Jump to content
VinnyMendoza

Why did splitscreen usage fall out of favour in Halo esports?

Recommended Posts

In Halo: CE especially in 2v2, it's considered unacceptable to play without splitscreen. Always has been. Even if the FOV wasn't superior, seeing action on your teammate's screen is seen as a crucial component to the game, and some top players live off of this skill. They can literally respond to something happening on their teammate's screen while in the middle of a firefight.

What changed with Halo 2 and beyond? Why did everyone switch to their own monitor?

 

I can understand maybe with 4v4 there's just too many screens to look at so it might be better to go off of communication rather than looking. But what about 2v2 in later Halo? I did notice in the Halo 3 2v2, Roy and Flamesword were looking at each other's screens and inched them closer together and the commentators even noted it multiple times as an old school tactic. Why didn't they just do splitscreen?

Share this post


Link to post
10 hours ago, VinnyMendoza said:

In Halo: CE especially in 2v2, it's considered unacceptable to play without splitscreen. Always has been. Even if the FOV wasn't superior, seeing action on your teammate's screen is seen as a crucial component to the game, and some top players live off of this skill. They can literally respond to something happening on their teammate's screen while in the middle of a firefight.

What changed with Halo 2 and beyond? Why did everyone switch to their own monitor?

 

I can understand maybe with 4v4 there's just too many screens to look at so it might be better to go off of communication rather than looking. But what about 2v2 in later Halo? I did notice in the Halo 3 2v2, Roy and Flamesword were looking at each other's screens and inched them closer together and the commentators even noted it multiple times as an old school tactic. Why didn't they just do splitscreen?

Because split screen sucks ass these days. Only old ass CE players use split screen, most the time you only used split screen back in the day because you had no choice, because a lack of TVs, and 2nd you could only have 4 xboxes system linked together. Split screen is much harder to aim in other halo games anyway, split screen also has input lag(especially on mcc). Split screen ended with halo 2 coming along and many people were glad it was gone.

Share this post


Link to post

Split screen in h2 was 44fov and split vertically. Fuck that lmao. Also h2 had a lot of stalemates like lockout and sanc where hearing direction could be particular helpful. Same goes for later halos. The coach is responsible for screen peaking and give you better callouts. Its also easier to aim on low pov but 44 could have been too vomit inducing. So for h3, going from 55/70 (crt/monitor) to 92 pov would make it a lot harder to aim in a meta where 2-4 gametypes were shoot only. You dont need split on amp/ons/heretic. 

Its stupid to do not split on ce because you lost host advantage which is better than easier aiming. It requires more crts/xboxs which were/are limited.  And with nhe you cant do it if both teams want to. 

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, Riddler said:

Split screen in h2 was 44fov and split vertically. Fuck that lmao. Also h2 had a lot of stalemates like lockout and sanc where hearing direction could be particular helpful. Same goes for later halos. The coach is responsible for screen peaking and give you better callouts. Its also easier to aim on low pov but 44 could have been too vomit inducing. So for h3, going from 55/70 (crt/monitor) to 92 pov would make it a lot harder to aim in a meta where 2-4 gametypes were shoot only. You dont need split on amp/ons/heretic. 

Its stupid to do not split on ce because you lost host advantage which is better than easier aiming. It requires more crts/xboxs which were/are limited.  And with nhe you cant do it if both teams want to. 

Umm it’s actually the other way around as it’s easier to aim with a higher FOV(as long as it’s not ridiculously big like 130 plus then it theoretically should be easier. #splitscreen still no good.

Share this post


Link to post
52 minutes ago, Fixaimingsorry said:

Umm it’s actually the other way around as it’s easier to aim with a higher FOV(as long as it’s not ridiculously big like 130 plus then it theoretically should be easier. #splitscreen still no good.

Its not. Spartans appear further away the higher the fov. This means they appear smaller. Hence its harder to put the reticle on their head/them. You can test this right now on h2v and just compare 60 and 100 in an ffa. Now maybe there is a threshold where it becomes harder, but its below 40. 

