Halo 5: Guardians eSports/Arena Weapon Starts Poll

[wldstyl]

 

http://teambeyond.net/forum/topic/10077-halo-5-guardians-esportsarena-weapon-starts-poll/?p=541413

Thanks for the link, that was a good read. I've been out of the loop for months but AR/pistol starts seems like the way to go. I remember the pistol being my favorite weapon from the beta. Are you saying BR starts would discourage people from using other weapons on the map?

[Nabster]

Do note, I am looking at this from the same perspective as I do economic modeling. You build a base theory that exists in a vacuum and then begin adding in other factors to test if the base holds up empirically. If weapon A is X percent better than weapon B in a vacuum, it should hold out as the better weapon in a game, all else equal. If map environment factor Y skewers favor of Z percent towards either weapon, it's modifying the base balance. If it's modifying weapon A, then A is now X+Z percent better than B. If its modifying weapon B, the greater of A+X(of A) versus B+Z, or A versus B+Z-X(ofA), is the superior weapon in that scenario.

 

Or am I overthinking this. Mathematically, it makes sense to me.

 

I understand what you are saying. You are probably thinking of a linear probability model such as p(x) = ß0 +ß1x1?

I agree that there is value to be had in first obtaining such a rough estimator. If 343 would even go that far and try to make things more "scientific" instead of trying to guess whatever they believe "casuals" want right now, Halo would probably be alot more awesome than it is now.

 

 However, what I was getting at with the "interaction effects" is that a certain combination can complete change the situation.

The best example would be Sword on Lockout vs Sword on Midship.

This is obviously not going to be as pronounced with the utlity weapons as they aren't that different, but if they have different effective ranges, it really depends on them map which one of the will be more effective.

 

Going to something like p(x) = ß0 + ß1x1 +ß1x1*lockout +ßlockout

 

 

Obviously, at the point where you are balancing all the weapons around each other and the maps and the situations you start getting dozens or even hundreds of coefficients and it all becomes ridiculously complicated. So you have to find the apropriate condesation of factors to have enough explanation without it being overly complex. I'm just not sure If I believe doing "octagons" would fit that bill well enough.

 

 

I never thought I would be arguing statistics in a Halo post. (lol)

[Frederic_104]

I understand what you are saying. You are probably thinking of a linear probability model such as p(x) = ß0 +ß1x1?

I agree that there is value to be had in first obtaining such a rough estimator. If 343 would even go that far and try to make things more "scientific" instead of trying to guess whatever they believe "casuals" want right now, Halo would probably be alot more awesome than it is now.

 

 However, what I was getting at with the "interaction effects" is that a certain combination can complete change the situation.

The best example would be Sword on Lockout vs Sword on Midship.

This is obviously not going to be as pronounced with the utlity weapons as they aren't that different, but if they have different effective ranges, it really depends on them map which one of the will be more effective.

 

Going to something like p(x) = ß0 + ß1x1 +ß1x1*lockout +ßlockout

 

 

Obviously, at the point where you are balancing all the weapons around each other and the maps and the situations you start getting dozens or even hundreds of coefficients and it all becomes ridiculously complicated. So you have to find the apropriate condesation of factors to have enough explanation without it being overly complex. I'm just not sure If I believe doing "octagons" would fit that bill well enough.

 

 

I never thought I would be arguing statistics in a Halo post. (lol)

 

Fair enough, I see what you're trying to say now.  All the same, it would be nice if 343 made a holistic attempt at balancing the sandbox in this manner. Shamefully, it is as it is, what the casuals want is what they're gonna lean towards. 

 

Math is fun. Wish I had a fondness for it when I was younger, that way I would have learned it better instead of struggling so damned much at uni with it. :P

[aKG]

It's been a long time since I even thought about Halo but I remember some of the stuff they said that made me not give them as much credibility because they seriously made no sense

- H4 > H3 > H2 > H1

- no bloom no skill

- h3 br was 5sk

 

There's a lot more but I forgot about them. Not to mention when I at least played, the top players completely disregarded anything new. New maps in Reach were incredibly evident about this. "Wow lets create a forge map of The Pit! Not like we haven't played that for 3 years already!" or how in AGL they remade Onslaught and Narrows lmao. and it was heavily favored by top players  rather than new maps which were actually good. But since top players really don't want to test new stuff out, the maps never got much light. Does H2A even have any maps that aren't remakes? Lol

 

Pros are good for giving empirical evidence on what works in top play but some of their opinions are mad janky. If I could have Ogre 2 or Chaos Theory in 343i for giving well thought out opinions on how the game is, I'd pick cT 10/10 times. However, I'd pick Ogre 2 10/10 times for playing the game and abusing everything about it since he can show whats abusable, weak, etc. 

