Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

ah i hate this video now lol, pretty immature in hindsight.

 

Not denying that it's immature (that's what makes it funny af though), but it also hits some good points. Their stubbornness about keeping radar, the broken as fuck Storm Rifle, fucking Stasis and the other garbage ass DLC maps and of course Kevin Franklin, the ruiner of gaming franchises. It also exposes their lack of transparency and how it took like a year for them to tell us Quinn is not in charge of weapon balance. Did the guy he tagged even have anything to do with the weapon rebalancing we finally got last year? I very much doubt it.

Man, those were some really dark times and we're still not over it, although there are improvements here and there (MLG, weapon rebalance, MCC fixes etc.)

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I’m resurrecting a recently deceased conversation since the forum ate my previous attempt a few days ago.

 


Yeah i have read and watched all of that in the past.  4v4 isn't going away as the primary competitive team size for halo going forward, so arguing that 2v2 > 4v4 is really not relevant. I don't even agree or disagree with the 2s vs 4s argument. Since we know that 4s is the design of halo's future (and most of its past), its not even an argument worth having to me.  The game needs to be balanced first and foremost for 4v4 gameplay and 4v4 spawn system.  A lot of the arguments about H1 TTK > every other halo seem to ignore these 2 facts.

I think a four-shot perfect kill time of 0.9s would be perfect for the next Halo. It would work just fine for all modes and it has benefits over 1.2s even in 4v4. I hope this doesn’t count as moving the goal posts since your post was against a 0.6s TTK, but there are some fundamental things I disagree with. The first thing is that I don’t think 343 should be going into this thinking, “How can we make a great 4v4 game?” They should just focus on making great 1v1 battles. If it’s not fun there, it won’t be fun when you add more players and reduce individual empowerment. Unrelated: I think the weapon balance would be a little more palatable if approached from the perspective of just one player fighting another, instead of the idea of team "roles" acquired through functional upgrades.

 

 


Given the context that 4v4 is the "bread and butter" gamemode since 2004 and will be for the foreseeable future, a .6 ttk is too fast.  When team size goes up, teamshot goes up as a byproduct. There is no way around that.  On the other side, i don't want to go back to the 1.4-1.7 second ttk's that plagued Halo until Halo 5 really. Those are gross over-compensations for the switch to 4v4 and change in spawn system imo.  Getting the perfect ttk back down a bit is one of the better things H5 did with the magnum.  Unfortunately it also made all the weapons too easy so even when you win a battle handily, you are still almost dead.  Lowering the TTK without having a decent delta really doesn't do the game any favors.

 

Going forward, Halo needs to go a little further.  I am not opposed to getting the TTK down a bit more to 1 second or so, though i still think the 1.2 second time is good if they stuck with that but anywhere in the 1 - 1.2 second range I think would be fine.  The much bigger issue as i see it is that there is almost no delta between a perfect TTK and max TTK. If the perfect ttk is 1.2, the max can't be 1.7 like it is now.  It needs to be more like 2 to 2.2 (i think max being about double perfect is a good starting point).  That's why i would love to be able to try Halo 5 with a magnum that still kills in 1.2 seconds, but is a 4 shot instead of a 5 shot, and still 7 shots to kill without a headshot. That gets you a 1.2 second perfect TTK and 2.1 second max. Firing cadence is a little slower, so making players miss helps more and missing hurts more. It would also give the magnum 3 perfect kills per mag.

Yes, a large disparity between perfect and average kill time is a huge factor in promoting interesting gameplay, but it’s not the only one. Being able to outshoot my opponent is an incentive to stay in the battle only if that battle is likely to continue. Let’s take a look at a common 1v1 exchange where player 1 lands a shot on player 2, who is previously unaware. Player 2 now has the choice to return fire or try to escape. If the perfect-average disparity is great enough, player 2 is more likely to stand ground in the hopes of winning the fight. But if the perfect kill time is slow enough, escape is still a viable option, and also an attractive one since player 2 is disadvantaged. To compound this, player 1 also has the option to back down at any point even if player 2 puts in better shots; he has the advantage of being aware of player 1 longer. This negatively influences player 2’s decision to hold ground since victory is less likely; player 1 could quite easily back down early, leaving player 2 with low shields and a high risk of being cleaned up.

