Jump to content
valaea

Rank All Halo Multiplayer Experiences on 1-10 Scale

Recommended Posts

I'm pretty sure a quadshot is slightly faster than the pistol. I searched high and low for some ttk posts but no one had that stat unfortunately. I know it is pretty damn fast. Do you have any proof you found? As for the riskiness of it, again we are only comparing objectively what is possible from the game code, you heard aphex. The very elite could perform quadshots regularly enough that it would not be a major risk to try.

 

As for the second point, I don't think you are considering the magnitude of variables from Forge creations. You only mentioned maps in your counter argument but it's not just maps, you can adjust damage and movement and all kinds of settings. From an objective standpoint using the code from the game there are infinite variables to consider vs halo 1 which is locked down and restricted to a set amount of gametypes and maps. So clearly halo games using Forge would require omnipotent powers to be the very best you can possibly be at it, no human being can master infinite variables. Remember we are only talking about what is objectively possible from the game code, we are not operating in subjective rules placed on the game by Bungie online or MLG for tournaments.

 

 
I don't have proof that a quad shot is equal to the Pistol, I just thought it made sense that it would be half that of the normal kill time from a logistics standpoint, but it looks like I didn't give it enough thought and could very well be wrong. Anyway, while I can't say whether or not RRX is more difficult to do than the Pistol is to use, in CE you don't have any other option for damage output at all ranges. There are no "safe options". In H2 you aren't forced to use RRX for damage output, you can always use the "safe option" and team shoot while firing normally. (Which is why the BR, DMR, and Carbine in Halo 5 are so wonderful for that game and enhance the experience. :} )
 
 
And I missed the part in your other post mentioning changing damage and movement modifiers and the like in addition to having Forge maps, but come on, man. Nobody will ever play competitively on all the possible combinations of settings you can make. Aphex isn't considering these custom game options either because it's completely irrelevant and a waste of time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

 
I don't have proof that a quad shot is equal to the Pistol, I just thought it made sense that it would be half that of the normal kill time from a logistics standpoint, but it looks like I didn't give it enough thought and could very well be wrong. Anyway, while I can't say whether or not RRX is more difficult to do than the Pistol is to use, in CE you don't have any other option for damage output at all ranges. There are no "safe options". In H2 you aren't forced to use RRX for damage output, you can always use the "safe option" and team shoot while firing normally. (Which is why the BR, DMR, and Carbine in Halo 5 are so wonderful for that game and enhance the experience. :} )
 
 
And I missed the part in your other post mentioning changing damage and movement modifiers and the like in addition to having Forge maps, but come on, man. Nobody will ever play competitively on all the possible combinations of settings you can make. Aphex isn't considering these custom game options either because it's completely irrelevant and a waste of time.

 

 

I'm proving to him the absurdity of his argument about using the game code to "objectively" determine which game has more depth. It is completely nuts.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm proving to him the absurdity of his argument about using the game code to "objectively" determine which game has more depth. It is completely nuts.

 

How is it completely nuts? When it all comes down to it, video games are just a series of numbers. Math. With sufficient information and a logical thought process it's never impossible to get to the objective truth of things. You brought up irrelevant custom game options that have no bearing on the game mechanics that people will actually play competitively in MM and tournaments.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

How is it completely nuts? When it all comes down to it, video games are just a series of numbers. Math. With sufficient information and a logical thought process it's never impossible to get to the objective truth of things. You brought up irrelevant custom game options that have no bearing on the game mechanics that people will actually play competitively in MM and tournaments.

I already explained in great detail about emergent gameplay. Human beings are irrational and unpredictable. If you think a purely mathematical approach works I invite you to try to game the stock market using only common sense mathematical logic with no factors for irrational human behavior.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I mean really, arguing objectively from the code on subjectively placed rules by tournament organizers means you've already lost the argument.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I already explained in great detail about emergent gameplay. Human beings are irrational and unpredictable. If you think a purely mathematical approach works I invite you to try to game the stock market using only common sense mathematical logic with no factors for irrational human behavior.

What? If there are mathematically more and broader options to differentiate one player from another in terms of skill and strategy, the unpredictability and irrationality of human behavior would be a BIGGER factor. That's just a fact. If the game is more predictable because there are fewer factors that vary less, the players will be more predictable as well, which means less depth. Why do you think this is an argument against objectively greater depth? You haven't actually made any points that contradict that assertion. This makes no sense at all.

