Jump to content
CyReN

Halo Infinite Discussion

Recommended Posts

For a FPS, as long as side quests are optional and you can complete the game while getting a full understanding of the story without them, I think they're fine.  If it's a full-blown RPG type thing where you have to complete some portion to level your character enough to even beat later levels.... That's got no place.

Share this post


Link to post

I wish shooters would go back to the mission structure that placed all the objectives (Yes, objectives) on the level from the beginning and let you do them in any order you wanted (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Time Splitters, Syphon Filter Omega Strain), and make you beat the level in one life. It was so much more satisfying to beat a level on Perfect Agent than it was to beat a level on Legendary.

Make objectives pass/fail, and have each objective’s result affect the rest of the mission (more/less guards, lights/alarms turn off, armory unlocked, etc), and have only the final objective be mandatory. This creates massive replayability, as players find the most efficient strategies and struggle to improve their mission rating.

Maybe the one-life thing is a turn-off. Okay. Allow respawning at the closest completed objective (or insertion point), but if you choose to continue, you do so knowing you’ll get an F rating at the end because you were KIA. This let’s tourists play the whole game, without denying the diehards the thrill of the challenge.

This goes even deeper once you factor in co-op. Have a different rating for each number of players in the game, so players are encouraged to play every mission with 2, 3 and 4 players separately, with entirely different strategies for each. If the level isn’t linear, let each player choose from a few different insertion points at the beginning of the mission. The mission could play totally differently if players breach opposite doors, or if one player is on a skylight instead.

Maybe certain timed objectives give you less time as the player count increases. Maybe they kill the hostage scientist (that will unlock the shortcut if you save him) 4min in if you’re solo, but they kill him 1:30 in if you have 4 players.

If you die, you need to be revived. No respawning. Each successive revive takes longer. You’re rating takes a massive hit if you finish the mission without all 4 players.

Ratings are determined by speed, objective completion, enemies killed, enemies undisturbed (snuck past), and so on. Make the best rating HARD to get, and then tie unlocks to each rating for every mission. You could even have different awards/medal chest for each mission and difficulty that encourages different play styles. 100% accuracy. No shots fired. Undetected. Every enemy killed. No enemies killed. No vehicles. Etc. Then do mission-specific ones like “Beat this mission without using the sniper rifle” or something. Show which skulls you’ve beaten the mission with. Each mission should have its own medal chest that takes some serious time and effort to fill.

You can make a mission-select style game and still give it an assload of replayability if the missions are done well, it’s challenging, and you give the player a lot of different goals to attain (and a reason to attain them). I’d take that game over a Far Cry style game ANY day.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
9 minutes ago, Hard Way said:

Maybe the one-life thing is a turn-off. Okay. Allow respawning at the closest completed objective (or insertion point), but if you choose to continue, you do so knowing you’ll get an F rating at the end because you were KIA. This let’s tourists play the whole game, without denying the diehards the thrill of the challenge.

Restarting the whole level when you die is cool when it's like a 5-10 minute map. But when you have something trying to be an epic hour-long mission full of setpieces, it gets to be pretty grating. Especially when you can die instantly to something stupid.

  • Like (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hard Way said:

I wish shooters would go back to the mission structure that placed all the objectives (Yes, objectives) on the level from the beginning and let you do them in any order you wanted (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Time Splitters, Syphon Filter Omega Strain), and make you beat the level in one life. It was so much more satisfying to beat a level on Perfect Agent than it was to beat a level on Legendary.

I yearn for the day that FPS games (and games, in general) return to this design, rather than relying on same tired linear, overly-scripted hallways as "levels". GoldenEye 007 holds a lot better than people give it credit for because it practically pioneered 3-D freedom that was advertised in many N64 games at the time; not many shooters took this to heart, and mostly seemed to abandon this type of structure without even attempting to evolve it, and that's a shame.