So the solution is both a high perfect-average disparity and a sufficiently low kill time, around 0.9s. 1.2s is clearly enough time for players to react and attempt escape, which reinforces defensive decision making in the two ways described above. And if the average kill time is extended by increasing the difficulty, the perceived (and actual) risk of dying while trying to escape a battle is naturally decreased—players will tend to run away more often and try to “call your bluff” that your shots are good enough to punish them.

 

 


This need to extend the TTK a bit compared to H1 also comes from the relative differences in spawn systems.  Yeah, gametypes are an issue in CE 4v4 but i would argue that the spawn system is far worse for the 4v4 experience especially for people that aren't intimately familiar with how CE spawns work.  Since spawns are predicated on where your living teammate is, in 2v2 its kind of perfect competitively since you can control where your dead teammate will spawn up or if they will get a random. You know exactly who is in control.  The more players you add, the more the possibilities for this really snowball out of control though. By the time you get to 4v4 spawning becomes a hot mess.  Since the rest of the Halo titles spawns work in the opposite way, you can't force unpredictable spawns when you are on the defensive and regain control.  Its up to the enemy to decide where you will spawn, you need to have a little more time to either 1) turn a gunfight around or 2) scoot out of your spawn area and reposition.  A slightly slower TTK accomplishes that.

 

The thing that makes these calculations really imperfect is the "Average" TTK argument.  Because an average includes misses.  How do you decide how many misses is a good thing? and how do you calculate the average miss rate of active gunfights at each skill tier?  Really you need an API that can let you pull from player data only instances when 2 players start damaging each other via gunfire at the same time, take no other outside damage, and the fight ends with one player dying.  Average accuracy isn't really a good indicator since pre and post-firing can really skew the results.  I dont think there are any games that have let us pull that kind of data.  If you increase average TTK by making a weapon really hard to use, you risk raising the skill floor so much that noobs hate it and think its "totally OP" when they play people better than them, even if in reality its not.  You make up the difference with damage output.  Make the TTK a little slower and new players can feel like they had a fighting chance even if they got rocked just as hard.

Responding to the bolded, I don’t think that’s a solid argument for making the kill time close to 1.2s than 0.9s or even 0.6s. All that accomplishes is making the game less fun for competent players in both close and easy matches. Furthermore, the kind of player that thinks the utility weapon (also known as the weapon that balances the sandbox) is overpowered is also the kind of player who thinks automatic weapons should kill faster than it. The beauty of balancing with difficulty is that a sufficiently difficult precision weapon will have a disproportionately higher average kill time at a lower level of play compared to automatics. But you also have to consider that players with worse aim also have worse strafes, so if they are playing competitively (i.e. against players of similar skill) they have no reason not to use the utility weapon. To enhance this effect, reticle friction (aim assist) could be increased while bullet magnetism (auto aim) is lowered, meaning that noobs have an easier time while pros are all but unaffected.

 

 


TL;DR - 4v4 balanced Halo needs slightly longer TTKs than CE because of the increased number of players, different spawn system and to keep the skill floor low enough for new players BUT by and large the games after CE really overcompensated making the TTK too long and destroying the delta between perfect and max ttk.

TLDR: 4v4 Halo might need a slower perfect kill time than Halo CE’s, but it also needs to be faster than Halo 5’s so players have more incentive to play aggressively. 0.9s in four shots is the perfect recipe. Balancing this out with significantly more difficulty would produce good results at all levels of play, even allowing lower-skilled players to appreciate more of the automatic weapon usage they seem to prefer.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

There are at least fifteen battle royale games that have released in the past year or are planned to release within the next year.

 

I expect to see tons of crashing and burning in the near future and we've already seen some of that with games like Radical Heights falling flat on their face.

 

The problem is none of these BR games offer any unique angle over their competition.  Aside from notable exceptions like Egress they're all extremely similar.

 

Eyeroll inducing article aside, who would a Halo BR mode appeal to and what would it's angle be?  Fortnite but substitute building with vehicles, and hidden behind a $60 price tag for a game that only the small remainder of Halo fans will buy anyways?

