Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
BigShow36

Why Kill Times Matter

Recommended Posts

 

@@BigShow36 - I'm not sure if you've ever really seen the game or understand it a whole bunch cause it is incredibly deep and theres a lot to know. 2 shotting an elf gives a very similar feeling to out-shooting an OS player perfectly. Completely different situations, but the head hit boxes are so small in this game, and every bullet has headshot damage multiplier as well as limb shots that deal less damage than standard body shots.

 

I'd say it's got the biggest perfect kill time to average kill time difference on the rifles/pistols. SMGs/Shotty doesn't matter, although it is possible to one-shot an elf wth a shotty headshot.

 

I'm familiar with it but not in any depth. I just hate movement based bloom, and I know that's a large part of the game.

Share this post


Link to post

I've typed almost this exact same thing word for word, complete with the examples, call to average human reaction times and the "I don't want Halo CE 2" disclaimer. It's actually kind of scary. Needless to say, I agree 100%. A bigger separation between minimum and average TTK combined with a lower minimum TTK is really the biggest thing thats never been tried in any Halo sequel. And it's the biggest reason I don't find them fun.

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

I'm familiar with it but not in any depth. I just hate movement based bloom, and I know that's a large part of the game.

 

There is movement based bloom absolutely. I don't blame anyone for disliking bloom while moving or who prefer having their weapon be dead accurate 100% of the time. The bloom works better than in reach because it's able to "do it's job", but contrary to popular belief, it's possible to control your shots full bloom, mid strafe. It seems weapons work very similar to CE. Your own movement will have influence on how the bullet travels and you want to lead your shots based on where they are moving. There is a bit of inconsistency with this, but there's really no great way to do isolated tests. Mid-Long range it doesn't work full bloom, close-mid range fights are possible to control.

 

I can try to post videos to showcase the vast differences in rifle fights, both with stationary fights as well as moving. There's a lot of gun skill involved but theres more of an emphasis on positioning first. So far, I haven't been able to find "perfect kills". I was more interested in this purely from a TTK standpoint, but I do have two good clips. If I do happen to find some perfect kill clips I'll post again but I doubt it.

 

 

 

 

This should never happen. I've never seen it happen before or after this. Each side of the map has somewhat of a head-glitch that is very hard to hit, but of course you'll take max damage since only your head is exposed.

 

 

This also, shouldn't happen, but it happens frequently with skilled players. He's still moving when their first player is stationary ready to fire and out rifles him. He then turns on me in what is one of my most embarrassing moments in all of SR. After killing me he ends up killing the last guy full bloom because he led his crosshair just enough.

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

Great post and thread. But like someone else posted, I don't think 343 wants a utility weapon. The pistol is weak on purpose so you can spawn, use it to a certain extent and then look for other guns. It's a slick way of forcing players to use different guns during a match instead of using loadouts while claiming "even starts" because you spawn with the ar/pistol. They know what they're doing, this is their design.

 

I've never thought this made any sense (from a purely balance/design standpoint). In a utility weapon sandbox, the whole reason for having weapons to pick up on the map is that they fill a specific role. Players take calculated risks in using these weapons. If I have a Hydra out, I know I can approach from the side or behind and quickly dispose of anyone, but if I get caught facing someone straight up, I'm probably toast. If I have a Sniper, I know I'm putting it in my back pocket when I lose track of where enemies might be and I'm expecting mid-range battles.

 

There's no calculation in picking up a BR or a DMR. It's a better Pistol, a straight upgrade. There's no scenario in which you'd rather have a Pistol over one of those rifles. The Pistol is always either as good or worse. So why have BRs and DMRs as pick ups? I would say they're just redundant, but because they're slightly better than the Pistol in general it creates this weird dynamic where some players happened to have picked up one of them and some haven't, actually making it beneficial if a team were able to control the BR/DMR spawns... which is unrealistic for obvious reasons.

 

What's going on now is some kind of borrowing from Quake or similar arena shooters where the first thing a player looks to do off spawn is upgrade his crappy default weapon. That doesn't work so well for Halo since it's not so heavily movement-based or built around the concept of an arms race.

 

As far as the rifles go I actually see merit in keeping the Light Rifle. With the slower shot speed, slow zoom, and increased scoped damage, it actually serves a bit of a niche (long range force against unsuspecting opponents while being worse in teamshooting situations).

