Jump to content
valaea

Rank All Halo Multiplayer Experiences on 1-10 Scale

Recommended Posts

It is mathematically measurable that CE offers the greatest amount of room for meta evolution relative to every other halo game.

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Show me your proof then.

Let's look at midship in H2- the absolute greatest strategy you could pull off, the greatest reward with which the meta grants you, is teamshooting while set up on pink. Several factors are responsible for the meta's maximum reward being this strategy- the mathematical fact that the average human reaction time (about a half second) allows more than a full half second for a player to react to a situation, the mathematical distance your player could melee lunge, the random chance your melee would glitch you out of damaging an opponent, the mathematical distance your crosshair could be away from a target while still landing bullets, ect...

 

Limiting individuals in this manner, using these quantifiable variables, limits the amount of impact that an individual player can make on the game. These variables create a meta which punishes players for not clustering and teamshooting.

 

The same can be said of, say, narrows on h3. Cluster on top mid and teamshoot, and only grab power items on their several-minute intervals. The meta punishes you for doing anything but this.

 

Compare the mathematical factors limiting individuals in the h2 and h3 examples and the impact they have on the meta- forcing one dominant strategy all the time- to CE's.

 

Because the quantifiable variables in the game allow players to distinguish themselves with things like grenade precision (fuse timers and damage output), gun accuracy (bullet leading, magnetism, and damage output), melee precision (lunge distance), etc... players aren't forced to teamshoot at all times.

 

When players aren't forced to teamshoot at all times, a greater number of viable strategies surface in the gameplay. The meta can not deem one specific strategy to be the absolute greatest anymore. Lifting this constraint allows the meta to evolve- many other variables now impact which strategy would be best at a given time during a match, unlike in every other halo game where only one is viable at any given time.

 

The greater mathematical number of viable strategies that are allowed to take place during a game increases the amount of room for the meta to evolve.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

 

I am not sure if you are serious or not. If you are could you please elaborate? What do you define as "Meta"?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Let's look at midship in H2- the absolute greatest strategy you could pull off, the greatest reward with which the meta grants you, is teamshooting while set up on pink. Several factors are responsible for the meta's maximum reward being this strategy- the mathematical fact that the average human reaction time (about a half second) allows more than a full half second for a player to react to a situation, the mathematical distance your player could melee lunge, the random chance your melee would glitch you out of damaging an opponent, the mathematical distance your crosshair could be away from a target while still landing bullets, ect...

 

Limiting individuals in this manner, using these quantifiable variables, limits the amount of impact that an individual player can make on the game. These variables create a meta which punishes players for not clustering and teamshooting.

 

The same can be said of, say, narrows on h3. Cluster on top mid and teamshoot, and only grab power items on their several-minute intervals. The meta punishes you for doing anything but this.

 

Compare the mathematical factors limiting individuals in the h2 and h3 examples and the impact they have on the meta- forcing one dominant strategy all the time- to CE's.

 

Because the quantifiable variables in the game allow players to distinguish themselves with things like grenade precision (fuse timers and damage output), gun accuracy (bullet leading, magnetism, and damage output), melee precision (lunge distance), etc... players aren't forced to teamshoot at all times.

 

When players aren't forced to teamshoot at all times, a greater number of viable strategies surface in the gameplay. The meta can not deem one specific strategy to be the absolute greatest anymore. Lifting this constraint allows the meta to evolve- many other variables now impact which strategy would be best at a given time during a match, unlike in every other halo game where only one is viable at any given time.

 

The greater mathematical number of viable strategies that are allowed to take place during a game increases the amount of room for the meta to evolve.

Good points but I think you are ignoring button combos, which if a player is truly skilled enough to do it consistently every time while aiming well enough to hit the target, allows for huge individual skill. Greater even than CE if someone could quad shot every time.