 

Was pleasantly surprised with Todd Howard's comments when asked about BR for Fallout 76.  At least someone in the industry gets it.

Share this post


Link to post

The only good BR is totally accurate battlegrounds. And it's literally a joke game.

Share this post


Link to post

I’m resurrecting a recently deceased conversation since the forum ate my previous attempt a few days ago.

 

I think a four-shot perfect kill time of 0.9s would be perfect for the next Halo. It would work just fine for all modes and it has benefits over 1.2s even in 4v4. I hope this doesn’t count as moving the goal posts since your post was against a 0.6s TTK, but there are some fundamental things I disagree with. The first thing is that I don’t think 343 should be going into this thinking, “How can we make a great 4v4 game?” They should just focus on making great 1v1 battles. If it’s not fun there, it won’t be fun when you add more players and reduce individual empowerment. Unrelated: I think the weapon balance would be a little more palatable if approached from the perspective of just one player fighting another, instead of the idea of team "roles" acquired through functional upgrades.

 

 

Yes, a large disparity between perfect and average kill time is a huge factor in promoting interesting gameplay, but it’s not the only one. Being able to outshoot my opponent is an incentive to stay in the battle only if that battle is likely to continue. Let’s take a look at a common 1v1 exchange where player 1 lands a shot on player 2, who is previously unaware. Player 2 now has the choice to return fire or try to escape. If the perfect-average disparity is great enough, player 2 is more likely to stand ground in the hopes of winning the fight. But if the perfect kill time is slow enough, escape is still a viable option, and also an attractive one since player 2 is disadvantaged. To compound this, player 1 also has the option to back down at any point even if player 2 puts in better shots; he has the advantage of being aware of player 1 longer. This negatively influences player 2’s decision to hold ground since victory is less likely; player 1 could quite easily back down early, leaving player 2 with low shields and a high risk of being cleaned up.

So the solution is both a high perfect-average disparity and a sufficiently low kill time, around 0.9s. 1.2s is clearly enough time for players to react and attempt escape, which reinforces defensive decision making in the two ways described above. And if the average kill time is extended by increasing the difficulty, the perceived (and actual) risk of dying while trying to escape a battle is naturally decreased—players will tend to run away more often and try to “call your bluff” that your shots are good enough to punish them.

 

 

Responding to the bolded, I don’t think that’s a solid argument for making the kill time close to 1.2s than 0.9s or even 0.6s. All that accomplishes is making the game less fun for competent players in both close and easy matches. Furthermore, the kind of player that thinks the utility weapon (also known as the weapon that balances the sandbox) is overpowered is also the kind of player who thinks automatic weapons should kill faster than it. The beauty of balancing with difficulty is that a sufficiently difficult precision weapon will have a disproportionately higher average kill time at a lower level of play compared to automatics. But you also have to consider that players with worse aim also have worse strafes, so if they are playing competitively (i.e. against players of similar skill) they have no reason not to use the utility weapon. To enhance this effect, reticle friction (aim assist) could be increased while bullet magnetism (auto aim) is lowered, meaning that noobs have an easier time while pros are all but unaffected.

 

 

TLDR: 4v4 Halo might need a slower perfect kill time than Halo CE’s, but it also needs to be faster than Halo 5’s so players have more incentive to play aggressively. 0.9s in four shots is the perfect recipe. Balancing this out with significantly more difficulty would produce good results at all levels of play, even allowing lower-skilled players to appreciate more of the automatic weapon usage they seem to prefer.

 

Good post. 2 main things i would like to respond to.

 

1) one of the reasons I argue for the 1 - 1.2 second kill time is because of my experience in Halo 5.  The issue in H5 with escapability really comes from thrust and sprint, not the kill time.  If you get first shot and don't miss and the other guy doesn't thrust and sprint away, he's not going to get away at base movement speed.  If they are hugging corners and sticking to cover like glue then obviously they can, but that's true with any kill time longer than 0. 