 

If it were up to me I would just remove all BRs and DMRs from competitive settings. 4sk Pistol is all that's necessary. There are similar redundancy issues with automatics but I won't get into that now because at this point going over the reasons would just be... well, redundant.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is a straw man argument: in the full sandbox there are more options than you present. For example, interesting/unexpected angles, grenades (as someone facetiously pointed out earlier), and playing with the combination of engagement range and tier 1/2 weapons.

 

Your argument stands in the isolation of a cover-less pistol battle scenario, but seems to be ignoring the full Halo sandbox and the complexities it brings to the table.

Share this post


Link to post

The biggest problem are "abilities". Halo cannot and will not ever work as long as armor abilities/Spartan abilities or any other game breaking movement gimmicks are included. Halo's sales and population will continue to nose dive as long as game breaking gimmicks are involved. Having a shield is the defensive mechanism. Anything added to that breaks the game. The only way Halo will ever regain popularity is if they go back to the original formula. Maps should be properly sized and for traversing the maps, bring back portals, man cannons, lifts, and have a fairly quick base movement.

 

 

Honestly that's my biggest issue with H5, the abilities. I can't bring myself to play it because of these stupid ass abilities. If they took them out and made maps the way Bungie did I'd like the game quite a bit.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is a straw man argument: in the full sandbox there are more options than you present. For example, interesting/unexpected angles, grenades (as someone facetiously pointed out earlier), and playing with the combination of engagement range and tier 1/2 weapons.

 

Your argument stands in the isolation of a cover-less pistol battle scenario, but seems to be ignoring the full Halo sandbox and the complexities it brings to the table.

The amount of variables would make an all-encompassing analysis impractical. I agree that there are other variables that affect engagements, but the core of every engagement is player vs player. The presence of other variables does not negate the overall impact of kill times.

Share this post


Link to post

I think this is a straw man argument: in the full sandbox there are more options than you present. For example, interesting/unexpected angles, grenades (as someone facetiously pointed out earlier), and playing with the combination of engagement range and tier 1/2 weapons.

 

Your argument stands in the isolation of a cover-less pistol battle scenario, but seems to be ignoring the full Halo sandbox and the complexities it brings to the table.

 

While I agree with BigShow's premise, I also have to agree with this also. I'll preface this post with I'm not trying to argue or say you are wrong (far from it), but wanted to ask a few question about your analysis and see if perhaps you took a few points into consideration and I'm perhaps just missing them.

 

One thing that struck me when reading it was the emphasis on reaction time. Specifically for the 2 Red players to begin placing shots on the single Blue player. My understanding is reaction time is the time "when I realize someone is happening and when I BEGIN doing something" (my half ass definition). However what about the time for the actions to actually be carried out? Basically the overall time until Red players actually begin engagement (call it red player engagement). Hopefully I can explain what I mean by that with an example.

 

Consider the situation where both Red players have their backs facing the Blue player (full 180 out). In such a situation I'd expect a longer amount of time before Red players can begin engagement. It depends on sensitivity, but you still need to (1)react by pressing the joy stick and (2)wait for the player model to turn and face the opponent. Even then, many times you will over or under turn and will still need time to actually get your aim on the opponent. Seldom do I see players just wipe around and land dead on to the opponent so they can immediately place accurate shots.

 

So I guess what I'm getting at is, what does the average reaction time of "0.271" really encompass. Because the way I read it, it only covers becoming aware you have to do something and initiating the action, but not the actual time to complete the action (or correct your action when you potentially don't get it perfect, ie. turn your reticle to far). I would say that the reaction time + whatever time it takes before Red player actually can place an accurate shot on Blue player is "Red Player Time to Engagement" or something along those lines, and is what really matters.

 

Perhaps most players, or above average ones, can indeed react, communicate, turn their player model, line up the opponent, and place an accurate shot in 0.271 seconds or less (both primary and secondary Red players). I don't really know, but it does sound rather fast if I'm being honest. I'd love to see some video (theater mode) of engagements like this (from Pro and maybe Onyx players) where we can see some average timing it takes.