 

Also you're ignoring objective game types in your proof.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

Dude lmao. People aren't still playing CE with you because the game has a boring meta. There's tons of meta to exploit and create unique playstyles. Every map point you brought up can be countered with another strategy. Camo rockets are deadly on prisoner. Yes you want to get top but you can win without holding it. Go watch some four horsemen gameplay on damnation, the best can use strategies you'd never even think of doing because you simply don't have the skill to pull it off. And you have greater access to powerups from the bottom. As for chill out I'd say camo is most important but it is an age old debate that will never have a right answer.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Also halo 5 is still a new game so yes the strategies are not set in stone yet. That's true of most new games. Halo 1 is 15 years old and 2v2 slayer has been exploited to nearly it's fullest potential but as I said above every map has different options available depending on how you wish to play it. I don't think chill out could ever be "solved" because it's such a perfectly balanced map that makes you want to keep moving to try to flank people and get them off guard. The only spot you could consider camping is pink room but the other team can toss 8 nades in which will be very hard to dodge and they eventually have to push rockets or OS.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

 

 

Dude lmao. People aren't still playing CE with you because the game has a boring meta. There's tons of meta to exploit and create unique playstyles. Every map point you brought up can be countered with another strategy. Camo rockets are deadly on prisoner. Yes you want to get top but you can win without holding it. Go watch some four horsemen gameplay on damnation, the best can use strategies you'd never even think of doing because you simply don't have the skill to pull it off. And you have greater access to powerups from the bottom. As for chill out I'd say camo is most important but it is an age old debate that will never have a right answer.

 

I agree with what Vinny said. Also, I just wanted to add that H5 just came out about half a year ago, CE came out about 15 years ago. CE has had 15 years to develop its meta into what it is today (although it is still evolving in some small ways). It is not a fair comparison by any means. Watch a CE game from 2003 or 2004 it sometimes looks like a different game, even when it is higher level players playing. 

 

Edit: and I posted it to see @@VinnyMendoza had just posted my exact response lol

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

You must not play H1 on any deep or high level whatsoever then.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Jesus Christ h1 maps are stale? I'm gonna have a heart attack.

 

Dammy and chill out are the best maps in the Halo franchise and it'll probably stay that way forever.

 

I need to post another video

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

All I play is Halo 1 and I feel like it's got the least meta potential of every single Halo game. Everyone does the exact same thing, hardly anything changes.

 

Prisoner, get on top.

Dammy get camo, stay top.

Chill Out, get rockets

Etc...

 

What complex and developed meta are you talking about? I don't play Halo 5, but it definitely has more meta than Halo 1 by miles. Professional commentators are having trouble keeping up with Halo 5's meta right now after not paying attention for a month or two.

 

Exactly zero Halo games have a "deep meta". 

 

H1 has the most skillful individual components and the least gameplay issues. 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm thinking of meta in a different way then? Idk.

 

There seems to be one optimal strategy to every Halo map and it rarely seems to deviate from that. I know there's multiple approaches to every map, but there's always the best choice that beats all other options.

 

People try to get on top on prisoner, then drop for camo rocks. Medicare players will do that and so will the best players in the world. I've never seen anyone that knows what they are doing deviate from that strategy on purpose.

 

Dammy you get green and nade back camo. No one deliberately stays on the bottom of the map unless they are waiting for rockets.

 

I can't remember if I've ever seen anyone deviate from the one optimal strategy on purpose, that's why I think Halo 1 is a rather linear game. I'll play Halo 1 all night and see the same thing game after game.

 

I can't think of Halo 1 as having a "complex" meta. And hopefully @@MultiLockOn your comment wasn't towards my remark because I do think Halo 1 has the best maps of the series by far and stale/linear gameplay doesn't mean the maps themselves are stale.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Greater even than CE if someone could quad shot every time.

 

That's incorrect, the button combos in halo 2 do not allow individuals to distinguish themselves such that it has a meaningful impact on the game. Teamshooting would not be the sole greatest meta if that were true. Again, we can measure quantifiable variables to prove this.

 

Objective gametypes in post CE games also suffer from having only one dominant strategy. Pit CTF- run flag through green hall. Lockout ball- setup in library. Construct hill- setup around the hill and teamshoot. Again, this all boils down to the mathematical variables coded into the game which we can measure.

Share this post


Link to post

I think if we're going to do threads like these, we need to establish how to quantify competitive merit and measure meta. When everyone's got a different definition of what gives a game depth it's not surprise that we're debating in circles.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

What stunt_man said. People assign different weights to different skills and types of maps. It's like trying to determine what sport takes the most skill. They all use different skills that are difficult to measure and compare scientifically.