 

This next part is very subjective so take that for what you will but one of the reasons that i love halo is because even in a fair, 1v1 perfect fight you are guaranteed a longer engagement than the numerous CoD-esque shooters of the world.  I would like even perfect engagements to be as long as possible without causing an overemphasis on teamshot or escapability problems (like every hero shooter on the planet).  I have also stuck with the 1 - 1.2 second kill time because when I compare the CE and H5 fire rates to say the H2 BR fire rate, i like the H2 BR fire rate better. But i also like to be able to string together engagements instead of spending a ton of time on just one, inviting too much teamshot, something that in the absence of button glitches was a problem with H2.  This is also why I have usually been qualifying my responses with "1 - 1.2 seconds".  I know i want a 4 shot primary, i know i want kill times longer than CE, i know i want a fire rate a little slower than CE but faster than H2/3/Reach, and i know that magnum battles in H5 absent of abilities and sprint feel really fucking good, if  a bit spammy at times.  All that together = 1 - 1.2 second 4-shot, but with a wider perfect/max TTK so you're not always ending your engagements close to death and can move to the next one immediately.  If i loved the CE or H5 magnum fire rate, i would probably agree with you and extend my "wish list" kill time to fall somewhere between .9 and 1.2 seconds.

 

Also, correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe the math for fire rate would be (Perfect Kill Time in Seconds)/(Shots for Perfect Kill - 1), since its the first shot that starts the clock at 0 so you don't count that when dividing.  Been a long time since i have done anything besides money math...

 

H1 magnum = 0.6/(3-1) = .3 s/shot

H2 BR = 1.4/(4-1) = .46

H3 BR = 1.5/(4-1) = .5

Reach DMR = 1.6/(5-1) = .4

H5 Magnum = 1.2/(5-1) = .3

 

What this chart tells me is that i need to go play some zero bloom reach to see how the DMR feels since its possible that the burst-nature of the BR makes it feel a little different and the Reach DMR fire rate (or a little quicker) is about what I would be shooting for but 4 shot kill instead of 5.  

 

2) My comment about having a skill gap so high with the weapon that it would end up raising the skill floor is really only meant for extreme examples.  Like 0 aim assist, slow projectile with small hitboxes using a controller.  That experience on a console would be considered by some to be the "Most skillful" with the widest skill gap, but its really to such an extreme that playing with a controller would be terribly un-fun.  I totally agree that balancing weapons based in large part on their difficulty is the way to go but if you go too extreme with it, it just becomes a chore and un-fun to use with controller.  Also in my reply here i purposefully didn't list bullet magnetism because i dont see the need for it.  Bullets shouldn't bend toward a target just because "you were close",  unless the tracking of targets is a specific feature of that specific weapon in which case the projectile needs to be slow and the damage relatively low.

Share this post


Link to post

The TTK and shooting mechanics need to be structured around: 

 

1. Giving a player the ability to kill multiple enemies in one clip

 

2. Giving a player a chance to come back after being down a shot

 

3. Preventing drawn out exchanges which result in too much teamshot, while also avoiding too many perfect kills

 

People say that the CE TTK is too fast for 4v4. It's not. People miss most of their pistol shots unless they have time to lay a perfect bead on their opponent. What makes the kills fly by is the smaller maps, the spawn raping, and the grenade spam. 

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

Good post. 2 main things i would like to respond to.

 

1) one of the reasons I argue for the 1 - 1.2 second kill time is because of my experience in Halo 5. The issue in H5 with escapability really comes from thrust and sprint, not the kill time. If you get first shot and don't miss and the other guy doesn't thrust and sprint away, he's not going to get away at base movement speed. If they are hugging corners and sticking to cover like glue then obviously they can, but that's true with any kill time longer than 0.

 

This next part is very subjective so take that for what you will but one of the reasons that i love halo is because even in a fair, 1v1 perfect fight you are guaranteed a longer engagement than the numerous CoD-esque shooters of the world. I would like even perfect engagements to be as long as possible without causing an overemphasis on teamshot or escapability problems (like every hero shooter on the planet). I have also stuck with the 1 - 1.2 second kill time because when I compare the CE and H5 fire rates to say the H2 BR fire rate, i like the H2 BR fire rate better. But i also like to be able to string together engagements instead of spending a ton of time on just one, inviting too much teamshot, something that in the absence of button glitches was a problem with H2. This is also why I have usually been qualifying my responses with "1 - 1.2 seconds". I know i want a 4 shot primary, i know i want kill times longer than CE, i know i want a fire rate a little slower than CE but faster than H2/3/Reach, and i know that magnum battles in H5 absent of abilities and sprint feel really fucking good, if a bit spammy at times. All that together = 1 - 1.2 second 4-shot, but with a wider perfect/max TTK so you're not always ending your engagements close to death and can move to the next one immediately. If i loved the CE or H5 magnum fire rate, i would probably agree with you and extend my "wish list" kill time to fall somewhere between .9 and 1.2 seconds.