 

 

Again, I'm just trying to understand the argument better and not necessarily disagreeing with you. I say this multiple times because I know that the majority of this forum will be on your side of this argument and I don't want people to think I'm arguing the point, just trying to have a conversation of the analysis you have done.

Share this post


Link to post

While I agree with BigShow's premise, I also have to agree with this also. I'll preface this post with I'm not trying to argue or say you are wrong (far from it), but wanted to ask a few question about your analysis and see if perhaps you took a few points into consideration and I'm perhaps just missing them.

 

One thing that struck me when reading it was the emphasis on reaction time. Specifically for the 2 Red players to begin placing shots on the single Blue player. My understanding is reaction time is the time "when I realize someone is happening and when I BEGIN doing something" (my half ass definition). However what about the time for the actions to actually be carried out? Basically the overall time until Red players actually begin engagement (call it red player engagement). Hopefully I can explain what I mean by that with an example.

 

Consider the situation where both Red players have their backs facing the Blue player (full 180 out). In such a situation I'd expect a longer amount of time before Red players can begin engagement. It depends on sensitivity, but you still need to (1)react by pressing the joy stick and (2)wait for the player model to turn and face the opponent. Even then, many times you will over or under turn and will still need time to actually get your aim on the opponent. Seldom do I see players just wipe around and land dead on to the opponent so they can immediately place accurate shots.

 

So I guess what I'm getting at is, what does the average reaction time of "0.271" really encompass. Because the way I read it, it only covers becoming aware you have to do something and initiating the action, but not the actual time to complete the action (or correct your action when you potentially don't get it perfect, ie. turn your reticle to far). I would say that the reaction time + whatever time it takes before Red player actually can place an accurate shot on Blue player is "Red Player Time to Engagement" or something along those lines, and is what really matters.

 

Perhaps most players, or above average ones, can indeed react, communicate, turn their player model, line up the opponent, and place an accurate shot in 0.271 seconds or less (both primary and secondary Red players). I don't really know, but it does sound rather fast if I'm being honest. I'd love to see some video (theater mode) of engagements like this (from Pro and maybe Onyx players) where we can see some average timing it takes.

 

 

Again, I'm just trying to understand the argument better and not necessarily disagreeing with you. I say this multiple times because I know that the majority of this forum will be on your side of this argument and I don't want people to think I'm arguing the point, just trying to have a conversation of the analysis you have done.

My analysis assumes it takes two "reactions." The first shot lands, they begin to respond, the second shot lands and they acquire their target, only on the third shot are they shooting back.

Share this post


Link to post

Great post and thread. But like someone else posted, I don't think 343 wants a utility weapon. The pistol is weak on purpose so you can spawn, use it to a certain extent and then look for other guns. It's a slick way of forcing players to use different guns during a match instead of using loadouts while claiming "even starts" because you spawn with the ar/pistol. They know what they're doing, this is their design.

Even with that said, they could still lower the TTK on all the guns.

Share this post


Link to post

My analysis assumes it takes two "reactions." The first shot lands, they begin to respond, the second shot lands and they acquire their target, only on the third shot are they shooting back.

 

So exactly how much time is passing between "they begin to respond" and "they shoot back"? I'm missing that I think.

Share this post


Link to post

So exactly how much time is passing between "they begin to respond" and "they shoot back"? I'm missing that I think.

1st bullet hits - they begin to respond (.271 seconds)

2nd bullet hits - they are acquiring the target (.271 seconds)

All three players fire simultaneously.

Share this post


Link to post

So exactly how much time is passing between "they begin to respond" and "they shoot back"? I'm missing that I think.

He doesn't state it explicitly, but his diagram example shows two complete shot windows, so I take that to mean the ambusher gets 0.6 seconds and two shots before being engaged.

 

In any case, it sounds like this is an argument for breakout, where the TTK is much lower. Yet I mostly hear disdain for that game type on these forums. Is this an argument for breakout?

Share this post


Link to post

I've typed almost this exact same thing word for word, complete with the examples, call to average human reaction times and the "I don't want Halo CE 2" disclaimer. It's actually kind of scary. Needless to say, I agree 100%. A bigger separation between minimum and average TTK combined with a lower minimum TTK is really the biggest thing thats never been tried in any Halo sequel. And it's the biggest reason I don't find them fun.