 

You're talking about all these variables as if they exist in a vacuum. You have to consider there are some things that are completely subjective in art. And games and competitive games are a form of art. Certain ones can move a lot of people for particular reasons, but not everybody. What you might consider as adding competitive depth another may disregard. For instance most of us disregard the skill of hoarding power weapons in halo 2.

 

And you also completely handwaved the impact of button combos. Why? If a full team of players is capable of quad shotting they have a huge competitive advantage as individuals as it takes massive skill to do it. You still have to set up as a team but that's true of almost any 4v4 game. Part of why CE emphasizes individual skill is that it's only played 2v2 so one player can have a greater impact.

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm thinking of meta in a different way then? Idk.

 

There seems to be one optimal strategy to every Halo map and it rarely seems to deviate from that. I know there's multiple approaches to every map, but there's always the best choice that beats all other options.

 

People try to get on top on prisoner, then drop for camo rocks. Medicare players will do that and so will the best players in the world. I've never seen anyone that knows what they are doing deviate from that strategy on purpose.

 

Dammy you get green and nade back camo. No one deliberately stays on the bottom of the map unless they are waiting for rockets.

 

I can't remember if I've ever seen anyone deviate from the one optimal strategy on purpose, that's why I think Halo 1 is a rather linear game. I'll play Halo 1 all night and see the same thing game after game.

 

I can't think of Halo 1 as having a "complex" meta. And hopefully @@MultiLockOn your comment wasn't towards my remark because I do think Halo 1 has the best maps of the series by far and stale/linear gameplay doesn't mean the maps themselves are stale.

All maps have a power position which is a part of good design. Some people value the power position more than others. Some people like to stay top blue in HEH all game. Others prefer to cycle for powerups. I disagree entirely that there are 100% optimal strategies that work for every single player. Didn't you say you've only been to a few Lans with free? It wouldn't surprise me if they all agreed on set strategies because different local groups will develop slightly different in their approach to the maps.

 

I'd really like to know your optimal strategy for battle Creek and chill out ("get rockets" will only comprise in 20% of your time in the map and result in somewhere around 20% of the kills on the map).

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe I'm thinking of meta in a different way then? Idk.

 

 

"Meta" is probably the wrong word, to be fair ... "depth" is probably what people mean, i.e., learning how random spawns work is actually very complex.  Like in 2v2, you can jump in the air at a certain moment/location and your teammate will get a particular spawn.  There's also a very steep learning curve and the game is complex in that sense; after using the H1 pistol for years on LAN, the best players on earth will still not get consistent 3SK (whereas even I can get pretty standard 4SKs in Halo 3) ... mastering all of the glitches (double melee etc.) adds depth to the game as well.  As was mentioned earlier in this thread, Roy/Lunch were obliterated by good H1 players in the 2v2 tournament because of the depth of spawn/meta knowledge.  

 

But definitely there isn't a complex "meta" in the sense of LoL, SC2, etc.; in a way you could say that the meta is figured out (strategies are optimized) and the tricky part is execution of the meta.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There's also non map depth in the game when it comes to weapon switching decisions, especially when to drop your pistol, using your grenades effeciently, the spawn system and the decisions you're forced to make to escape spawn traps, risk/reward with grenade jumps, decision making in CQC, using portals, using camo to its full potential (resisting the urge to shoot and reveal yourself; quick camoing), being able to nade powerups at full speed (walshy got good at this in wizard 1v1), being careful not to make a weapon switch sound until you have the jump on an opponent, practicing crouch lands and using slants, skill jumps, etc.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I mean in CE you are faced with many decisions in CQC alone that most other games don't have. Most other games including halo 2 and on you're spamming the melee button or trying to use button combos. In halo 1 it's completely viable to try to back off or circle strafe while using the pistol, to switch to AR, or pr or shotgun if you have it, or go for a risky double melee which you can either miss or nade yourself. You also have to decide if you want to throw a death nade instead of continuing to shoot.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think if we're going to do threads like these, we need to establish how to quantify competitive merit and measure meta. When everyone's got a different definition of what gives a game depth it's not surprise that we're debating in circles.

 

This isn't a difficult thing, people just refuse to do it. 

 

Every single Halo revolves around the same fundamental concept - get the power items, hold beneficial map positions (if any). As long as those items are the key to winning, which they are, then gameplay will always center on them and the meta will be linear. Whether one Halo is better than the next has nothing to do with a deviation from this concept. Halo 4 was the only game that tried to get away from it, and that was a catastrophe for multiple reasons...and even then, in the end, it crawled back to that concept regardless. 