 

Also, correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe the math for fire rate would be (Perfect Kill Time in Seconds)/(Shots for Perfect Kill - 1), since its the first shot that starts the clock at 0 so you don't count that when dividing. Been a long time since i have done anything besides money math...

 

H1 magnum = 0.6/(3-1) = .3 s/shot

H2 BR = 1.4/(4-1) = .46

H3 BR = 1.5/(4-1) = .5

Reach DMR = 1.6/(5-1) = .4

H5 Magnum = 1.2/(5-1) = .3

 

What this chart tells me is that i need to go play some zero bloom reach to see how the DMR feels since its possible that the burst-nature of the BR makes it feel a little different and the Reach DMR fire rate (or a little quicker) is about what I would be shooting for but 4 shot kill instead of 5.

 

2) My comment about having a skill gap so high with the weapon that it would end up raising the skill floor is really only meant for extreme examples. Like 0 aim assist, slow projectile with small hitboxes using a controller. That experience on a console would be considered by some to be the "Most skillful" with the widest skill gap, but its really to such an extreme that playing with a controller would be terribly un-fun. I totally agree that balancing weapons based in large part on their difficulty is the way to go but if you go too extreme with it, it just becomes a chore and un-fun to use with controller. Also in my reply here i purposefully didn't list bullet magnetism because i dont see the need for it. Bullets shouldn't bend toward a target just because "you were close", unless the tracking of targets is a specific feature of that specific weapon in which case the projectile needs to be slow and the damage relatively low.

 

I think 1.2s still poses a slight issue with escapability. Based on your analysis, let’s assume that that’s the longest perfect TTK that prevents the average escape attempt in a game without thrust and sprint. Going with the generous estimate of 25% of kills being perfect four-shots, the disadvantaged player can safely abandon any isolated engagement and reset the battle because he has a 75% chance of staying alive (help from teammates notwithstanding). Those are great odds for someone who should theoretically lose that engagement. So unless you’re willing to rely on teamshot to negate that escapability and screw over every experience that isn’t 4v4, there needs to be a buffer zone that ensures a higher percentage of battles can’t be escaped because of a gamble. If the perfect kill time plus one shot equaled the “minimum escapable time” of 1.2s, then a larger portion of battles, we’ll say 50%, would be inescapable by default. At this point, disadvantaged players are better off putting out the guaranteed damage on their opponent even if they end up failing the reversal.

 

In my opinion, 0.3s doesn’t feel spammy for a shot interval in CE. I think what sets the pistol apart from Halo 5’s Magnum in this regard is the amount of shots required for a kill and how often you need to reload. For example, a 4sk DMR with a 16-bullet magazine would feel significantly less spammy than Halo 5’s 5sk Magnum with its 12-bullet magazine, even with the same firing rate. I suppose it also helps that in CE you have more time to spare in securing a kill, so pacing shots is actually quite common when you’re up. 0.33 seconds would also probably be a fine shot interval, but any longer than that starts to slow the perfect kill time down unreasonably.

 

Regarding having uncomfortably low amounts of aim assist, I’m with you, then. I would like to mention though that bullet magnetism is still an essential part of the game. Without it, long range encounters would drag on forever, or more likely would end in constant stalemates. The bullet magnetism brings parity to long range shooting so that your gun is actually a threat beyond mid range. Looking at Halo 1 as a guideline, the bullet magnetism dies down dramatically as you get closer to your opponent—there’s no chance for them to ignore you and escape at close range, so the game pulls back and just uses friction to smooth out the larger aiming corrections. But I would still be interested to see how a console Halo game would play with zero bullet magnetism. “Open” map design might be exploited to segment maps through distance like in Halo 3, just in a non-random and not terrible way.

