Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Championship Series 2018 Teams, Seeds, and Discussion‏

Recommended Posts

The difference between Luke and Tox is that Luke uploads tons of content and has 200k subs whereas Tox didn't upload any content, except for that little bit that Snakebite was doing near the end. Content is a huge part of Optic so this makes sense to me. 

 

Maniac would beg to differ 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Take League as an example. Their circular balance cycle (where some characters are strong, then other types become strong, rinse and repeat) keeps the game fresh for players and I'll give a hypothetical trying to illustrate my point. Let's say Halo 6 launches, brand new classic style Halo. Great, right? There may be a few patches along the way, but only fixing the most glaring issues that are causing the loudest player frustration. Are they going to add more content? Change massive systems? Huge new weapons? Unlikely, unless they are needed to meet even basic user expectations (see: h5 forge and content add-ons). By releasing a standalone game, they've now trapped themselves from adding significant, novel functionality. Because if a standalone Halo 6 launch happens, then that means there's probably a standalone Halo 7. And to release Halo 7, they would need reasons for players to want to buy the new game. Which means big features. New mechanics. Novel functionality.

 

I would use League as the counter example for this type of model.  If the developers want to really 'keep things fresh' so to speak, then there will significant changes that happen fairly often.  That means that I as a player will have to stay on top of those changes to stay in the loop and know what has been added/buffed/nerfed.  After a certain amount of time there is just too much change.  There have been several League characters that have been completely overhauled to the point of nonrecognition, and that can be frustrating for people who knew that character well and how to use him/her.  Now I will need to relearn everything about that character just to use them semi effectively.  On top of that there have been overhauls to the perk(I forget the official term) system that applies modifiers to your character.  So I ask you, why keep playing if everything is just going to be flipped on its head in a few months?  I've played with many friends in H5 that when coming back after a weapons tuning update that the game was very frustrating and didn't want to continue as 343 was probably just going to change things again.

 

Obviously Halo and League are very different games, but for this system be worth it you have to have meaningful changes and have them often.  If you're not really going to to that, then why do this games as a service model?

 

Now I would also point out that Sony and Nintendo are releasing traditional games, full of single player content, and they are doing really well.  People still expect that kind of release, still want it.  Halo was the complete package for so long.  Kick ass single player and multiplayer.  I want another awesome package, all in one.  I want H6 to be the best game it can be.  I don't think offering the separate components as 'separate games' is the way to do that. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

;)

 

Can't count the times I watched this before Halo 2 released.

Share this post


Link to post

We have one random with a check mark saying it’s gonna be called Halo Infinity and then another random with a couple thousand followers saying the same thing but also that it’s a remastered Reach

 

If any of that is true I’ll drink hot sauce

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Holy shit. Stopped by an MCC stream and they were playing H4. The KOTH bug is still in the game. LMAO. How is such a huge bug STILL IN. HOW.

 

I never understood the problem with it. I think the glitch makes gameplay better. From what I remember, if you have multiple players standing in the new hill when it moves to them, they get every-man-counts scoring until one of them leaves, correct?  How is that bad? There's significant risk/reward, and it requires foresight and communication to pull off. I've always felt that any team that does it deserves the benefits from it.

 

If we won't use everyone-counts scoring (which we should anyways), then I feel like this would pass as a pretty cool intentional mechanic that could act as a compromise.

 

But if I had my way, KotH would just use everyone-counts scoring, have no score limit, and we'd play it for 10 minutes.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Non Halo related but thought some would like to see this.

It's for the 2K League and the area is setup inside the Grizzlies home arena (FedExForum)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I never understood the problem with it. I think the glitch makes gameplay better. From what I remember, if you have multiple players standing in the new hill when it moves to them, they get every-man-counts scoring until one of them leaves, correct?  How is that bad? There's significant risk/reward, and it requires foresight and communication to pull off. I've always felt that any team that does it deserves the benefits from it.

 

If we won't use everyone-counts scoring (which we should anyways), then I feel like this would pass as a pretty cool intentional mechanic that could act as a compromise.

 

But if I had my way, KotH would just use everyone-counts scoring, have no score limit, and we'd play it for 10 minutes.