Share this post


Link to post

The main reason you don't see a lot of innovation in the FPS genre's campaign is because almost all of the development these days is centered around creating a multiplayer game that people continue to spend money on via microtransactions. Most of the time its just a token campaign. The good single player shooter is almost extinct in general. In a lot of ways Halo hasn't often really been a leader via good single player elements such as story or mission structure. It was a game that made shooting feel good on console and then blew up into a multiplayer giant for awhile and then began to fade. While maybe not really what people are looking for Cyberpunk 2077 is the game we should be looking at this year for an enjoyable single player experience 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, Snipe Three said:

The main reason you don't see a lot of innovation in the FPS genre's campaign is because almost all of the development these days is centered around creating a multiplayer game that people continue to spend money on via microtransactions. Most of the time its just a token campaign. The good single player shooter is almost extinct in general. In a lot of ways Halo hasn't often really been a leader via good single player elements such as story or mission structure. It was a game that made shooting feel good on console and then blew up into a multiplayer giant for awhile and then began to fade. While maybe not really what people are looking for Cyberpunk 2077 is the game we should be looking at this year for an enjoyable single player experience 

I hope cyber punk gets a coop option 

Share this post


Link to post
8 hours ago, Hard Way said:

I wish shooters would go back to the mission structure that placed all the objectives (Yes, objectives) on the level from the beginning and let you do them in any order you wanted (Goldeneye, Perfect Dark, Time Splitters, Syphon Filter Omega Strain), and make you beat the level in one life. It was so much more satisfying to beat a level on Perfect Agent than it was to beat a level on Legendary.

I agree about objectives. Providing multiple objectives on a level where a few are mandatory and most aren't, creates a lot of variation within each playthrough, especially when non-mandatory objectives being completed or not affects how future missions will play. 

Though, I wouldn't entirely throw away the linear progression of a regular Halo mission. The thing that linearity allows developers to do, is exercise greater control over player-sandbox interaction (What possible weapons could you bring to an encounter), enemy interaction (How you come upon the enemy AI in any given encounter), and scripted sequences. These are important to the difficulty tuning. 

8 hours ago, Hard Way said:

Make objectives pass/fail, and have each objective’s result affect the rest of the mission (more/less guards, lights/alarms turn off, armory unlocked, etc), and have only the final objective be mandatory. This creates massive replayability, as players find the most efficient strategies and struggle to improve their mission rating..

Absolutely. Why this isn't a feature in most FPS, I don't understand. Also, SPV3 already tried this in one specific mission. 

On Halo (Legendary and Noble difficulty only), after you save the marines near the first forerunner structure, you're given a warthog to rescue the other marine survivors. Right before the "This cave isn't a natural formation" section's entrance, there are two Covenant relays placed. If you kill the enemies by these relays and activate both of them, then you can see all incoming Phantoms for all the rest of the missions, highlighted with an icon on your HUD as they approach. 

Imagine if on Sierra 117 in Halo 3, you sniped the Chieftain off the phantom before you even got to the final area of the mission where you'd normally kill him. As a result, the brutes from that encounter are now all jackals, and you instead get ambushed by stealth brutes when you advance into said section. 

This is an awesome idea. Enemy composition, enemy ranks, enemy relax/patrol/alert states, weapon availability, ammo availability, vehicles, map sections being open or closed to the player, powerups being made accessible for certain sections, etc. It would reduce consistency in playthroughs, but that's not a bad thing. To want the player to think on their feet. 

9 hours ago, Hard Way said:

Maybe the one-life thing is a turn-off. Okay. Allow respawning at the closest completed objective (or insertion point), but if you choose to continue, you do so knowing you’ll get an F rating at the end because you were KIA. This let’s tourists play the whole game, without denying the diehards the thrill of the challenge.

Closest completed objective seems way too far back, man. If you want to make a Halo game where people die at least 2-4 times per encounter unless they have perfect aim, perfect judgement, and perfect AI manipulation, then it'd be too unforgiving. It'd be like Contra, where the game itself is pretty fucking hard, but the progress loss per game over is the real kick in the balls. 

