Jump to content

Gobias

Member
  • Content Count

    2,243
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Posts posted by Gobias


  1. If 343 made a game with gameplay identical to Halo 2 with killer graphics, a classic artstyle, and all the legacy features, it still wouldn’t take off like some people think it might. This might be an unpopular opinion. Replace “Halo 2” with any other game in series and it’s the same. All the games got something right. But there’s room for some serious polish.

    • Like (+1) 4

  2. 16 hours ago, Shekkles said:

    ikr

    I just don't like they way grenades work on it. You can go on about how they block spawns and can be used tactically, but that doesn't stop it being uninteresting to spawn into 75 perfectly placed frag grenades. Additionally, you spawn with an AR and you can't fire the magnum immediately off spawn as you need to switch weapon and have the animation play, further making it uninteresting as a mid-low tier player like myself. You just get clocked off spawn and they can get 1-2 shots off before you are physically capable of firing your weapon. Also the jump delay adds unnecessary thought to each jump that all other Halo's don't have.

    Again, keep in mind I said I am a mid-low tier player in Halo 1 (I rate myself based on my performance against Ogre 1 in MCC matchmaking where the score usually ends 50 to 15/20).

    For a kasual kid like me, Chill Out is uninteresting and a chore.

    I like Chill Out, but rockets/camo is ridiculously powerful on that map and can be tough to deal with. I’d say it’s still one of the most interesting maps in the franchise. My main experience with competitive CE is stunt_man’s PC mod, and I’ve had good and bad games on that map. When I play with my friends on LAN, I prefer FFA so we don’t have to worry about spawns since I’m the only one who knows them.

    Grenades feel OP against spawners, but on the flip side they’re an asset for players trying to regain control if the in-control team is too predictable. I would prefer H1’s grenade mechanics because airbursted grenades are frankly unreactable, and I think you should be punished for trying to throw a grenade in a lot more situations. For me, the ideal frag grenade would have its timer start when it slides to a stop, a fairly small blast radius, and a damage falloff from full shields to half shields. If you land a nade that deals 1/4 shield damage, the nade shouldn’t hit in my opinion and you should have just used your gun. 1/2 shields is at the boundary where you’re also better off having spent the time shooting.

    Praying for removal of hitmarkers in Halo 6 as well as nades that can be dodged sans thruster pack.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Upvote (+1) 1

  3. 27 minutes ago, Boyo said:

    If an enemy is about to cap a flag and I fire a rocket at him, I don’t care if I damage a teammate too, I want that enemy dead.

    @Gobias

    So why can’t you use some other weapon? Your team is being punished because you were careless and hit your teammate. It takes more skill to avoid that. My point is that the consequences for friendly fire change, but are no less severe or rewarding lower skill.

    There is also some cool stuff that could come from damage reflection. You could give your teammate a grenade jump with no shield disadvantage. It would blow my mind to see that play in a tournament.

    • Like (+1) 1

  4. On 8/6/2019 at 1:03 PM, Gobias said:

    Another solution is to nullify all damage done by explosives if a teammate is involved, so nading indiscriminately is not useful. You could inflict damage on the grenade thrower if the wasted grenade/opportunity for damage isn’t enough punishment. 

    Not trying to boost a bad idea, but wouldn’t this kind of solve a lot of the concerns about substituting damage reflection for friendly fire? For example if one of your teammates is positioned “too aggressively” and you threw a nade that hit him and an opponent, you get punished more than with simple friendly fire because [hypothetically] the two who were hit by the grenade still have identical shield health while you are made one shot.

    In other scenarios, it changes what can be considered a “well calculated play”. For example, instead of rocketing two opponents and one teammate and coming out +1, you either kill yourself or just waste a rocket depending if damage is reflected. Best of all, the potentially cheesy strategies in objective modes are avoided.

    I find it interesting that people think friendly fire is really that important to Halo’s identity—I’ve seen people be more lenient about having random spread on the utility weapon.


  5. 43 minutes ago, L377UC3 said:

    I think it's funny that they just accepted that fucking nobody was going to stick around long enough to master Halo 4.