I thought the glitch was that if you had multiple people in the Hill zone before it appeared you could stack up the amount of points you could gain with only one person. So if 3 people were chilling in the zone, then the Hill appeared and finally there was only one player left inside the Hill... that person could still get 3 points per second instead of 1. Thats how I remembered it. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'd love to chat with you guys about this - feel free to quote whatever parts of this as a jumpoff point.

 

It would have several hurdles to leap to be worth it.

 

-343i is really bad when it comes to updating their games within a reasonable time span.  It took them two years just to add a classic playlist and a year just to add Oddball.  Oh, then there's the half assed "remix" maps they released slowly over time as well.  They need to be way, WAY faster than that for a continuous delivery product to work.

 

-They still need reasons for people to buy the game either way (in this case, reasons to keep playing and thus keep buying skins).  The major difference with individual games is if I don't like the latest version of Halo I can always go back and play an older one and/or wait for something better.  This isn't the case with a continuous update product unless it has (tons of) legacy playlists.  The core foundation also needs to be good and built to last the very first time or else you're just stuck with shit for the next decade.  CSGO, not League of Legends.  This is something Halo has always struggled with since both Bungie and 343i's design philosophy has been "we don't know what to do with this franchise, let's throw shit at the wall and see what sticks."

 

-They would need a good flow of skins to get people to keep financing the game.  The problem is their artists are frankly horrible.  Almost none of the armor in Halo 5 looks good outside of remakes of armor from Halo Reach, and their weapon skins aren't very good either.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

I thought the glitch was that if you had multiple people in the Hill zone before it appeared you could stack up the amount of points you could gain with only one person. So if 3 people were chilling in the zone, then the Hill appeared and finally there was only one player left inside the Hill... that person could still get 3 points per second instead of 1. Thats how I remembered it. 

 

That's less good but it's still not bad. If it was intentional and communicated well to the player, that would be a completely reasonable mechanic. It's not like it's without drawbacks.

Share this post


Link to post

That's less good but it's still not bad. If it was intentional and communicated well to the player, that would be a completely reasonable mechanic. It's not like it's without drawbacks.

I think it's gotta be the stack X number in the hill for bonus or not at all because the last few seconds in the old hill would become either completely worthless or negligible unless someone managed to stay in the hill the full time it was up. Then there's what happens if the person who stays in the hill dies, but someone else is in the hill when they die, etc.

K.I.S.S. = Keep It Simple Stupid

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'll believe a Halo announcement when i actually see it happen.

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

I would use League as the counter example for this type of model.  If the developers want to really 'keep things fresh' so to speak, then there will significant changes that happen fairly often.  That means that I as a player will have to stay on top of those changes to stay in the loop and know what has been added/buffed/nerfed.  After a certain amount of time there is just too much change.  There have been several League characters that have been completely overhauled to the point of nonrecognition, and that can be frustrating for people who knew that character well and how to use him/her.  Now I will need to relearn everything about that character just to use them semi effectively.  On top of that there have been overhauls to the perk(I forget the official term) system that applies modifiers to your character.  So I ask you, why keep playing if everything is just going to be flipped on its head in a few months?  I've played with many friends in H5 that when coming back after a weapons tuning update that the game was very frustrating and didn't want to continue as 343 was probably just going to change things again.

 

Obviously Halo and League are very different games, but for this system be worth it you have to have meaningful changes and have them often.  If you're not really going to to that, then why do this games as a service model?

 

Now I would also point out that Sony and Nintendo are releasing traditional games, full of single player content, and they are doing really well.  People still expect that kind of release, still want it.  Halo was the complete package for so long.  Kick ass single player and multiplayer.  I want another awesome package, all in one.  I want H6 to be the best game it can be.  I don't think offering the separate components as 'separate games' is the way to do that. 

 

Some of this isn't relevant to a shooter game at all. Champion reworks are pretty specific to MOBA and wouldn't really apply to Halo in any meaningful way I can conceive. There are no "Yasuo mains" in Halo for those champ-by-champ changes to affect.

 

As for the perks (I think you're talking about runes here), that was a significant update to the game and it took place during the preseason after Worlds to iron out kinks before the new ranked season began.

