Jump to content
CyReN

Halo World Championship 2018 Teams, Seeds, and Discussion‏

Recommended Posts

Well, if you're playing Arena, I guess. But the most "ambitious" addition to Halo multiplayer ever, Warzone, which was the primary casual experience for the game and completely built around a micro-transaction system, absolutely puts new players at a massive disadvantage. And even once you DO unlock your DMR at SR 100+ or whatever the average for that was, it still ruins the game mode because in order for REQs to incentivize blowing your money on them, they have to be completely overpowered and brain dead. They have to dominate the game (which happens at REQ level 4 every game). And, to the shock of all, 343 increased the REQ leveling speed after launch for both WZ and WZA to ensure that precision gunfights are even less relevant and REQs are consumed even more quickly.

 

The problem with micro-transaction systems is that gameplay affecting items provide a stronger incentive for people to drop the cash. ESPECIALLY people who aren't necessarily grinding the game and will quickly fall behind, for example, the 12 man squads of pub stompers who farmed Warzone. Not to mention the inherent issue of psychologically manipulative totally-not-gambling systems that don't guarantee you ANYTHING. When you buy food/drinks at a theater, you aren't pulling a ticket to determine what size you'll get from a hat intentionally diluted with extra, extra small drinks and individual popcorn kernels. You don't buy a ticket and receive access to a random selection of scenes from the film. Want to see the finale? Good luck! That's ULTRA RARE!

 

I would be curious to see how much systems that don't blatantly manipulate players actually make. Like Titanfall 2's fairly respectable cosmetics, where you get exactly what you pay for. I would imagine it's not even close to bullshit like CoD WWII which has dozens of 100% identical emotes with different names in random drops.

Do you want GOBBLEDYGOOK, or do you want DANG NABBIT? Which one's better for you?

Share this post


Link to post

What's really interesting is that EA is poised to make (or probably already has made) over a billion dollars from FIFA microtransactions alone. Which is a hell of a lot more than what they would have made from sales of the actual game (profit wise).

 

I'm convinced there will never be an EA title without them again because its just far too profitable.

Here's a reddit post on microtransactions:

 

https://np.reddit.com/r/gaming/comments/7cffsl/we_must_keep_up_the_complaints_ea_is_crumbling/dpq15yh/

 

Even if less than 10% of the games population buys microtransactions, they are still extremely profitable. Some people drop $10k+. So games nowadays will be made for the extreme miniority of people who drop thousands of dollars a year or $60 every week. Refusing to buy microtransactions is not enough anymore because that miniority of big spenders will always be there. The only way to combat this is by having large numbers of people not buy games with microtransactions, which I don't think will happen.

Share this post


Link to post

Is 1440p standard in new monitors these days?

 

I bought a new BenQ last year which I'm currently using for my Xbox One X, can't remember the model off the top of my head though. No idea about the 1440p stuff. I could probably google it, but you have a trustworthy face.

 

As others have said, no its not and if you asked me this question 2 years ago I would have just said to get a 1080 monitor and call it a day but prices on 1440 displays are at a point now where its worth it.  My next monitor will be an IPS 1440 with HDR... it'll be glorious (but probably won't be for a while yet).

 

If you bought a BenQ that was advertised for Console gaming, it is most certainly 1080p and 60 hz.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

imo 1440p is overrated at anything below 25".  it's not like the step from 720p to 1080p.  144hz, on the other hand, is ridiculously impressive. 

 

My 24" Viewsonic 1080p / 144hz / 1ms monitor with Freesync was like $180.  I don't really see the value in paying another $400 to go from 1080p to 1440p, though maybe at 27"?

Ultrawide at 144Hz is love, Ultrawide at 144Hz is life.  And it's surprisingly affordable. I will never go back to 16:9 gaming if I can avoid it. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would be curious to see how much systems that don't blatantly manipulate players actually make. Like Titanfall 2's fairly respectable cosmetics, where you get exactly what you pay for. I would imagine it's not even close to bullshit like CoD WWII which has dozens of 100% identical emotes with different names in random drops.

Look at F2P MOBA's for your answer there.  Hell, even Rocket League where you can buy cool cars like the Batmobile.  I'm WAY more likely to spend money on something that I KNOW I will get, than simply trying to chance it.  Maybe that's because I have shit luck and would never actually unlock what i wanted though. 

Share this post


Link to post

4ms  :wutface:

My previous monitor was 1ms and I literally cannot tell the difference. But whateva. 

 

edit:  I'd actually say this 144Hz 4ms response feels better than my old 120Hz 1ms monitor.  Plus it's ultrawide.........  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

4ms  :wutface:

LOL

 

People get so hung up on response time its funny.  First, its a made up metric.  Every manufacturer has their own formula so its accuracy as a measure of screen quality is questionable at best. Not to mention the fact that metric is often taken with pixel acceleration jacked up, which generally lowers picture quality.  Second, its really input lag that you should be concerned about.  Response time effects ghosting (which as we have already established isn't an honest number to begin with) more than anything else.  If the screen says 4 ms, but has good input lag and you don't see any ghosting when you play, its fine.

 

Edit:  I'll take an IPS panel with a 4ms response time and 10ms input lag over a comparable TN panel with 1ms response any day.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

My previous monitor was 1ms and I literally cannot tell the difference. But whateva. 

I'm currently playing on 5ms, have played a variety of monitors with different response times and the only time it was actually noticeable was with dirt cheap monitors in the first transition from CRTs.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

this roster is fucking disgusting.  Its hard to say if eco is an upgrade from shooter, not because either is bad but both are so good at their roll and are stupid clutch and great with power weapons.  All around i think thats an even trade, and stellur i would consider an upgrade from bubu, plus the chemistry with him and Eco.  Thats some wild slaying power on that team

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

this roster is fucking disgusting. Its hard to say if eco is an upgrade from shooter, not because either is bad but both are so good at their roll and are stupid clutch and great with power weapons. All around i think thats an even trade, and stellur i would consider an upgrade from bubu, plus the chemistry with him and Eco. Thats some wild slaying power on that team

Not hard at all. Eco is definitely better. Stellur is also more consistent than bubu
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Not hard at all. Eco is definitely better. Stellur is also more consistent than bubu

If Eco’s comms is as good as Shooters, this roster should have no problem jellying together. Shooter is going to be a nice piece to whatever team he goes too.

Share this post


Link to post

Not hard at all. Eco is definitely better. Stellur is also more consistent than bubu

My personal opinion; Eco is a better slayer & SH player than Shooter but worse flag player, Stellur is a better slayer but worse OBJ player than bubu. Prediction; new Splyce will be better in slayers and about the same in SH, but worse at flags. Will be interesting to watch them but I don't see them dethroning Optic, hope I'm wrong though.

Share this post


Link to post

I have a position that is based on my definition/opinion. Thats generally how that works.

 

You sounds like you're mostly agreeing with me anyways.

I'm saying your definition is different from the definition the industry is using when they design these pay schemes.

 

It seems to me that your definition of a casual player is someone who has a minimal or passing interest in consuming a product.

 

I'm saying that's not neccisarily the case.

Share this post


Link to post
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

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