    Mostly I think they felt bad/frustrated because people weren’t experimenting with the new weapons and opting for the human/covenant weapons that made more sense. Basically, why allocate design time for something that people just walk over? This is probably also the line of thinking behind making every weapon easy/powerful in Halo 5. Then you get the opposite reasoning with stuff like Spartan Ops, a pretty big development time sink for something that a lot of players probably didn’t touch.

    I think the failure of more abstract weapons like a gravity gun in playtests is a result of level design. You can’t have traditional Halo encounters and expect players to pick up a weapon that doesn’t output damage as efficiently as a normal gun. That being said, most people who buy a Halo game probably aren’t expecting to have to use their brains in puzzle-like levels. Maybe adding gravity volumes you can turn on to mix up gameplay would work.


  6. They wanted to have a promethean gravity gun but apparently their playtesters didn’t know how to use it so they turned all the promethean weapons into offshoots of existing weapons. Source: Josh Holmes in Halo 4 postmortem GDC presentation.

    • Like (+1) 2

  7. 46 minutes ago, Boyo said:

    No but I understand the concept.  I didn’t think giving players more freedom by assigning unused buttons to secondary features would be so divisive.  So you’re not against he use of the d pad, you’re against giving the user that much control over his weapon?

    It’s just not an elegant idea. Complexity instead of depth. One of my favorite ideas from Hardy LeBel (Halo CE designer) is design by subtraction. More of a focus on systems, e.g. how camo and grenades interact with weapons. 

    • Like (+1) 6
    • Upvote (+1) 2

  8. 3 minutes ago, Boyo said:

    You wouldn’t need to stick these projectiles to a surface before you could detonate them.  You could detonate them mid air.  The D Pad allows the user to select if the explosion should go left, right, up, or down.

    Ever heard the phrase “restrictions breed creativity”?

    • Upvote (+1) 1
    • Fire (+1) 1

  9. 22 minutes ago, Boyo said:

    Similar to selecting a grenade type before engaging in combat, selecting the direction a projectile will explode in prior to combat can be a valid use of the D Pad.  Just like you generally wouldn’t be switching grenade types mid firefight, you wouldn’t be changing the explosive direction mid firefight either.  Furthermore, when the directional explosive is just a secondary feature of the weapon, meaning you can still simply shoot an enemy directly to kill him, it makes the use of the D Pad even less vital to the weapon’s operation.

    Or just make this an intrinsic function of a weapon/grenade. An explosive with a narrow radius of a effect that acts in a column perpendicular to a surface, like a spike grenade. For every needlessly complicated idea, there is a simpler one.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Upvote (+1) 1

  10. 1 hour ago, Nokt said:

    It mostly sounds like a difference of opinion. You just don't like damage advantages, not that there is something inherently wrong with them. In a game where seeing another player first gives you a large advantage of getting the kill in battles map control is at the very least equally important. 

    I have no stats for this but I don't think PU/PW even take up 1/3 of the kills that occur within a match (maybe in Slayer). Them existing isn't invalidating your gun skill. Its just enough to provide some spice into a match, but not overbearing enough to be an annoyance. 

    I would say the sniper in the last few games has been more than overbearing.

    • Like (+1) 2

  11. The fact of the matter is that if you get first shot in most Halo games, your opponent has little chance of surviving. I don’t think that’s interesting, but neither is escaping gunfights. Incidentally this was the main reason for the Evolved settings to exist. As was suggested, the root cause of easy weapons should be addressed, in addition to keeping the utility weapon kill time at or below Halo 5’s so people have no reason to run away from a fight. The problems were the inability to tune weapon difficulty and the unfun aiming system.

    Though thrust lets you dodge nades that are thrown constantly to probe with hitmarkers, if the explosion radius is increased because of this then you are screwed when you don’t have thrust available. The simple solution is making the explosive radius escapable with walking assuming classic movement. Bringing back Halo 1’s system where the timer only starts when the nade is still would help this, but it’s a departure from Halo 2/3 so it’s “controversial.”

    There’s no point in debating if Halo 5’s or 3’s movement takes more skill. Clearly Splyce proved there was a skill gap at a high level. But I think for many people at a high level and at an entry level, the abilities impede what you can do because most of them add no functional additions to what you can do while also handicapping your damage output. Compare this to being able to build 3x base speed in Quake in a few seconds, shoot and move at the same time, and get such a satisfying feeling from moving around that many people play “defrag” just to race around. So instead of arguing which takes more skill, argue whether the positives outweigh the negatives. I would argue they don’t in Halo 5, although some of the positives are really just bandaid fixes for Halo’s long lasting problems with easy weapons and bad strafing.