People like their progress reset to the beginning of a section where they died, so they can immediately try again instead of having to crawl through a previous encounter that they already beat. I think "last objective checkpoint" is just way too harsh. 

Agree on the grading system, though. Players shouldn't go through the mission for the first time and be able to achieve everything, perfectly. 

9 hours ago, Hard Way said:

This goes even deeper once you factor in co-op. Have a different rating for each number of players in the game, so players are encouraged to play every mission with 2, 3 and 4 players separately, with entirely different strategies for each. If the level isn’t linear, let each player choose from a few different insertion points at the beginning of the mission. The mission could play totally differently if players breach opposite doors, or if one player is on a skylight instead.

Maybe certain timed objectives give you less time as the player count increases. Maybe they kill the hostage scientist (that will unlock the shortcut if you save him) 4min in if you’re solo, but they kill him 1:30 in if you have 4 players.

Oh shit, I didn't even think about timed objectives lol. That's actually an incredible idea. 

Honestly, all types of objectives should come back from prior Halos and even new ones from other games. 

Traditional Halo "Kill everybody in this big room" objectives, entrance location objectives, some puzzle solving, "stalk the enemy leaders undetected" objectives, escort objectives, destruction objectives, rescue objectives, etc. 

It's nice to mix up gameplay and not have it be the same "shoot the aliens" routine every time. 

9 hours ago, Hard Way said:

If you die, you need to be revived. No respawning. Each successive revive takes longer. You’re rating takes a massive hit if you finish the mission without all 4 players.

Ratings are determined by speed, objective completion, enemies killed, enemies undisturbed (snuck past), and so on. Make the best rating HARD to get, and then tie unlocks to each rating for every mission. You could even have different awards/medal chest for each mission and difficulty that encourages different play styles. 100% accuracy. No shots fired. Undetected. Every enemy killed. No enemies killed. No vehicles. Etc. Then do mission-specific ones like “Beat this mission without using the sniper rifle” or something. Show which skulls you’ve beaten the mission with. Each mission should have its own medal chest that takes some serious time and effort to fill.

You can make a mission-select style game and still give it an assload of replayability if the missions are done well, it’s challenging, and you give the player a lot of different goals to attain (and a reason to attain them). I’d take that game over a Far Cry style game ANY day.

Reviving instead of respawning is a cool mechanic for co-op, but I don't agree with the increasing revive times. The key in designing would be to make perfection incredibly difficult, without making the experience around getting that perfection equally miserable, regardless of the other advantages that a revive system gives the player in a co-op setting.  It'd start to make players play in the most self-preserving way possible at the expense of aggressive play, and I don't want that. 

Absolutely, there should definitely be awards for completing missions with a certain level of proficiency. XP awards, armor sets, skins, nameplates, emblems, etc. 

Again, disagree on the "mission select" style game approach. It's theoretically possible, but it'd take exponentially more time to design a game and a plot to work coherently around each other in this form. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
39 minutes ago, _Synapse said:

some puzzle solving

What did you have in mind?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

What did you have in mind?  

Imagine a subterranean labyrinthine flood facility, with a central hub consisting of 3-4 rooms with forerunner activation panels within. 

These 3-4 rooms branch out into numerous smaller branching paths, who can be rotated and oscillated using the activation panels in the main hub. 

The challenge doesn't come directly from the puzzle, but from a massive horde of flood combat forms that are impossible for a single player -however skilled- to kill at once. 

The branching paths being rotated and oscillated, cause sound that attracts the combat forms into them. From this point, the player can funnel the horde into smaller, more manageable groups of combat forms, and either kill them or permanently trap them within the paths by blocking any exits. 

In addition, the player can carefully arrange these paths in order to access health packs, powerups, and weapons that are highly effective against masses of flood. 