 

I couldn't find it! wanted to compare how things have changed since your write-up. 

Share this post


Link to post

He doesn't state it explicitly, but his diagram example shows two complete shot windows, so I take that to mean the ambusher gets 0.6 seconds and two shots before being engaged.

 

In any case, it sounds like this is an argument for breakout, where the TTK is much lower. Yet I mostly hear disdain for that game type on these forums. Is this an argument for breakout?

 

There are several issues that make breakout less than ideal, but you'll notice that players are more intelligent in their routes, more strategic in how they engage, and that solo players can often overcome multiple players.

 

This is not an argument for Breakout, but the kill times (the OP BR ruins a lot of it) are not the real issue with Breakout.

Share this post


Link to post

We're on the same page wrt to breakout.

 

However, let me run another, related, thought by you: one conclusion I could draw from your argument is that there's an increased requirement on teamwork in Halo versus shooters with less TTK, right? And I don't think many would argue that good teamwork (especially at the pace required by Halo 5) is hard to achieve (here's an interesting quora post on teamwork). I would even say it's harder to develop than individual skill. So, if you accept that premise, then doesn't it stand that Halo 5 4v4 is actually more difficult than a shooter with less TTK? If so, then I would propose that it's more fun to watch a good team execute in Halo than in a shooter with less TTK.

 

Now I understand difficulty =/= fun, and it seems like you are arguing for increasing fun-factor, not difficulty. But I just thought this was an interesting thought that stems from your original argument.

Share this post


Link to post

We're on the same page wrt to breakout.

 

However, let me run another, related, thought by you: one conclusion I could draw from your argument is that there's an increased requirement on teamwork in Halo versus shooters with less TTK, right? And I don't think many would argue that good teamwork (especially at the pace required by Halo 5) is hard to achieve (here's an interesting quora post on teamwork). I would even say it's harder to develop than individual skill. So, if you accept that premise, then doesn't it stand that Halo 5 4v4 is actually more difficult than a shooter with less TTK? If so, then I would propose that it's more fun to watch a good team execute in Halo than in a shooter with less TTK.

 

Now I understand difficulty =/= fun, and it seems like you are arguing for increasing fun-factor, not difficulty. But I just thought this was an interesting thought that stems from your original argument.

 

That's the common thought progression. However, teamwork being more apparent does not mean it is a more demanding. Imagine two "buckets" full of water; one bucket is the "Individual Skill" bucket and the other is the "Teamwork" bucket. Dumping water from the "Individual Skill" bucket does not increase the amount of water in the "teamwork" bucket. The "teamwork" bucket now looks like it's more important, but all that happened was the overall skill requirements were decreased. One does not need to come at the expense of the other.

 

No one can convince me that holding a static power position and relying on geometric and numerical advantages (H2, H3, etc) requires more teamwork than 2 or more individuals each working independently, with a higher demand on their own individual abilities as well as the numerical and geometric advantages, to successfully execute the strategy.

 

It's like saying "Red Rover" has more teamwork than Hockey because look at how close they are AND they're holding hands!

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

No one can convince me that holding a static power position and relying on geometric and numerical advantages (H2, H3, etc) requires more teamwork than 2 or more individuals each working independently, with a higher demand on their own individual abilities as well as the numerical and geometric advantages, to successfully execute the strategy.

This is a big reason why h1 is an objectivley better competitive game than every other halo game.

 

It is not subjective that the teamshot style of halo (h2 and on) is much less demanding than the cyclic zoning style of teamwork in h1. This is just fact.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I don't even think the perfect pistol kill time is really the biggest problem with the weapon. The fact that you can only get that perfect kill time at very limited range consistently is worse in my opinion.

 

If you can argue that 1.2 seconds is too slow, and you are assuming 100% accuracy, think of how much the whole game goes to hell when you go outside that range.

Not like Arena breakout isn't the embodification of evil anyways, but try outpistoling someone plat to plat from the starting spawns. It might just be me, but I'd rather have a root canal.

 

Even if through some miracle 4sk pistol starts would happen (they won't) half the angles on the maps are still effectively worthless because you can't actually kill anyone who is trying to get away from you.

 

Sure, a faster killling pistol would be good for the game, but without the necessary range the weapon is still lackluster.