 

I remember also that in h4, they all said the BR was harder to use when if you literally look at their stats and their hit rate, DMR always had a lower hit rate than the BR. Not to mention the BR had spread so the stats showing that was really ridiculous

 

Oh. were we just talking about the pro team? I agree they're a good asset to abuse the game but i was more just talking about the top players as a whole

You are trying to tell me that a pro, or pro's told you what you said above. Either they were trolling you or you are lying. 0% chance that anything else is the case. Pro's know better, hope I get down voted for saying this. Will be funny to talk about.

[Batchford]

You are trying to tell me that a pro, or pro's told you what you said above. Either they were trolling you or you are lying. 0% chance that anything else is the case. Pro's know better, hope I get down voted for saying this. Will be funny to talk about.

 

You new to the scene or something?

[ZipCity117]

You are trying to tell me that a pro, or pro's told you what you said above. Either they were trolling you or you are lying. 0% chance that anything else is the case. Pro's know better, hope I get down voted for saying this. Will be funny to talk about.

 

All of the things he quoted were true. 

 

2gre said "No bloom, no skill". Ninja said ordnance drops would raise the skill gap. Ryanoob has said that H4 is the best Halo game. 

[TiberiusAudley]

Do note, I am looking at this from the same perspective as I do economic modeling. You build a base theory that exists in a vacuum and then begin adding in other factors to test if the base holds up empirically. If weapon A is X percent better than weapon B in a vacuum, it should hold out as the better weapon in a game, all else equal. If map environment factor Y skewers favor of Z percent towards either weapon, it's modifying the base balance. If it's modifying weapon A, then A is now X+Z percent better than B. If its modifying weapon B, the greater of A+X(of A) versus B+Z, or A versus B+Z-X(ofA), is the superior weapon in that scenario.

 

Or am I overthinking this. Mathematically, it makes sense to me.

 

NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER TRY TO BALANCE A GAME IN A VACUUM

 

Balancing the Pistol versus the BR in one on one situations such as an octagon disregards:

• Clip Size (How many kills can you get per clip)
• Reload Time (What is your downtime after actually running out of ammo / electing to reload early)
• Effective Range (How far away can you help teammates / begin your engage?)
• Two Weapon Kill Time (if x weapon is shooting along with this weapon, what is the kill time?)
• Does the weapon affect mobility or other power-ups? (This doesn't apply as much to non-CE Halos, but in CE Covenant weapons were meant to be more stealth-oriented and meant Quicker Camo fade, Plasma Rifle also stunned targets.)  In Halo 5, we know Prophet's Bane buffs your speed.
• Draw speed (How quickly you can engage after changing from a different weapon or YYing)

 

These factors do not have a linear scale in terms of how they affect gameplay.  They all affect in different manners and in different ways depending upon the flow of a game.  Attempting to make two weapons balanced based off tests without any of the other factors does not give you data on how the weapons will work when those factors are introduced -- only how those weapons work in a vacuum.

 

 

As an example, though.  Compare attempting to use the Prophet's Bane on Truth with BRs versus attempting to use the Prophet's Bane on Truth with Magnums.  You can't learn this interaction through using Magnums versus BRs in a standardized size map with fully open sightlines.