  12. Melees should be at least as hard as in Halo 1 because shooting is way more interesting and a better test of skill. It should be reserved for backsmacks primarily. Not having sprint would help this since players could backpeddle more effectively to counter someone charging. In no shooter have I ever thought, “I wish  more kills resulted from melee interactions.” Not even in Quake where I’ve used the Gauntlet in one out of every 30 games probably.

    Melees in Halo are a prime example of the need to make the player “feel like a Spartan” when they aren’t skilled enough to land shots in close range. A single melee does the damage of 3-4 utility weapon bullets. The difficulty to payoff ratio is really out of whack. Want to give braindead, slow killing automatic weapons a purpose? Make melees way harder. Boom, risk vs reward.

    • Upvote (+1) 1

  13. 4 hours ago, Apoll0 said:

    Sorry, double post (how do you edit and move a quote into an existing post around these parts...).

    In the old version of this site, you could see just how it worked. Without spaces, [ quote ] paste text here [ / quote ] makes a quote box. You add name = “ Boyo” to get it to tag him, but I can’t remember. And there is also a timestamp value.

    Here is what it looks like for an old post I was responding to: [ quote name="Apoll0" post="1033441" timestamp="1532283330" ] blah blah blah [ / quote ]

     

    Good post. 2 main things i would like to respond to.

     

    1) one of the reasons I argue for the 1 - 1.2 second kill time is because of my experience in Halo 5.  The issue in H5 with escapability really comes from thrust and sprint, not the kill time.  If you get first shot and don't miss and the other guy doesn't thrust and sprint away, he's not going to get away at base movement speed.  If they are hugging corners and sticking to cover like glue then obviously they can, but that's true with any kill time longer than 0. 

     

    This next part is very subjective so take that for what you will but one of the reasons that i love halo is because even in a fair, 1v1 perfect fight you are guaranteed a longer engagement than the numerous CoD-esque shooters of the world.  I would like even perfect engagements to be as long as possible without causing an overemphasis on teamshot or escapability problems (like every hero shooter on the planet).  I have also stuck with the 1 - 1.2 second kill time because when I compare the CE and H5 fire rates to say the H2 BR fire rate, i like the H2 BR fire rate better. But i also like to be able to string together engagements instead of spending a ton of time on just one, inviting too much teamshot, something that in the absence of button glitches was a problem with H2.  This is also why I have usually been qualifying my responses with "1 - 1.2 seconds".  I know i want a 4 shot primary, i know i want kill times longer than CE, i know i want a fire rate a little slower than CE but faster than H2/3/Reach, and i know that magnum battles in H5 absent of abilities and sprint feel really fucking good, if  a bit spammy at times.  All that together = 1 - 1.2 second 4-shot, but with a wider perfect/max TTK so you're not always ending your engagements close to death and can move to the next one immediately.  If i loved the CE or H5 magnum fire rate, i would probably agree with you and extend my "wish list" kill time to fall somewhere between .9 and 1.2 seconds.

     

    Also, correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe the math for fire rate would be (Perfect Kill Time in Seconds)/(Shots for Perfect Kill - 1), since its the first shot that starts the clock at 0 so you don't count that when dividing.  Been a long time since i have done anything besides money math...

     

    H1 magnum = 0.6/(3-1) = .3 s/shot

    H2 BR = 1.4/(4-1) = .46

    H3 BR = 1.5/(4-1) = .5

    Reach DMR = 1.6/(5-1) = .4

    H5 Magnum = 1.2/(5-1) = .3

     

    What this chart tells me is that i need to go play some zero bloom reach to see how the DMR feels since its possible that the burst-nature of the BR makes it feel a little different and the Reach DMR fire rate (or a little quicker) is about what I would be shooting for but 4 shot kill instead of 5.  