This is just one example, I'm not particularly skilled at creating puzzles. 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@_Synapse, when I say “mission select” I mean like every Halo/CoD/Gears shooter where you can go back and pick which mission to replay, as opposed to open world games where it’s either impossible or less prevalent.

As far as the one-life and reviving goes, I guess I was envisioning gameplay where you’re not quite as fragile as we’ve typically been on Legendary. I agree that, on the difficulty we’ve been used to, that would be tedious. I’d make it harder to die, but have death carry more weight.

Share this post


Link to post

@_Synapse Do you think all puzzles could be manipulated solely though switches or would the player eventually need some base abilities, like the ability to move an object?  
 

If a level designer wanted to create a more complex puzzle, what abilities would the player need to solve it?  

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Hard Way said:

@_Synapse, when I say “mission select” I mean like every Halo/CoD/Gears shooter where you can go back and pick which mission to replay, as opposed to open world games where it’s either impossible or less prevalent.

As far as the one-life and reviving goes, I guess I was envisioning gameplay where you’re not quite as fragile as we’ve typically been on Legendary. I agree that, on the difficulty we’ve been used to, that would be tedious. I’d make it harder to die, but have death carry more weight.

Oh my bad, I misunderstood what you meant by mission selection. 

Difficulty is definitely something to account for. You don't want the game to be anything short of challenging, but you also don't want to kill the game's pace by forcing the player to replay encounters they've already beaten. 

It's why Halo Custom Edition default campaign maps fucking suck. The game gives you such godawful checkpoints that you have to spend 5-10 minute periods each time, trying to fight your way back to where you died. 

38 minutes ago, Boyo said:

@_Synapse Do you think all puzzles could be manipulated solely though switches or would the player eventually need some base abilities, like the ability to move an object?  If a level designer wanted to create a more complex puzzle, what abilities would the player need to solve it?  

Puzzles are extremely versatile, so there's no reason whatsoever that there couldn't be puzzles designed around new abilities. 

I don't think that you'd necessarily need to diverge from a certain style of puzzle to raise complexity. Even using nothing but switch based puzzles, allows you to implement a ton of complexity into any puzzle you wish to create. 

Though, requiring the player to use different abilities would definitely make the player have to think more in order to complete said puzzle. I'll read a bit more on the topic before I think of any types of puzzles that would fit well into a Halo game, and abilities that could accompany them. 

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, _Synapse said:

Though, requiring the player to use different abilities would definitely make the player have to think more in order to complete said puzzle. I'll read a bit more on the topic before I think of any types of puzzles that would fit well into a Halo game, and abilities that could accompany them. 

If you find anything interesting, post it here so I can read it too.  

 

For my movement abilities, I took inspiration from Chess.  

 

Spartans thrust sideways like a Rook.  

Elites evade diagonally like a Bishop.  

Brutes high-jump, lunge, then ground-stomp, like a Knight, jumping over spaces before turning and landing on another.  

Prometheans transform into a sphere that allows them to access shortcuts, much like a Castling King.  

 

With regard to puzzle solving, Elites can also Wall Kick, allowing them to climb up a mine shaft by repeatedly wall kicking back and forth, up the narrow shaft.  

Brutes can high jump then lunge then clamber up a ledge, allowing them to reach elevated platforms that other species cannot.  

Prometheans can turn into a ball and roll through a hole in the wall, the Sphere ability acting as the key that unlocks access to the areas beyond.  

 

Aside from abilities that allow the player to move around his predefined environment, certain weapons can modify the environment itself.  

The Energy Sword can slice through certain objects.  A boosting SAW can ram through others.  The most prominent example of a weapon manipulating the environment is the Power Glove that can pick up, move, rotate, drop, and launch objects.  

The Conduit grenade type fires a short range beam that can disable Shield Barriers, allowing the player to pass through a previously barricaded path.  

 

The Token equipment allows the player to teleport back to the map’s designated teleporter exit node.  This allows the level designer to create a hub, where the exit node is located, that the player fights outward from.  After completing one spoke of the wheel-shaped level, he teleports back to the central hub and begins the next spoke.  