[My Namez BEAST]

NEVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER TRY TO BALANCE A GAME IN A VACUUM

 

Balancing the Pistol versus the BR in one on one situations such as an octagon disregards:

• Clip Size (How many kills can you get per clip)
• Reload Time (What is your downtime after actually running out of ammo / electing to reload early)
• Effective Range (How far away can you help teammates / begin your engage?)
• Two Weapon Kill Time (if x weapon is shooting along with this weapon, what is the kill time?)
• Does the weapon affect mobility or other power-ups? (This doesn't apply as much to non-CE Halos, but in CE Covenant weapons were meant to be more stealth-oriented and meant Quicker Camo fade, Plasma Rifle also stunned targets.) In Halo 5, we know Prophet's Bane buffs your speed.
• Draw speed (How quickly you can engage after changing from a different weapon or YYing)

These factors do not have a linear scale in terms of how they affect gameplay. They all affect in different manners and in different ways depending upon the flow of a game. Attempting to make two weapons balanced based off tests without any of the other factors does not give you data on how the weapons will work when those factors are introduced -- only how those weapons work in a vacuum.

You should still do vacuum testing, jut not exclusively. You have to have a way to balance the gun's pure damage output.

[TiberiusAudley]

You have to have a way to balance the gun's pure damage output.

 

You can do that in an Excel spreadsheet in 5 minutes, the purest vacuum there is.

[My Namez BEAST]

You can do that in an Excel spreadsheet in 5 minutes, the purest vacuum there is.

But things like AA, RRR and ease of use need to be tested head to head especially when trying to balance a utility weapon against other rifles.

[ZipCity117]

:goat:  post about weapon kills at gamescom invitational

 

Looking at those two Fathom games, where the Sniper Rifle has 5 kills and 2 kills, respectively, I think we can agree that Sniper on a 3 minute timer is ridiculous. 

[Infinity]

Are you saying BR starts would discourage people from using other weapons on the map?

With the current weapon balance, yes. With Pistol starts, every weapon on the map is useful and encourages more map movement.

[Infinity]

Looking at those two Fathom games, where the Sniper Rifle has 5 kills and 2 kills, respectively, I think we can agree that Sniper on a 3 minute timer is ridiculous.

I'm going to attribute it to

1) Slayer, where spawns are less forced. An objective mode will allow better use of the Sniper

2) players not knowing the maps well enough.

[TiberiusAudley]

I'm going to attribute it to

1) Slayer, where spawns are less forced. An objective mode will allow better use of the Sniper

2) players not knowing the maps well enough.

 

I think we can still agree that Sniper on a 3 minute timer is ridiculous.

[Infinity]

I think we can still agree that Sniper on a 3 minute timer is ridiculous.

With its current ammo, lowering it would be a bit crazy. If the timer is reduced to 1 minute or 1:30 then it would need a smaller reserve ammo count.

[Vetoed]

I'm going to attribute it to

1) Slayer, where spawns are less forced. An objective mode will allow better use of the Sniper

2) players not knowing the maps well enough.

I don't consider those valid reasons for a sniper rifle to ever spawn once per 3 minutes.

 

In fact, even if sniper got 15 or 20 kills per game, it still shouldn't spawn once per 3 minutes. If it works well (as in potential for a lot of kills), it just means it should spawn more often to motivate people to contest it.

[Infinity]

I don't consider those valid reasons for a sniper rifle to ever spawn once per 3 minutes.

 

In fact, even if sniper got 15 or 20 kills per game, it still shouldn't spawn once per 3 minutes. If it works well (as in potential for a lot of kills), it just means it should spawn more often to motivate people to contest it.

Oh no those were the reasons I believe there was a low kill count.

 

Maybe when people learn the map better and play an objective mode the 3 min timer may be justifiable.

 

Gotta keep in mind we have 2 Shotguns and a 1 Min OS cycling, in addition to the 2 min Plasma Caster.

[TiberiusAudley]

With its current ammo, lowering it would be a bit crazy. If the timer is reduced to 1 minute or 1:30 then it would need a smaller reserve ammo count.

 

I prefer One clip + one reserve as the standard.  More movement is always better.

[Vetoed]

Oh no those were the reasons I believe there was a low kill count.

 

Maybe when people learn the map better and play an objective mode the 3 min timer may be justifiable.

 

Gotta keep in mind we have 2 Shotguns and a 1 Min OS cycling, in addition to the 2 min Plasma Caster.

Fair enough at the first part, but we shouldn't try nerfing the amount of power weapons cycling unless the excess amount proves to be detrimental. Right now the maps have no real direction or flow to them in TS, which is a clear problem to me. Shotguns also shouldn't be prioritized in favor of snipers. Those are supposed to be T2 weapons.