Share this post


Link to post

What? If there are mathematically more and broader options to differentiate one player from another in terms of skill and strategy, the unpredictability and irrationality of human behavior would be a BIGGER factor. That's just a fact. If the game is more predictable because there are fewer factors that vary less, the players will be more predictable as well, which means less depth. Why do you think this is an argument against objectively greater depth? You haven't actually made any points that contradict that assertion. This makes no sense at all.

 

I'm saying there's no way to objectively ascertain solely from game code what behavioural outcomes and emergent gameplay there will be down to an exact science.

 

And unpredictability does not make a game deeper. Halo 5 would take the cake if that were the case.

Share this post


Link to post

H1: 9/10

 

H2: 6/10

 

H3: 4/10

 

pre patch reach: 5/10

 

Post patch: 7/10

 

H4: 2/10

 

H5: 8/10

 

Call me a hipster but I disliked halo 2s cheesy, slow and passive gameplay. thsts mainly why I have it so low compared to most even if I do appreciate h2s button glitches.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'm saying there's no way to objectively ascertain solely from game code what behavioural outcomes and emergent gameplay there will be down to an exact science.

 

And unpredictability does not make a game deeper. Halo 5 would take the cake if that were the case.

That argument was never made. Saying there is objectively more depth does not equate to getting behavioral outcomes and emergent gameplay down to an exact science. You're shifting the goal posts.

 

For the second sentence, that's not really what I said, but it could have been phrased better. 

 

In a Halo 1 vs Halo 5 comparison, Halo 1 has fewer mechanics that are more consistent, more systemic in their design (emergent gameplay), and are much more heavily influenced by player decision-making and skill. Simply put: H5 has more shit that you can do much less with, and H1 has less shit that you can do much more with. One is complexity, the other is depth (not that the two are mutually exclusive). How is giving players more influence and more viable options in the context of a similar number of discrete mechanics anything but more depth? You're saying you can't objectively account for player behavior, but if players are given fewer legitimately viable options, that is demonstrably and quantifiably limiting their behavior. If fewer mechanics in the game are allowed to interact (as is generally the case from CE to later games), that is quantifiably limiting the potential for emergent gameplay. I don't know why you seem to want these things to be some mysterious X-factor that can't be rationally accounted for in any way.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

That argument was never made. Saying there is objectively more depth does not equate to getting behavioral outcomes and emergent gameplay down to an exact science. You're shifting the goal posts.

 

For the second sentence, that's not really what I said, but it could have been phrased better. 

 

In a Halo 1 vs Halo 5 comparison, Halo 1 has fewer mechanics that are more consistent, more systemic in their design (emergent gameplay), and are much more heavily influenced by player decision-making and skill. Simply put: H5 has more shit that you can do much less with, and H1 has less shit that you can do much more with. One is complexity, the other is depth (not that the two are mutually exclusive). How is giving players more influence and more viable options in the context of a similar number of discrete mechanics anything but more depth? You're saying you can't objectively account for player behavior, but if players are given fewer legitimately viable options, that is demonstrably and quantifiably limiting their behavior. If fewer mechanics in the game are allowed to interact (as is generally the case from CE to later games), that is quantifiably limiting the potential for emergent gameplay. I don't know why you seem to want these things to be some mysterious X-factor that can't be rationally accounted for in any way.

 

I have absolutely no clue how me bringing up a point about how behavioural outcomes cannot be determined from game code is irrelevant and "shifting the goal posts" when his entire argument revolves around making objective calls about depth purely from game code.

 

I was responding to your argument that unpredictability from players means more depth. I'm not sure what your determination is that more mechanics with less options vs fewer mechanics with more options is objectively superior than the other. Remember, this has nothing to do with opinion or game design philosophy, but objective science. I keep having to bring this point back around.

 

 

 

Another point, Aphex cannot just say "It has more of x, therefore it is better". His whole argument about less bullet magnetism = more depth for instance is bullshit, because when all bullet magnetism was removed in MCC, people lost their minds because it played like shit and let people make stupid decisions like going out on the Hang Em High catwalk without getting punished for it. Again, there is a delicate balance between the entire breadth of mechanics so you can't just make determinations purely from game code. Imagine that two different intelligent game playing species exist. One species has incredible control over the movement of their thumbs and quick reaction time and can gun down players very quickly. You would have to tone down the aim assist for this species for the gameplay to work because the aiming would be too easy for them and players would die too quickly. Now imagine the other species had giant thumbs and slow reaction times and couldn't aim well at all. You would have to increase the aim assist massively to make the game work proper for them otherwise you'd end up with a situation like with MCC-no-assist where it fucks up the entire balance of maps and gameplay because nobody can hit anything and punish bad players for making poor decisions.