Share this post


Link to post

I've typed almost this exact same thing word for word, complete with the examples, call to average human reaction times and the "I don't want Halo CE 2" disclaimer. It's actually kind of scary. Needless to say, I agree 100%. A bigger separation between minimum and average TTK combined with a lower minimum TTK is really the biggest thing thats never been tried in any Halo sequel. And it's the biggest reason I don't find them fun.

 

Do you remember what it was called and when you wrote it? I've looked up lots of old stuff on the MLG forums and were able to find lots of interesting stuff.

Share this post


Link to post

That's the common thought progression. However, teamwork being more apparent does not mean it is a more demanding. Imagine two "buckets" full of water; one bucket is the "Individual Skill" bucket and the other is the "Teamwork" bucket. Dumping water from the "Individual Skill" bucket does not increase the amount of water in the "teamwork" bucket. The "teamwork" bucket now looks like it's more important, but all that happened was the overall skill requirements were decreased. One does not need to come at the expense of the other.

 

No one can convince me that holding a static power position and relying on geometric and numerical advantages (H2, H3, etc) requires more teamwork than 2 or more individuals each working independently, with a higher demand on their own individual abilities as well as the numerical and geometric advantages, to successfully execute the strategy.

 

It's like saying "Red Rover" has more teamwork than Hockey because look at how close they are AND they're holding hands!

 

That's a decent analogy and fairly convincing. Essentially, you're saying that a game ​requiring​ teamwork because individual skill can't trump team-shot doesn't mean teamwork is any less important in a low-TTK game where individual skill can trump a team-shot.

 

However, you're strawman-ing again in your second paragraph: no one is arguing that holding a static power position and relying on geometric and numerical advantages takes more teamwork. In fact, that's not how anyone plays Halo. You'll see this echoed in how the pro players will voice their support/preference for objective game types, and the fact that no one evangelizes that strategy. And I'm confused by your Red Rover v. Hockey analogy, but that's besides the point, and I think you already made a good one.

 

To advance our discussion, though, what about this thought: to execute a successful flank in a high-TTK game that requires team-shot means the flanker cannot mistime the attack with their teammates. Doing so would result in the scenario you originally describe. While in a low-TTK game, the flank maneuver doesn't have to be timed as well due to the flanker's individual skill being able to make up the failings of the team. Therefore, flanking maneuvers (one of the most common tactics in games) are more difficult to execute in high-TTK games.

 

I think this is a more accurate representation of the point I was attempting to make earlier.

Share this post


Link to post

However, you're strawman-ing again in your second paragraph: no one is arguing that holding a static power position and relying on geometric and numerical advantages takes more teamwork. In fact, that's not how anyone plays Halo. You'll see this echoed in how the pro players will voice their support/preference for objective game types, and the fact that no one evangelizes that strategy.

 

I would argue that's exactly how Halo 2 and Halo 3 were played. Almost every strategy focused on holding a certain position on the map and having players watch certain areas. Setups were incredibly difficult to break because to the TTK was too slow for players to effectively threaten a good setup. If you were caught a solo player you had absolutely no chance against two opponents. That is the natural strategic evolution of a game that doesn't allow a solo player to be effective; teams will stay close together in a static setup.

 

To advance our discussion, though, what about this thought: to execute a successful flank in a high-TTK game that requires team-shot means the flanker cannot mistime the attack with their teammates. Doing so would result in the scenario you originally describe. While in a low-TTK game, the flank maneuver doesn't have to be timed as well due to the flanker's individual skill being able to make up the failings of the team. Therefore, flanking maneuvers (one of the most common tactics in games) are more difficult to execute in high-TTK games.

 

I think this is a more accurate representation of the point I was attempting to make earlier.

 

My point is that a solo-flanker, no matter how well timed, cannot realistically be successful in a high-TTK game. Your example is that of an engagement with equal players on either side; TTK has much less impact in those situations. I would say that any simultaneous co-ordination maneuvers are difficult regardless of the TTK. In a high-TTK game a mistimed flanker can simply back-down. I haven't given it much thought, but think it's going to be difficult to properly evaluate the "teamwork differential" between a simultaneous team move in a high-TTK game vs. a low one.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

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
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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