 

The sniper is one of the weapons that rewards skill the most and favors clutch moments, so it shouldn't be scarce in competitive settings. 

 

Though I'm still puzzled about the fact that Fathom isn't camo+OS or double snipers (reduced ammo/2 min) with OS or camo up top...

[Infinity]

Fair enough at the first part, but we shouldn't try nerfing the amount of power weapons cycling unless the excess amount proves to be detrimental. Right now the maps have no real direction or flow to them in TS, which is a clear problem to me. Shotguns also shouldn't be prioritized in favor of snipers. Those are supposed to be T2 weapons.

 

The sniper is one of the weapons that rewards skill the most and favors clutch moments, so it shouldn't be scarce in competitive settings.

 

Though I'm still puzzled about the fact that Fathom isn't camo+OS or double snipers (reduced ammo/2 min) with OS or camo up top...

Camo Bottom middle with two BRs at the vats would be pretty cool. Fathom is a bit bigger so I feel like the Camo would be a much cooler way to break Shotgun and Sniper setups.

 

I'm pretty sure weapon layouts are already solidified though.

[Vetoed]

Camo Bottom middle with two BRs at the vats would be pretty cool. Fathom is a bit bigger so I feel like the Camo would be a much cooler way to break Shotgun and Sniper setups.

 

I'm pretty sure weapon layouts are already solidified though.

Definitely agree camo would be an ideal power-up for that map.

 

I'm also thinking weapon layouts won't change much until launch, mainly because the prima games strategy guide is already printed with the current map layouts. I hope it's not the case.

[Frederic_104]

You can do that in an Excel spreadsheet in 5 minutes, the purest vacuum there is.

 

Yes, for damage output... It's nothing more than hypothetical for how difficult the weapon is to use though, which is the primary reason why vacuum testing is necessary in some degree.

 

But things like AA, RRR and ease of use need to be tested head to head especially when trying to balance a utility weapon against other rifles.

 

^This.

 

 

I definitely argued this the wrong way from the start... Using Octogon as an example to help paint a picture of how empirical testing would work was a bad idea, as you guys all latched on to it and took Octagon as the literal method I was arguing. The point is, there are certain characteristics of the guns that DO need vacuum testing in some degree or another for ease of balancing. Is it possible to do it without vacuum testing? Yeah, but it becomes a much more tedious process of trial and error, and raises the possibility of misplaced assumptions being used in the final build.

[MATCLAN]

You can't really test for difficulty though. Not to the level of accuracy you'd want for what's being discussed.

Everyone will find the difficulty gap between weapons to be a bit different; you can empirically say that the numbers show that weapon A is more difficult to aim than weapon B, but each player will find that difficulty gap to be a different size because we're human.

 

You'd need a much larger sample size of top level game data. Matches in which at least 6/8 players are at the Pro rank, and pulling data from tournament games would probably be useful for long term balancing but prior to release when you don't have those larger samples to draw from I think you just have to accept what the numbers behind the weapons tell you along with the anecdotes of in-house testers.

[Frederic_104]

You can't really test for difficulty though. Not to the level of accuracy you'd want for what's being discussed.

Everyone will find the difficulty gap between weapons to be a bit different; you can empirically say that the numbers show that weapon A is more difficult to aim than weapon B, but each player will find that difficulty gap to be a different size because we're human.

 

You'd need a much larger sample size of top level game data. Matches in which at least 6/8 players are at the Pro rank, and pulling data from tournament games would probably be useful for long term balancing but prior to release when you don't have those larger samples to draw from I think you just have to accept what the numbers behind the weapons tell you along with the anecdotes of in-house testers.

 

True, but I stand by my statement that it's a solid starting point to work from. It's not the be-all-end-all setting or process, it's only setting the basis of what would be further tweaked along the way as more data is gathered and more variables are worked in.

[Dead]

All this talk frightens me.

 

If Towey was able to help EG master the barebones H2A they are going to be damn scary with a more complex game like H5.

 

It's way more than Towey, it's Roy, Lunchbox, Snipedown and Lethuls professional attitude towards the game and each other.