 

Edit: looks like I originally quoted you twice in the same post. Quite the double kill.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think 1.2s still poses a slight issue with escapability. Based on your analysis, let’s assume that that’s the longest perfect TTK that prevents the average escape attempt in a game without thrust and sprint. Going with the generous estimate of 25% of kills being perfect four-shots, the disadvantaged player can safely abandon any isolated engagement and reset the battle because he has a 75% chance of staying alive (help from teammates notwithstanding). Those are great odds for someone who should theoretically lose that engagement. So unless you’re willing to rely on teamshot to negate that escapability and screw over every experience that isn’t 4v4, there needs to be a buffer zone that ensures a higher percentage of battles can’t be escaped because of a gamble. If the perfect kill time plus one shot equaled the “minimum escapable time” of 1.2s, then a larger portion of battles, we’ll say 50%, would be inescapable by default. At this point, disadvantaged players are better off putting out the guaranteed damage on their opponent even if they end up failing the reversal.

 

In my opinion, 0.3s doesn’t feel spammy for a shot interval in CE. I think what sets the pistol apart from Halo 5’s Magnum in this regard is the amount of shots required for a kill and how often you need to reload. For example, a 4sk DMR with a 16-bullet magazine would feel significantly less spammy than Halo 5’s 5sk Magnum with its 12-bullet magazine, even with the same firing rate. I suppose it also helps that in CE you have more time to spare in securing a kill, so pacing shots is actually quite common when you’re up. 0.33 seconds would also probably be a fine shot interval, but any longer than that starts to slow the perfect kill time down unreasonably.

 

Regarding having uncomfortably low amounts of aim assist, I’m with you, then. I would like to mention though that bullet magnetism is still an essential part of the game. Without it, long range encounters would drag on forever, or more likely would end in constant stalemates. The bullet magnetism brings parity to long range shooting so that your gun is actually a threat beyond mid range. Looking at Halo 1 as a guideline, the bullet magnetism dies down dramatically as you get closer to your opponent—there’s no chance for them to ignore you and escape at close range, so the game pulls back and just uses friction to smooth out the larger aiming corrections. But I would still be interested to see how a console Halo game would play with zero bullet magnetism. “Open” map design might be exploited to segment maps through distance like in Halo 3, just in a non-random and not terrible way.

 

Edit: looks like I originally quoted you twice in the same post. Quite the double kill.

 

Hrmm how would you (or anyone) define "escapability"?  I find that to be a very hard thing to quantify.  How close to cover should someone have to be to be "smartly close to cover" or "Stupidly out in the open"?  In my mind you have n+1 shots to kill a player before them escaping becomes the fault of the player missing shots and not the game design or kill time of the weapon.  So basically if the weapon is a 4sk, you should be able to kill the player with 4 or 5 shots.  If they can escape beyond that, well you shouldn't have missed.  Without sprint or thrust i don't see a player escaping if you are able to kill them in 1.5 seconds or less if they aren't already close to cover in a game without sprint or thrust.  I think we tend to overestimate how quickly players can react to taking damage if they are caught unaware.  I bet even the best players will take at least 2 bullets with a .3 second fire rate if they are getting shot outside their LoS before they start to turn and react.

 

Maybe the better question to ask is, what percentage of 1 v 1 fights need to end in a death?  1v1 = 2 players start fighting each other at the same time, with full shields and no interference from teamshot.  I would say the percentage there needs to be pretty high 50% if at least one player is "Close to cover" up to 100% if neither player is close to cover.  But those numbers could also depend on range.  And thats just very generic.  If we really wanted to get granular with it you would need to figure out what it should be for engagements inside unscoped RRR, inside scoped RRR, outside scoped RRR.  

 

Do we have any numbers like this from past halo games?  I haven't been able to find any.