 

I don't think many of the changes to League are "flipped on its head" type of change. The game is very different over time, but most of the changes have been incremental with the exception of some truly big changes that happen during preseason.

 

Just to touch on your second to last paragraph: I don't know if Halo would work at all on the service model. Weapon skins and armor customization are pretty simplistic and I can't imagine they alone would drive an economy around a game comparable to MOBA/Fortnite skins. You constantly interact with your player model in League and Fortnite and so you get some mileage out of skin purchases, but this isn't true for Halo. This isn't even addressing the idea that 343 completely bombed the armor in Halo 5 to begin with.. most of the armor is either redundant or looks like garbage. It's a big leap of faith to hope that they could put out consistently good cosmetic items with that model.

 

I don't know what model WILL work for Halo, but it seems obvious that the major title, fire and forget, every 3-4 years one definitely won't any longer.

 

Ideally I think a singular Halo multiplayer experience, based on classic Halo with iterative updates and a separate campaign "expansion" of sorts every year or 2 would be best. I think this approach would give 343 the space and (most importantly) the time to deliver whatever it is that they feel like dabbling in. 

 

2019 - Halo multiplayer launches, concurrent with first Halo campaign "expansion"

2020 - Second Halo campaign "expansion", addition of Halo battle royale that a lot of people seem to want

2021 - Large update to Halo multiplayer

 

And so on. All the while you see balance or refresh patches for the multiplayer. It doesn't seem like such a crazy idea to me.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
/snip

 

I did mention that they are different, but yeah there are radical differences between a Moba and an FPS, but I was kind of trying to point out that the system doesn't fit Halo.  Like I said before, if 343 isn't going to add lots of new gamemodes or change them significantly, why do this type of model? 

 

I see more and more of the talk that traditional game releases are going to the wayside, but that seems to be because EA, Activision, and the like have seen that they can make more money doing games as a service.  It's not because people won't buy them.  If a single player only game like Skyrim can still be sold at full price 7 years later, then it seems to me that the old way can still work. 

 

If you make a good/fun game, people will probably buy it.

Share this post


Link to post

Sounds like a typical "we hear you, we're taking it under consideration" response from a company when they get feedback. MCC is a shitshow - for all 3 of the original series. Halo 2 Vista plays like ass across xbox live and Custom Edition plays like ass across Xbox Live and the Halo 3 has always played terribly across XBL. They have the option to hold LAN tournaments, but then what are they going to do when a Halo 3 MCC tournament earns 5x the viewership and interest than their flagship turd Halo 5? It should be a sign to them, but how many more do they need? They have an ex-employee who's been outspoken about the advanced movement Halo games and now advocating for adding in MCC to the tournament circuit? Seriously, what else do they need? There is their precious data right there.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's less good but it's still not bad. If it was intentional and communicated well to the player, that would be a completely reasonable mechanic. It's not like it's without drawbacks.

That's the thing though, it wasn't super controllable and it was pretty random at times. Because Hill wasn't design to do that, it wouldn't always count the right amount of player and sometime it wouldn't even do that at all. It's not like its an option or most players knew about it - so it's hard to predict the gametype's behavior.

 

It'd be completely different if it was an intentional mechanic, with custom-games options settings available and if it was consistent. I personally don't like the idea of sacrificing positioning for a few seconds to see IF you gonna get that extra point/sec. You know what I mean?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I did mention that they are different, but yeah there are radical differences between a Moba and an FPS, but I was kind of trying to point out that the system doesn't fit Halo.  Like I said before, if 343 isn't going to add lots of new gamemodes or change them significantly, why do this type of model? 

 

I see more and more of the talk that traditional game releases are going to the wayside, but that seems to be because EA, Activision, and the like have seen that they can make more money doing games as a service.  It's not because people won't buy them.  If a single player only game like Skyrim can still be sold at full price 7 years later, then it seems to me that the old way can still work. 

 

If you make a good/fun game, people will probably buy it.

 

Skyrim is one of the best reviewed games of all time.