 

The single-rider Unicycle vehicle allows the player to Wall Ride, granting access to previously inaccessible areas.  Alternatively, the player could ride down a half pipe hill, jumping and firing the whole time, allowing him to survive an area that would have led to certain death if he decided to just run straight down it.  

 

These sandbox items give the player the tools he needs to access new areas and survive new encounters.  Completing one puzzle could give him a new tool that he uses to complete the next puzzle, gradually building up the campaign player’s base abilities, making him feel more powerful as the game progresses.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Crouching transforms the player model, modifying its size and shape.  Are there any other instances where modifying the player model is acceptable?  

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Crouching transforms the player model, modifying its size and shape.  Are there any other instances where modifying the player model is acceptable?  

I personally think that if you tea bag a dead corpse enough, it should start to flatten and get squished like a pancake.  I suppose that would modify the player model. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Boyo said:

Crouching transforms the player model, modifying its size and shape.  Are there any other instances where modifying the player model is acceptable?  

EVADE

 

idk if it was acceptable, we dealt with it

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, znot said:

EVADE

 

idk if it was acceptable, we dealt with it

Do you think it’s acceptable to briefly disable the player’s ability to attack, should he choose to activate the significant advantage that is Evade (in no sprint settings)?  
 

Do you think it’s fair that an Evading player receives both a means of transportation as well as an effective damage resistance buff due to the reduced size/shape of his player model?  

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
7 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Do you think it’s acceptable to briefly disable the player’s ability to attack, should he choose to activate the significant advantage that is Evade (in no sprint settings)?  
 

Do you think it’s fair that an Evading player receives both a means of transportation as well as an effective damage resistance buff due to the reduced size/shape of his player model?  

NO i think its just like thrust. it's an impossible to react to and also impossible to telegraph. if you could fix either of those things. maybe but their current implementation is busted. 

 

I didnt mention thrust cause it doesnt change the model but it does the same thing as evade. provides no telegraph and gives the player instant movement that the opposing player cant possibly react to unless they get lucky.



Thrust however I think can at least be modified to be telegraphed better. or made so that if you're moving the opposite way you maintain momentum. I can't thrust left at full thrust distance if I was already moving to my right. Make me go a quarter the distance I would normally.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand this idiotic "Esports have ruined games" notion that casual players vomit out into every possible crevice of the internet. 

 

"Esports culture is making everybody too sweaty and ruining the casual experience!" 

Esports culture has always existed in games, just in far less accessible forms. Even in the days of Street Fighter, competitive play existed. It was merely restricted, because internet access was poor. Likewise, toxicity and rage was also always a thing in video games. It just didn't manifest as visibly. If it's become disproportionately popular (which it hasn't, btw), then that's not something you can fault eSports or competitive players for. It's what they find fun, just like how you find holding down W and the left mouse button for 12 minutes to be fun. 

 

"You can't have fun anymore in games because all your teammates are toxic tryhards who sweat the entire game!"

No, you can't have fun because developers are clueless idiots who can't make a decent social mode alongside a decent competitive mode, so they try to mix the two together. In the end, neither crowd is satisfied. Competitive players are tearing their hair out because they get shit-for-brains teammates who can't aim and shoot at the same time, and casual players get curbstomped by people far better than them. The solution is to let Casual players do whatever the fuck they please in lobbies where they exclusively match each other, and give Competitive players the same privileges in lobbies of their own. 

 

"The developer ruins the game to cater to competitive players!"  

They don't. You have some stupid, pre-conceived, vindictive attitude that's completely misplaced towards high-level players. Most of the time, the developers don't fucking listen to them, and take it upon themselves to decide what the ideal balance is (while doing an awful job at it). 