     

    2) My comment about having a skill gap so high with the weapon that it would end up raising the skill floor is really only meant for extreme examples.  Like 0 aim assist, slow projectile with small hitboxes using a controller.  That experience on a console would be considered by some to be the "Most skillful" with the widest skill gap, but its really to such an extreme that playing with a controller would be terribly un-fun.  I totally agree that balancing weapons based in large part on their difficulty is the way to go but if you go too extreme with it, it just becomes a chore and un-fun to use with controller.  Also in my reply here i purposefully didn't list bullet magnetism because i dont see the need for it.  Bullets shouldn't bend toward a target just because "you were close",  unless the tracking of targets is a specific feature of that specific weapon in which case the projectile needs to be slow and the damage relatively low.

    • Like (+1) 1

  14. 5 minutes ago, Basu said:

    I always though the regen would be cool if it only repaired vehicles and if it ever returns heals health. While I like the vehicle health system we've had since Reach (vehicles shouldn't be immune to utility damage) vehicles are a total deathwish once their health drops below 50% and since there's no way to repair them people just abandon and destroy them.

    It would be kind of interesting if vehicles took a really long time to destroy, but just got progressively more terrible. Like the Warthog would lose all its armor and become slower, or the Ghost/Banshee would have a lower boost rate. Or weapon systems could be targeted and destroyed. Imagine the Ghosts guns were attached to those winglets and could be shot off independently. After going below a certain health threshold, a countdown would begin and the vehicle would eventually blow up (same sound effect as in Halo 2). Then you could use vehicles as bombs. Vehicles can be super oppressive so it would be nice to have more ways to take them down, while still being interesting to interact with.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Upvote (+1) 1

  15. The main inherent problem with equipment is being unable to see what your opponent has. This isn't a huge problem when the items aren't frustrating, though. There is a huge difference between dropping a bubble shield versus deployable cover. Because bubble shield is really stupid. Maybe it would be less stupid if you could shoot the bubble shield to move it out of the way, but it's much better suited for campaign, imo. Overall I think there is huge potential in campaign and multiplayer (custom games at the very least) for reasonable equipment. There are plenty of noninvasive ideas that could work well in BTB and allow for emergent, non-stagnant gameplay.

    • zero-g volume
    Think Lawbreakers. About twice the size of a bubble shield, it could allow multiple players to stealthily make new jumps, mess up vehicle drivers, and create confusing gameplay scenarios when combined with other mechanics like explosive impacts and sword lunge. Maybe you could even attach the zero-g volume to vehicles to make a Ghost fly.
    portal device
    A sort of ball that, when deployed, teleports the user to its location after three seconds (more than enough time to kill an opponent). It would make the player's shields light up and hum. This would be a really cool mechanic in campaign, and for some reason I imagine the Brutes would use it to try to get up close. You could shoot it to telefrag the user, pop it into a mancannon right before engaging an opponent, ninja people, etc.
    legacy armor abilities
    Things like hologram and thruster pack make sense as charge-based abilities. These could allow for varied approaches to campaign segments. Maybe you save a thruster pack module through an entire campaign level and use it to cross a gap to skip an area.
    custom equipment
    Ability to modify existing equipment or attach new traits like you would with a custom powerup. Ability to tune number of uses, or recharge delay and rate if infinite. I can see a lot of potential for minigames with this one.

    The best part is you can choose to leave some or most of these out of multiplayer or relegate them to BTB. Either way, it's not a big deal as long as the equipment isn't dumb and lacking counterplay (bubble shield, regen). And it's fine if the equipment is fairly useless in most situations, rather than lacking any negatives (regen), since it can be placed in uncontested areas to compensate. Just as with the weapon sandbox, I don't really care if a weapon is weak overall as long as it's somewhat interesting and doesn't feel cheap to use. If there aren't more than a couple types of equipment on any map, then a generic glowing equipment orb attached to the hip of the player model would probably be enough for people to predict the user's capabilities beforehand.

    • Like (+1) 1
    • Upvote (+1) 1

  16. 2 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

    The question that needs to be asked is this - what does clamber actually do for the game?  

    It makes me feel like a supersoldier. You’re telling me a 10ft tall hunk of mech warrior can’t clamber up a simple ledge? I’ve been playing since Halo CE, and if there’s one thing that ever broke my immersion it was being stuck on the bottom of Prisoner. Why shouldn’t I be able to clamber to the top??

    • Like (+1) 2
    • Toxic (+1) 1
×

Important Information

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