to change.
  7. I’m a fan of the Extra Jump powerup in this one pseudo-arena shooter. It just increases your jump height by 10%. Unlike speed boost, this doesn’t really allow you to escape battles any better. It solely increases your unpredictability, much like Camo, since you can now take uncommon routes to gain the element of surprise. In Halo, this could easily be a double jump powerup to be more intuitive for players. It would also give 343 a way to incorporate the “lore” of the Spartan thrusters that was focused on so much in Halo 5. In the absence of enhanced mobility, one player slightly breaking the game for a minute is quite manageable and adds depth in use and counterplay. Just add a purple glow to their boots or something so people can anticipate the extra jump.
  8. As Riddler said, spread is completely independent of how long the bullet takes to get to the target. Leading shots is good, random spread is bad, and there's no reason they have to be paired. For an analysis of how Halo 3's random spread can influence the outcomes of even gunfights with perfect aim, read this post. Bungie's explanation for random spread:
  9. Couple pieces of advice since they've been saying this for years: 1. Don't make every bullet magnetize to such an insane degree so the only room for differentiation is a few controversial game mechanics. 2. Don't require button combos to traverse what would have been simple routes in previous games. 3. Congratulations, you've now made a Halo game that makes fans not want to tear their hair out and doesn't feel "sweaty" with every possible skill matchup.
  10. I know, it was a joke, I just remember that being thrown around as an excuse for why things weren't there. That and 60 fps. But now that it's an actually new engine I just can't help but think about all the... DLC to look forward to.
  11. So what are all your bets on how many legacy gametypes/features will be available at launch considering it's a new engine just like Halo 5
  12. You can't seriously think that's better than Halo 1 no shields 400% health.
  13. The best part of having different melee hitboxes is to add more situational advantages. The utility weapon should have one of the most difficult melees because it’s so useful for shooting. Any short range weapon should have a faster or longer-reaching melee. It kind of misses the point just to have different melee properties based on the size and shape of the gun. It should be a lot like quick camo. But this is assuming the sandbox has interesting situational balance instead of “at this range this gun wins.” What would likely happen is that already unstoppable weapons like the Storm Rifle 2.0 get a sword lunge. The most important thing is to just make melees more difficult so that close-quarters combat, the most interesting area of combat, is rendered less brainless. (edit: by means of encouraging using your gun more in close-quarters)
  14. Unfortunately MCC has helped tarnish people’s memories of Halo 1’s sandbox, what with the easiness of the pistol/sniper and the lack of plasma stun. That and the ridiculously easy “Halo 1 Magnum” in H5. Oh, and the persistent narrative from the developers over the years because they didn’t like the idea of skill differentiation or weapon decisions that made you use your head. Also, don’t forget the community’s idea that longer kill times are more fair because “you have more time to fight back” (i.e. run away and reset the fight). So, you see, it is hopeless.
  15. But if everyone has different ideas about what Halo is, shouldn’t we try to split the power up so that there’s something for everyone? I mean, you could let individuals have a lot of control like in the development of Halo 1, but gamers in 2018 have so many expectations.
  16. But if they spend all this time making a better sandbox, how are they going to find the time to make maps that play well?
  17. Kind of weird that there is a strong correlation between the enjoyability of a Halo game and the position of the utility weapon relative to the sandbox. We should probably nerf the Magnum to make sure the Storm Rifle is still useful in its intended
  18. To be fair, Halo 3 looks better than most console shooters these days. It’s about time we lower our standards.
  19. I'm sure Halo players would love it since the significance of individual players would be diluted even further. But let's see, the past few Halo games have played terribly for FFA, not including NBNS, so I think the game will fall flat on its face chasing another trend.
  20. This video and the one about sprint/clamber were superb. Over time I've realized that most Halo players want the same things. People will defend their crutches like sprint and slow kill times because it gives them a sense of control. They don't think they should have to die every time they're in a bad position, so being able to run away makes it seem like they have more choices. What they really would appreciate is having the chance to win a losing battle. Of course, that depends completely on the difficulty and power of the weapons, but most players haven't experienced games with that kind of balance.
  21. Video chatting with “hot singles in your area” doesn’t count as making friendships, Grim.
  22. Difference is that quad/double shot actually solved a problem having to do with slow kill times and lack of skill differentiation with the BR. Super slide just added to an already powerful set of movement techniques. The glitches aren’t even remotely comparable in difficulty or effect.
  23. I don't think what I was talking about has been made. I'm not advocating for watering down games like Quake and UT. I'm suggesting a completely different IP with a completely different focus. No arena FPS game focuses on FFA, which is arguably the most accessible mode. In a 1v1, even a slight skill difference will result in a landslide victory usually. In team modes, worse players are discouraged from playing either by their teammates or by the notion of ruining the fun for their teammates. With FFA, you aren't as discouraged because it's often not just about winning or losing but continuous improvement. You might start out getting last every game, but maybe after a few months you starting finishing higher even if you're still losing. Are 1v1 and team modes bad then? No, I think classic Quake and UT games do those modes extremely well. But maybe that isn't the path to renew interest in hardcore shooters. There isn't a great competitive free-for-all game on PC... or console for that matter. It's all team games with diluted individual significance. Now imagine if you had an arena shooter that was easy to learn and but gave experienced players a ton of tools to master. Difficult weapons that kill fast so FFA doesn't revolve around kill steals. Movement that is tied to weapons: rocket jumping, stake jumping, plasma climbing, grappling, teleporting into enemies, sliding to build speed (on residue from bio or ice weapons). This way the movement has interesting situational uses without starting out as an ever-present prerequisite to making common jumps and moving at a proper pace for the size of maps (for the record I highly enjoy the movement in Quake). Add a threatening utility weapon that isn't overbearing like the machine gun from Quake to reduce randomness in FFA. Make more diverse powerups common such as cloaking, vampiric damage, extra jumps--things that radically change how you play like Quake's battlesuit that makes you immune to splash damage. A focus on projectile weapons with interesting properties such as velocity inheritance, forward-acceleration for rockets, no railgun, maybe having projectile speed increased by mouse speed prior to firing to encourage higher and more difficult sensitivities and FoV... all so that veterans of the genre would have to learn something new for a change instead of playing the exact same games for the last 15 years. The strafe acceleration could be fine-tuned to encourage bluffing with strafing back or stopping completely (achieved with initially similar but distinct acceleration curves), as well as enable one player to outstrafe two players oriented at 90° to each other by adding acceleration boosts to orthogonal acceleration inputs (achieved by adding a term to the magnitude of acceleration based on the cross-product of instant velocity and instant acceleration input). The old arena shooters are hard to master but also hard to get into. The new "arena shooters" (arena-lite if you ask me) are possibly[?] slightly easier to get into but also not fun once you learn how the game works. What hasn't been tried is a genuine, intelligent effort to make a legitimately new arena game that is simple to pick up but only gets deeper as you progress in skill, with a focus on free-for-all.
×

Important Information

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