 

You have to test the game and see how players interact in the sandbox. If creating a objectively better competitive game came down to just looking at the game code and saying "Yep, this is better, it takes more skill because there's no aim assist, the math says so" then it would be far easier to make a great competitive game than it is.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

H1: 9/10

 

H2: 6/10

 

H3: 4/10

 

pre patch reach: 5/10

 

Post patch: 7/10

 

H4: 2/10

 

H5: 8/10

 

Call me a hipster but I disliked halo 2s cheesy, slow and passive gameplay. thsts mainly why I have it so low compared to most even if I do appreciate h2s button glitches.

 

Ok I have to ask, what exactly, do you mean by "cheesy, slow, and passive gameplay" in H2C.  I would love to hear specific examples and any clips that could prove these points.

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I have to ask, what exactly, do you mean by "cheesy, slow, and passive gameplay" in H2C.  I would love to hear specific examples and any clips that could prove these points.

Power weapons in H2 were Dynamic power weapons. Meaning players with the previous power weapon had full disclosure on when weapons spawn and the other team didn't. This is one of the main issues with h2 where it does create passive gameplay. H2 had a lot of setups, setups as a trait are meant to be slow. You aren't supposed to be moving a ton compared to other games. Oddball as a gametype is setup oriented, the way slayer played with how power weapons worked when it came to it being dynamic, created a slow approach besides maybe Midship. The reason setups were so strong were how power weapons were done, how slow the BR killed (1.4 right?), etc. Its just how the game worked, im not going to pull up a ton of videos but maps like Lockout Slayer had a slow approach to it that was set up based. Sanc Flag in '06 against FB Gandhi literally sat at his Carbine for like a whole minute until they got 3 dead then went to hut. Lockout Ball is a setup map, Carbon was cool for making the BR setup and doing really well with it and FB did the Green room set up iirc, setups are designed for zoning in the best positions. That's just how it works. The game works in a slower approach where defensive play is more important to a player with things like setups. I don't even think im alone in that aspect, I remember talking to cT a while back asking how H2 played in the high levels as he was actually attending events or whatever and he said the same thing. The game was setup oriented.

 

Halo 5 though isn't, even Snakebite said they don't do setups. Thats not how they operate, you cant do well in Halo 5 and play in a setup oriented fashion. The metagame has evolved past that already. Bunker setup in Rig is straight up month #1 and even then some players understood thats not how you should play the map. No map in h5 really is setup oriented, you move so fast in the game you can get across Truth in 8 seconds . The game, whether you like h5 or not, is the fastest 4v4 Halo so far. Even Towey says this is the fastest Halo game. 

Share this post


Link to post

1.2, same as the H5 Magnum.

Wait really? I swear I remember it being slower and h3 having a faster TTK (but te spread made it bad)

Share this post


Link to post

Wait really? I swear I remember it being slower and h3 having a faster TTK (but te spread made it bad)

Lol, why?

 

The average kill time of the h2 BR is close to the fastest for any spawn precision weapon in franchise history.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Ok I have to ask, what exactly, do you mean by "cheesy, slow, and passive gameplay" in H2C.  I would love to hear specific examples and any clips that could prove these points.

 

Lockout TS at a Halo tournament = borefest.

 

H1 - 9/10

 

Mostly because of the high skill gap. Watching Ogre 2 nade weapons to himself and rocket powerups with ease and things like that just shows how skillful the game can be.

 

H2 - 8/10

 

If we're factoring in my childhood nostalgia. If we're not, and it's purely based on how the game plays, I'd drop it down to a 7.5.

 

H3 - 7.5/10

 

Reach - 4/10.

 

The only good thing I liked about this game was Doubles. Played that religiously.

 

H4 - 0/10

 

H5 - 6.5/10

 

This game has so much potential. Bad playlists, no party restrictions, and OP autos are my main gripe. I like the Arena update though.

Share this post


Link to post

Lol, why?

 

The average kill time of the h2 BR is close to the fastest for any spawn precision weapon in franchise history.

Just double checked, it's 1.43 for the h2 BR. I was wrong on h3 BR though.

 

156e3hl.jpg

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
H1: 9

H2: 9

H3: 7 (Great with friends and was pretty fun minus the glaring problems with the Blood Shots and BR)

Reach (vanilla): 4 (Competitive) 7 (Casual, Game was really fun when fooling around with friends) 

Reach MLG v7: 6

H4: 3

H5: 6 (was fun at first then lost interest) 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You have reduced your argument down to almost purely the aim skill between the two games now

 

No, I was just heavily referencing that one variable for the sake of simplicity. We can talk about melee lunge distance, the number of random number generators programmed into the game, grenade fuse times, etc... This goes far beyond aim skill and can all be backed up with objective numbers.