Share this post


Link to post

Hrmm how would you (or anyone) define "escapability"?  I find that to be a very hard thing to quantify.  How close to cover should someone have to be to be "smartly close to cover" or "Stupidly out in the open"?  In my mind you have n+1 shots to kill a player before them escaping becomes the fault of the player missing shots and not the game design or kill time of the weapon.  So basically if the weapon is a 4sk, you should be able to kill the player with 4 or 5 shots.  If they can escape beyond that, well you shouldn't have missed.  Without sprint or thrust i don't see a player escaping if you are able to kill them in 1.5 seconds or less if they aren't already close to cover in a game without sprint or thrust.  I think we tend to overestimate how quickly players can react to taking damage if they are caught unaware.  I bet even the best players will take at least 2 bullets with a .3 second fire rate if they are getting shot outside their LoS before they start to turn and react.

 

Maybe the better question to ask is, what percentage of 1 v 1 fights need to end in a death?  1v1 = 2 players start fighting each other at the same time, with full shields and no interference from teamshot.  I would say the percentage there needs to be pretty high 50% if at least one player is "Close to cover" up to 100% if neither player is close to cover.  But those numbers could also depend on range.  And thats just very generic.  If we really wanted to get granular with it you would need to figure out what it should be for engagements inside unscoped RRR, inside scoped RRR, outside scoped RRR.  

 

Do we have any numbers like this from past halo games?  I haven't been able to find any.

There's a certain point where theory only has so much value. The closest comparison is probably Reach GoldPro. There isn't much footage lying around, but from what I can tell, attempting to run away is still a pretty common option. @@AkaDemiK you seem to have played those settings a fair amount. Care to weigh in on this discussion?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Good post. 2 main things i would like to respond to.

 

1) one of the reasons I argue for the 1 - 1.2 second kill time is because of my experience in Halo 5.  The issue in H5 with escapability really comes from thrust and sprint, not the kill time.  If you get first shot and don't miss and the other guy doesn't thrust and sprint away, he's not going to get away at base movement speed.  If they are hugging corners and sticking to cover like glue then obviously they can, but that's true with any kill time longer than 0. 

 

This next part is very subjective so take that for what you will but one of the reasons that i love halo is because even in a fair, 1v1 perfect fight you are guaranteed a longer engagement than the numerous CoD-esque shooters of the world.  I would like even perfect engagements to be as long as possible without causing an overemphasis on teamshot or escapability problems (like every hero shooter on the planet).  I have also stuck with the 1 - 1.2 second kill time because when I compare the CE and H5 fire rates to say the H2 BR fire rate, i like the H2 BR fire rate better. But i also like to be able to string together engagements instead of spending a ton of time on just one, inviting too much teamshot, something that in the absence of button glitches was a problem with H2.  This is also why I have usually been qualifying my responses with "1 - 1.2 seconds".  I know i want a 4 shot primary, i know i want kill times longer than CE, i know i want a fire rate a little slower than CE but faster than H2/3/Reach, and i know that magnum battles in H5 absent of abilities and sprint feel really fucking good, if  a bit spammy at times.  All that together = 1 - 1.2 second 4-shot, but with a wider perfect/max TTK so you're not always ending your engagements close to death and can move to the next one immediately.  If i loved the CE or H5 magnum fire rate, i would probably agree with you and extend my "wish list" kill time to fall somewhere between .9 and 1.2 seconds.

 

Also, correct me if i'm wrong here but i believe the math for fire rate would be (Perfect Kill Time in Seconds)/(Shots for Perfect Kill - 1), since its the first shot that starts the clock at 0 so you don't count that when dividing.  Been a long time since i have done anything besides money math...

 

H1 magnum = 0.6/(3-1) = .3 s/shot

H2 BR = 1.4/(4-1) = .46

H3 BR = 1.5/(4-1) = .5

Reach DMR = 1.6/(5-1) = .4

H5 Magnum = 1.2/(5-1) = .3

 

What this chart tells me is that i need to go play some zero bloom reach to see how the DMR feels since its possible that the burst-nature of the BR makes it feel a little different and the Reach DMR fire rate (or a little quicker) is about what I would be shooting for but 4 shot kill instead of 5.  