 

The system doesn't fit Halo, I agree with you. But the most successful games going today all have that model (or something resembling it) in common. What I was ultimately getting at is that I have pretty low confidence that 343 could even pull that model off if it did fit Halo. The updates for Halo 5 were few and far between, the cosmetics are terrible, the DLC maps are awful.. none of these things imply that a true service model would work out even if they planned it well. That being said, I am fine with an attempt at it if that's what they want to do moving forward. Halo clearly needs something and I don't think just a return to classic gameplay is the solution to all of the problems. But if they move to a service model it at least forces their hand regarding updates and new content and I think that's a good start, especially if they could improve over time.

Share this post


Link to post

 

LMAO when i saw ur post i thought it was a meme and then I realized i could click it and it was actually a fucking tweet by optic

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Skyrim is one of the best reviewed games of all time.

 

The system doesn't fit Halo, I agree with you. But the most successful games going today all have that model (or something resembling it) in common. What I was ultimately getting at is that I have pretty low confidence that 343 could even pull that model off if it did fit Halo. The updates for Halo 5 were few and far between, the cosmetics are terrible, the DLC maps are awful.. none of these things imply that a true service model would work out even if they planned it well. That being said, I am fine with an attempt at it if that's what they want to do moving forward. Halo clearly needs something and I don't think just a return to classic gameplay is the solution to all of the problems. But if they move to a service model it at least forces their hand regarding updates and new content and I think that's a good start, especially if they could improve over time.

 

Exactly, great games sell well.  343 hasn't made a great game.  At best H5 can be seen as a mediocre product.  Even the McAffree himself describes it as "doing just fine".  To quote the Big Bang Theory, "the fourth Harry Potter movie was 'just fine'"  In a market the more or less ignores average products, Halo has released sub-par games and has been kinda thrown to the side.  Most games as a service launch with a lack of content with the intent on adding it later, thus driving longevity.  I don't like this model and I think H5 proves why it shouldn't be implemented in future Halo titles. 

 

Like you said, just going to classic gameplay alone won't fix the problem.  You've got to do something interesting with it.  But at the very least it does offer a unique experience not offered anywhere else in the FPS space currently.  At the end of the day, we're speculating on rumors with no tangible facts.  I guess we'll see in 4 days.

Share this post


Link to post

Exactly, great games sell well.  343 hasn't made a great game.  At best H5 can be seen as a mediocre product.  Even the McAffree himself describes it as "doing just fine".  To quote the Big Bang Theory, "the fourth Harry Potter movie was 'just fine'"  In a market the more or less ignores average products, Halo has released sub-par games and has been kinda thrown to the side.  Most games as a service launch with a lack of content with the intent on adding it later, thus driving longevity.  I don't like this model and I think H5 proves why it shouldn't be implemented in future Halo titles. 

 

Like you said, just going to classic gameplay alone won't fix the problem.  You've got to do something interesting with it.  But at the very least it does offer a unique experience not offered anywhere else in the FPS space currently.  At the end of the day, we're speculating on rumors with no tangible facts.  I guess we'll see in 4 days.

 

I hope you're right about seeing in 4 days. I expect we'll see some campaign-themed teaser but I'd be pleasantly surprised if we learned anything solid about the multiplayer side of the next Halo game at E3. Like NavG said earlier in the thread, I'm just waiting to see if it's time to give up on a old hobby at this point.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's the thing though, it wasn't super controllable and it was pretty random at times. Because Hill wasn't design to do that, it wouldn't always count the right amount of player and sometime it wouldn't even do that at all. It's not like its an option or most players knew about it - so it's hard to predict the gametype's behavior.

 

It'd be completely different if it was an intentional mechanic, with custom-games options settings available and if it was consistent. I personally don't like the idea of sacrificing positioning for a few seconds to see IF you gonna get that extra point/sec. You know what I mean?

I didn’t know it wasn’t consistent. That changes everything.

 

I just want everyone-counts scoring. It adds so much depth to the mode, and it all but eliminates mathematical defeats. I can’t believe we didn’t use it in 3 different tournament games where we played KotH. It just seems dumb to me.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

We have one random with a check mark saying it’s gonna be called Halo Infinity and then another random with a couple thousand followers saying the same thing but also that it’s a remastered Reach

 

If any of that is true I’ll drink hot sauce

I understand this reference.

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.