 

I now understand that by "quad shot" you mean RRX, YY, RRX. The problem with this comparison is that the doubleshot glitch requires you to be holding a secondary weapon. The doubleshot's fastest kill time can not be performed with the utility weapon alone, therefore the BR, on it's own, does not surpass the CE pistol's kill time on it's own. By your logic here, the H4 BR has a faster kill time than the Ce pistol because you can pick up a damage amplifier and boost your kill time. Hopefully you see the flaws in your argument.

 

it just gives more individual opportunities to distinguish yourself by giving greater ability to the individual.

 

Greater bullet magnetism and melee lunge distance allows individuals to distinguish themselves by giving a greater shooting and melee ability to the individual.

 

What is the difference between your statement and that one^^?

You actually haven't proven there are more viable strategies between the games because you only compared two game modes.

All of the numbers used for things like melee lunge distance, bullet magnetism, etc... (please don't mistake me mentioning only these two variables as simplifying the argument, I'm just trying to avoid redundancy and save myself some time) are consistent across all game modes in Halo 1 and Halo 2. Your BR kill time, for example, does not change from slayer and CTF in H2. Therefore, the need to position yourself such that your LOS aligns with your teammates, stays constant across all game modes.

some guys like to collect powerups as their skill, and this skill is still present in halo 2

 

Sure, it's just greatly diminished by comparison due to H2's weapon spawn system.

 

In CE, you didn't NEED to have a support player, much like how you didn't NEED to camp the same power position/setup for the entire duration of the game. That came about naturally rather than being forced into the game due to the limitations placed on an individual's ability to distinguish themselves.

So objectively you'd have to say any game with Forge requires the most skill because there's limitless possibilities of maps and modes and adjusted weapon variables to be mindful of.

When we discuss a game using odd custom game options/forge variants, we're actually comparing different game designs. We can do that if you'd like, but it doesn't make much sense because the variables used in, say, Halo 3 with rocket launcher starts and overshields on 10s respawns isn't the same Halo 3 design that I'm comparing to CE- there's a reason people separate Default Reach and ZBNS Reach instead of just clumping it all together with Halo Reach. Same with Halo 4 and Halo 4 promod- are you really going to try to argue that H4 has more competitive merit than H2 because of the promod settings?

 

Furthermore, the developer's custom game options/forge have never given us enough tools to really make an impact on the game. For example, no matter what custom game settings/forge variants you use in H3/Reach/H4/H5, you're still playing with the same amount of melee lunge, bullet magnetism, hitscan, descope, etc... Until we can modify the numbers in the game's code used to determine these variables, we will never be able to change the game enough such that the its objective depth surpasses CE's.

when all bullet magnetism was removed in MCC, people lost their minds because it played like shit and let people make stupid decisions like going out on the Hang Em High catwalk without getting punished for it.

Bullet magnetism isn't the only difference between MCC and OG- It isn't really fair to use this comparison without factoring every other difference between the two games first. But let's go with it- you are essentially saying that having absolutely no bullet magnetism programmed into the game's code allows for stupid plays to go unpunished because it is way too hard to hit targets with bullet magnetism off (and for the record, I do not necessarily advocate for a value of 0 to be used for bullet magnetism in a Halo game)- why can't we use this same logic of "it's too hard to execute, therefore nobody will fully utilize it" to discount your BR doubleshot vs CE pistol argument? You rarely see it used by top players at 2006-2007 MLG events.

 

I don't agree with that, button glitches are a part of H2's game code and we must take them into consideration when valuing the game's depth. I just want to point out the flawed logic you are using.

Share this post


Link to post

No, I was just heavily referencing that one variable for the sake of simplicity. We can talk about melee lunge distance, the number of random number generators programmed into the game, grenade fuse times, etc... This goes far beyond aim skill and can all be backed up with objective numbers. 

 

I now understand that by "quad shot" you mean RRX, YY, RRX. The problem with this comparison is that the doubleshot glitch requires you to be holding a secondary weapon. The doubleshot's fastest kill time can not be performed with the utility weapon alone, therefore the BR, on it's own, does not surpass the CE pistol's kill time on it's own. By your logic here, the H4 BR has a faster kill time than the Ce pistol because you can pick up a damage amplifier and boost your kill time. Hopefully you see the flaws in your argument. 