 

2) My comment about having a skill gap so high with the weapon that it would end up raising the skill floor is really only meant for extreme examples.  Like 0 aim assist, slow projectile with small hitboxes using a controller.  That experience on a console would be considered by some to be the "Most skillful" with the widest skill gap, but its really to such an extreme that playing with a controller would be terribly un-fun.  I totally agree that balancing weapons based in large part on their difficulty is the way to go but if you go too extreme with it, it just becomes a chore and un-fun to use with controller.  Also in my reply here i purposefully didn't list bullet magnetism because i dont see the need for it.  Bullets shouldn't bend toward a target just because "you were close",  unless the tracking of targets is a specific feature of that specific weapon in which case the projectile needs to be slow and the damage relatively low.

 

Your argument for a 1.2 second kill time is based on how Halo 5 plays without sprint and thrust but forgets to take into account the ease of use of the magnum and how stretched out maps are in H5, if the utility weapon were to actually become a 4sk projectile-low magnetism-single fire and sprint were to be removed therefore making the maps smaller, and then increase the BMS on top of all of that, then a 1.2 second kill time may very well present some problems with escapability. Obviously this stuff isn't  very straight forward to test and I'm not throwing out everything you brought up, but I do think there's a lot of other factors that need to be taken into account.

 

Personally I think a 4sk CE magnum would be ideal for Halo, I know CE players would rather it just be 3sk but if we're gonna be real that's never going to happen again, and considering how bad some of the starting weapons have been in the past I think a 4sk CE magnum with a 0.9 ttk would be more than fine. Also give players an option to choose the model of their utility weapon so we don't have to hear that stupid "why is the pistol the starting weapon" argument again.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Today I drove 12 hours from Columbus OH to Ft Riley KS, and during the trip, I kept myself occupied by using the Voice Memo app on my phone and recording rants about various Halo topics. It's scary how easy it is to talk for a long time, to myself, about Halo.

 

I'm going to record some gameplay to play over top of them and upload them to Youtube soon, if anyone is interested in a good rant.

 

 

Just reading this was therapeutic. I might have to utilize that same idea.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Lol at calling the CE pistol the "magnum".

 

A weapon that's bigger than two hands, fires huge explosive rounds and fits comfortably into your palm.

 

Magnum.

Share this post


Link to post

A weapon that's bigger than two hands, fires huge explosive rounds and fits comfortably into your palm.

 

Magnum.

 

Okay, Halo 3 kid.

  • Downvote (-1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

Hard way has a real nice smooth relaxing voice.

 

Edit: calling someone a halo 3 kid in 2018. Literally a decade later LOL.

  • Upvote (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

You are aware that even in the lore its called a magnum right?

Share this post


Link to post

This is a pretty excellent video outlining some core issues in shooter trends, especially singleplayer.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I won't say cutscenes are bad when used properly.  Using them too often, especially when it's not necessary to do so, is awful though.  Ironically games like Half Life and Bioshock manage to have more storytelling than games like CoD while using almost no cutscenes at all.  Because in most cases you can just as effectively deliver story through dialogue, scenery details, etc. that don't pull the player out of interacting with the rest of the game.

 

I think where the modern campaign shooter really falls apart though is in level, sandbox, and enemy design, which is something he only briefly mentions.

 

Every good campaign shooter I can think of has:

-Thought provoking level design.  Could be non-linear pathing.  Could just be something simple like the presence of puzzles.

-A tiered sandbox with weak-but-readily-available tools and powerful-but-hard-to-maintain tools.  This forces the player to make thoughtful use of their gear and adds another level of depth to the game. Also makes difficulty less static and gives them some reasonable control over it.

-Varied enemies with unique attacks, health, AI, etc.

 

Quake, Half Life, Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead, Bioshock, Halo...all very different games yet they share many of these common points.

 

Call of Duty fails on literally all of these points.  Bland and linear levels.  Every weapon you can obtain is extremely powerful, extremely versatile and has tons of ammo so there's no thought put into it.  Enemies are all generic hitscan military doods with no real room for counterplay and not very difficult to take down either.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to try out the H3 BR modded so that it was a 4sk and shot 1-2 bullets in a straight line. Could work well for 4v4 Halo, imo. 

Share this post


Link to post

I would love to try out the H3 BR modded so that it was a 4sk and shot 1-2 bullets in a straight line. Could work well for 4v4 Halo, imo. 

 

Why not all 3 bullets....?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

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.