 

As I said, no Halo game involves a deep meta. Because the game has equal starts, you've removed the greatest avenue for meaningfully nuanced gameplay, which is specialization. This means that the only thing that differentiates one match from another is the spawns and the on-the-fly approach that each individual player takes to maneuvering around the map and engaging his enemies. Thus, the important distinctions between Halo games are not whether they enrich the core game principles, but whether or not they create desirable pacing and reward competent execution. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think there is meta in the minutae of the game as I laid out in previous posts. For a console fps it has a decent meta but you're right that the game mostly relies on execution using aim, positioning and movement skill. Compared to many strategy games it has a relatively shallow meta.

 

I'd compare it to the relationship hockey has to speed chess. Hockey usually revolves around a main concept of puck control through certain strategies that most teams use, but a well coached team with skill and chemistry can execute better than other teams. Speed chess is all strategy and no physical skill but still requires quick decisions.

Share this post


Link to post

You have to consider there are some things that are completely subjective in art.

You are correct. Certain things are very subjective when it comes to video game design, and the gameplay depth/competitive merit qualities we are discussing are not among those.

 

As I've previously stated, h2's button combos do not allow individuals to distinguish themselves enough. The game still forces teamshooting as the holy grail. The impact button combos have on the gameplay is not significant enough to change this.

 

Perhaps if the quantifiable variables coded into the game for things like melee lunge distance, the distance your crosshairs could be off target while still landing bullets, BR damage output, and melee consistency were altered, then we may be able to arrive at a different conclusion.

 

However, these measurable and quantifiable numbers don't allow for a different conclusion.

Share this post


Link to post

It's hard for either of us to prove the impact that button combos have on the game. Hence subjectivity when discussing individual skill. Like I said teamshot will be important in any game that is 4v4. If you play halo 2 2v2 it could be argued button combos take precedence and take more skill than pistol aiming.

Share this post


Link to post

This isn't a difficult thing, people just refuse to do it. 

 

Every single Halo revolves around the same fundamental concept - get the power items, hold beneficial map positions (if any). As long as those items are the key to winning, which they are, then gameplay will always center on them and the meta will be linear. Whether one Halo is better than the next has nothing to do with a deviation from this concept. Halo 4 was the only game that tried to get away from it, and that was a catastrophe for multiple reasons...and even then, in the end, it crawled back to that concept regardless.

 

As I said, no Halo game involves a deep meta. Because the game has equal starts, you've removed the greatest avenue for meaningfully nuanced gameplay, which is specialization. This means that the only thing that differentiates one match from another is the spawns and the on-the-fly approach that each individual player takes to maneuvering around the map and engaging his enemies. Thus, the important distinctions between Halo games are not whether they enrich the core game principles, but whether or not they create desirable pacing and reward competent execution.

 

 

With this being said, we need to differentiate between "meta" "depth" and "competitive merit". They certainly aren't mutually-exclusive. Maybe "meta" has been the wrong term for the depth that's present in CE's gameplay. 

 

If "meta" refers strictly to how well players can use the tools at their disposal to their advantage in order to get an edge on their opponents, then no I suppose the meta between titles isn't very different. Like you said, it's about getting power items and keeping map control.

 

If all titles have roughly the same metagame, then we should measure each title's "competitive merit" by how much "depth" can be found in any element of a title's "meta." If we use your example of getting the power items and holding beneficial map positions, it could be argued that the predictability of power item spawns in CE allows for more depth when it comes to map control, since all players are aware of exactly when a given power item will spawn. Power positions shift depending on what's coming up and players are sometimes forced to leave the spot they're holding in order to grab a power item. Similarly, the manipulation of the player spawn system allows otherwise disadvantaged players to take back a power position in some circumstances.

 

The constant risk/reward loop that is made possible by the predictable/exploitable elements of the game isn't present to the same degree in the other titles (as far as I know). This is what I've been calling meta but maybe "depth" or "replayability" is a better term.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I also don't consider video games to be art in the slightest, at least in terms of multiplayer. Function trumps form here and I don't think that subjectivity when evaluating a piece of art should be used in the context of trying to measure a game's competitive merit.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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