 

 

 

Greater bullet magnetism and melee lunge distance allows individuals to distinguish themselves by giving a greater shooting and melee ability to the individual. 

 

What is the difference between your statement and that one^^? 

 

 

All of the numbers used for things like melee lunge distance, bullet magnetism, etc... (please don't mistake me mentioning only these two variables as simplifying the argument, I'm just trying to avoid redundancy and save myself some time) are consistent across all game modes in Halo 1 and Halo 2. Your BR kill time, for example, does not change from slayer and CTF in H2. Therefore, the need to position yourself such that your LOS aligns with your teammates, stays constant across all game modes. 

 

Sure, it's just greatly diminished by comparison due to H2's weapon spawn system. 

 

In CE, you didn't NEED to have a support player, much like how you didn't NEED to camp the same power position/setup for the entire duration of the game. That came about naturally rather than being forced into the game due to the limitations placed on an individual's ability to distinguish themselves. 

 

When we discuss a game using odd custom game options/forge variants, we're actually comparing different game designs. We can do that if you'd like, but it doesn't make much sense because the variables used in, say, Halo 3 with rocket launcher starts and overshields on 10s respawns isn't the same Halo 3 design that I'm comparing to CE- there's a reason people separate Default Reach and ZBNS Reach instead of just clumping it all together with Halo Reach. Same with Halo 4 and Halo 4 promod- are you really going to try to argue that H4 has more competitive merit than H2 because of the promod settings? 

 

Furthermore, the developer's custom game options/forge have never given us enough tools to really make an impact on the game. For example, no matter what custom game settings/forge variants you use in H3/Reach/H4/H5, you're still playing with the same amount of melee lunge, bullet magnetism, hitscan, descope, etc... Until we can modify the numbers in the game's code used to determine these variables, we will never be able to change the game enough such that the its objective depth surpasses CE's. 

 

 

Bullet magnetism isn't the only difference between MCC and OG- It isn't really fair to use this comparison without factoring every other difference between the two games first. But let's go with it- you are essentially saying that having absolutely no bullet magnetism programmed into the game's code allows for stupid plays to go unpunished because it is way too hard to hit targets with bullet magnetism off (and for the record, I do not necessarily advocate for a value of 0 to be used for bullet magnetism in a Halo game)- why can't we use this same logic of "it's too hard to execute, therefore nobody will fully utilize it" to discount your BR doubleshot bs CE pistol argument? You rarely see it used by top players at 2006-2007 MLG events. 

 

I don't agree with that, button glitches are a part of H2's game code and we must take them into consideration when valuing the game's depth. I just want to point out the flawed logic you are using. 

 

Pointless argument. The comparisons to Halo 4 are not valid. Damage boost is a powerup which hardly anyone has for the duration of the match. You can spawn with a secondary weapon in Halo 2 or pick one up almost immediately. To completely discount the optimal TTK because you need another weapon in your back pocket to perform it is completely asinine since you can reasonably perform the quadshot at almost any given point in a match. I'm not even going to bother addressing this debate anymore if you're going to use that as an argument lol.

 

You also completely gloss over the varying strategies that are required to be mastered by players to be top competitors in Halo 2. You insist on comparing the base mechanics instead of the entire breadth of the games discussed. I already told you that I agree Halo 1's base mechanics are superior. Again, this whole argument has been about objectivity vs subjectivity, not just Halo 1 vs Halo 2. Halo 2 is just the best proxy for this argument to show how competitive depth has subjective elements. It is impossible to objectively compare the depth of the variety of game modes in Halo 2 vs the depth of one mode from Halo 1. They are apples and oranges. You have a fair enough point about JUST the base mechanics, but not about mastery of game mode strategies.

 

 

My point about Forge was that objectively if you only look at game code as you repeatedly state, then Halo 3 has infinite things to master from the game code perspective. If you introduce subjective MLG rules onto the debate, then your argument falls apart.

 

Just because people didn't use it so much in 2006-2007 doesn't mean it couldn't be used now, in 2v2 games where individual shot ability is more important. You see teamshot in any 4v4 game including CE. This is a point you have failed to convincingly disprove.

 

You also failed to address the point I made about zero bullet magnetism and how technically from game code perspective it allows for greater skill gap, but in reality it does not work. You only tried to prove how my other argument is hypocritical. It's possible that you are right that my argument is hypocritical when considering my previous dismissal of the viability of doubleshot, but it doesn't disprove the point I made about zero bullet magnetism making the game subjectively worse but "objectively from the game code" better.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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