In the rare instances that companies do actually listen to competitive players, most changes that they make are merely to buff the useless elements and nerf the overcentralizing elements.  If you complain about something as fucking mundane as nerfing an overpowered ability, it's because you love abusing it to ruin other people's fun. You aren't interested in maintaining any "casual fun", you're just a shameless apologist for whatever zero-effort method you use to completely destroy other people's enjoyment. You're like the kind of person who'd complain if Bungie nerfed the plasma pistol's overcharge in Halo 2, because it was way too easy for you to destroy people with it. 

 

"I just want to have fun!"

First of all, I really doubt that you do. What you want to do, is be able to destroy people really easily, because you're too lazy to put in any effort to actually play the game. 

 

Whatever misplaced grief these idiots have for "esports/sweaty players/competitiveness", is either just a temper tantrum thrown at competitive players for trying to balance a game to be less bullshit, or an incompetence from a developer. I don't know why they mention Esports at all, because

1) They don't actually know shit about Esports and lobbying 

2) Esports has much lower influence on design than they assume it does

 

It's just a profoundly stupid idea that permeates because the number of people who suck at the game dwarf the number of people who don't, and they either have petty agendas held against the latter for nerfing their favorite ways to ruin the fun for other lower-skilled players, or they match people who don't want to just fucking teabag all game and get mad at the guy who's playing to win, instead of the developer for matching him with said player. 

rant over

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Fire (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, _Synapse said:

No, you can't have fun because developers are clueless idiots who can't make a decent social mode alongside a decent competitive mode, so they try to mix the two together. In the end, neither crowd is satisfied. Competitive players are tearing their hair out because they get shit-for-brains teammates who can't aim and shoot at the same time, and casual players get curbstomped by people far better than them. The solution is to let Casual players do whatever the fuck they please in lobbies where they exclusively match each other, and give Competitive players the same privileges in lobbies of their own. 

Lol I give my teammates hella shit for being trash, but usually only in games ranked mode. Like social is right there! Go play that if you suck, especially if you’re new! 
 

 

3 hours ago, _Synapse said:

I just want to have fun!"

First of all, I really doubt that you do. What you want to do, is be able to destroy people really easily, because you're too lazy to put in any effort to actually play the game. 

This. So many casuals say shit like this not realizing a little effort you might have some fun.

 

3 hours ago, _Synapse said:

down W and the left mouse button for 12 minutes to be fun. 

 

These kids are the worse and say anyone who doesn’t play like this “sweats” 

Many casual gamers believe that when publishers  announce esport tournaments the entire game is now being twisted to make it competitive as possible. Usually this applies only to game balance as over powered abilities really do, deserve to be Nerfed. In cod guns get Nerfed all the time but it doesn’t let Johnny no thumbs take on scumpy 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ranked SHOULD be where bad kids go to play other bad kids. The whole point is to play people of a similar skill level. That frees up social to be the grab bag it’s supposed to be. In a perfect world, ranked would be a safety net for bad players.

No one should ever discourage a bad player from playing ranked. It’s every bit as much theirs as it is a good player’s. And that’s not even factoring in how it bolsters population for a mode that NEEDS it to work properly, or how it helps to move a casual player along the path of becoming a serious player.

Now, idlers and quitters? They can fuck right off in ranked. But a player giving it an honest effort? We need every one we can get.

  • Like (+1) 8

Share this post


Link to post
25 minutes ago, Hard Way said:

Ranked SHOULD be where bad kids go to play other bad kids. The whole point is to play people of a similar skill level. That frees up social to be the grab bag it’s supposed to be. In a perfect world, ranked would be a safety net for bad players.

No one should ever discourage a bad player from playing ranked. It’s every bit as much there’s as it is a good player’s. And that’s not even factoring in how it bolsters population for a mode that NEEDS it to work properly, or how it helps to move a casual player along the path of becoming a serious player.

Now, idlers and quitters? They can fuck right off in ranked. But a player giving it an honest effort? We need every one we can get.

100% on the ranked playlist take. This idiotic stigma that ranked's for sweatlords only needs to go away. 

If you created a progression system that put skill over everything else, then you'd have the competitive players separated from the casual players within a week, if not a a couple of days. After that, casual players would mostly just stay at their levels, while competitive players could freely climb the ranks. 

The one problem with this arrangement is settings, though. 

In prior Halos, non-hardcore ranked playlists like TS in Halo 3 were always way more populated than the MLG playlists. Of course the settings in the MLG playlist were far superior, but the population in that playlist was always dwarfed by TS. 

I have been extremely vocal about settings in the past and I'm still extremely apprehensive about having a settings split, but I feel some things just need to be conceded to default settings kids due to circumstance, if you don't want mass backlash from casual players. 

The elephant in the room is radar. Actually, it's really the only "thing" in the room. The rest of the "things" were only obstacles due to dogshit sandbox design in prior Halos, like autos and long respawn times. 

I hate radar on a visceral level, but I can't see a "main" playlist managing to survive without it. 

We could partially compromise to where people below a certain rank threshold will only play gametypes with radars on, but that's an awkward (yet potentially problem-solving) compromise that I'm not sure I'm happy about.

 

Thoughts @Hard Way

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, _Synapse said:

100% on the ranked playlist take. This idiotic stigma that ranked's for sweatlords only needs to go away. 

If you created a progression system that put skill over everything else, then you'd have the competitive players separated from the casual players within a week, if not a a couple of days. After that, casual players would mostly just stay at their levels, while competitive players could freely climb the ranks. 

The one problem with this arrangement is settings, though. 

In prior Halos, non-hardcore ranked playlists like TS in Halo 3 were always way more populated than the MLG playlists. Of course the settings in the MLG playlist were far superior, but the population in that playlist was always dwarfed by TS. 

I have been extremely vocal about settings in the past and I'm still extremely apprehensive about having a settings split, but I feel some things just need to be conceded to default settings kids due to circumstance, if you don't want mass backlash from casual players. 

The elephant in the room is radar. Actually, it's really the only "thing" in the room. The rest of the "things" were only obstacles due to dogshit sandbox design in prior Halos, like autos and long respawn times. 

I hate radar on a visceral level, but I can't see a "main" playlist managing to survive without it. 

We could partially compromise to where people below a certain rank threshold will only play gametypes with radars on, but that's an awkward (yet potentially problem-solving) compromise that I'm not sure I'm happy about.

 

Thoughts @Hard Way

I think you should make your casual/competitive line exactly over top of your social/ranked line.

Radar should never be in ranked (except FFA). Ranked Arena should be 1-1 with tournament settings. I think it’s redundant to have both ranked sweatlords and esports kids. Just make good settings. I don’t mind some weapon/item swaps from social, but if the sandbox is so bad like in H3 where you have to gut the game for tournament settings, then fix the fucking game.

As far as settings go in the core gametypes, the only differences between social and ranked should be radar, some item swaps if necessary, and more gametype/map pairings. Things like score to win, flag return times, flag at home settings, hill rotation, all that shit should be the same as competitive.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, Hard Way said:

Ranked SHOULD be where bad kids go to play other bad kids. The whole point is to play people of a similar skill level. That frees up social to be the grab bag it’s supposed to be. In a perfect world, ranked would be a safety net for bad players.

No one should ever discourage a bad player from playing ranked. It’s every bit as much there’s as it is a good player’s. And that’s not even factoring in how it bolsters population for a mode that NEEDS it to work properly, or how it helps to move a casual player along the path of becoming a serious player.

Now, idlers and quitters? They can fuck right off in ranked. But a player giving it an honest effort? We need every one we can get.

Yeah, H5 was my first Halo(the first multiplayer FPS I ever played more than 5 hours of honestly) , and my days were mostly getting shit on in ranked. I was a mid silver for like 6 months lol. I'm like a plat now and that's my ceiling p much. And I know the ranks have shrunk so it's not quite the same anymore but I'm still kinda proud of the improvement

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

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

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

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

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

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


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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