 

Idk if this image will work: but imagine to aim at the tip if the shoot/pipe. You can see how it would be become harder and harder to hit. Ok it doesnt. Scroll down on this link https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2096781/all

 

 

also https://forums.splashdamage.com/t/does-fov-affect-aim/208624/2

https://gaming.stackexchange.com/questions/5462/what-field-of-view-should-i-choose-in-a-first-person-shooter

 

 

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Because people like playing with a full screen to themselves if their teammate's POV is directly to their left or right.  That would be my guess.

Share this post


Link to post

44 FOV in h2? Only on widescreen. Fullscreen FOV is higher in split than in single. Widescreen single screen FOV is higher but were we using widescreen back then in competitive? 

As for sound can't you plug the headset into your controller, at least nowadays? 

 

I agree low FOV can be easier to aim but generally most people agree a 90-110 FOV is optimal for any competitive shooter. 

Anyway, so if input lag were reduced, FOV was high, and you could hear your own sounds via headset through controller, split screen would be preferable again? 

Share this post


Link to post

Maybe they had the 74 one the whole life. I thought they were on widescreen near the end but maybe not. 

 

Also 90-130 is the optimal one for pc. Default quake is 130 and a good chunk have dropped to 90-95 to hit better rails and lg. I think csgo is 90 and 110 something. But those games require tons of awareness which h2-5 doesnt where youre just looking forward. 

 

If fov was adjustable, no input lag, and sound was channeled, then yeah theres no reason to have ur own monitor other than seeing better.  

 

Oh. I meant to write in my original post, but h3 has host disadvantage too

Share this post


Link to post

I forget with H3 but doesn't H2 split screen drastically cut off part of the screens? Bottom screen can't see the top of their screen and top screen could barely see their gun. I would much rather play full screen then look over to my teammates monitors than deal with terrible fov. I feel like h3 had this problem but to a lesser extent. It's been a loooooong time though.

Share this post


Link to post
35 minutes ago, ChieftaiNZ said:

Because the budget got bigger so they could afford more than 2 Xbox's and 2 screens. 

pretty much this - early rounds were still split but as soon as over half of the competition was out of the tournament it went to full. halo1 would've followed this too i'm sure

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Fun fact: At MLG Meadowlands 08, Ghandi and Karma chose to play split through the first few rounds where they could have played full. I think they were trying to double up on host bc unlike H2, splitscreen H3 isn’t that bad (unless it’s a foundry map). That was before we knew host was a disadvantage. I remember reffing them and thought it was funny.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Hard Way said:

Fun fact: At MLG Meadowlands 08, Ghandi and Karma chose to play split through the first few rounds where they could have played full. I think they were trying to double up on host bc unlike H2, splitscreen H3 isn’t that bad (unless it’s a foundry map). That was before we knew host was a disadvantage. I remember reffing them and thought it was funny.

I tried this at an event and it turns out it's much better to enlarge your target. :laughing:

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/18/2019 at 8:46 AM, Riddler said:

Its not. Spartans appear further away the higher the fov. This means they appear smaller. Hence its harder to put the reticle on their head/them. You can test this right now on h2v and just compare 60 and 100 in an ffa. Now maybe there is a threshold where it becomes harder, but its below 40. 

I think that's a matter of preference though. Yes low FOV makes everything appear larger, but it also increases the relative screen distance you have to cover when you make aim adjustments.

Imagine you're cross map 10x'd on a player top red HH, they fall off, and you try to track their fall in 10x. You'd have to cover maybe like 3 "screen heights" worth of vertical space to reach the ground. In 2x that scenario happens all on one screen, and the relative distance your reticle has to travel is much smaller.

I don't know what the fuck I'm talking about math-wise, but basically the red arc length is 10x and green is 2x. 

Image result for arc length over distance

 

Here is a comparison I made in Overwatch, between 80° (red) and 103° (yellow) - Yes, yellow's head is smaller, but it's also a shorter flick to change targets, which to me is easier. The yellow adjustment also appears slower than the red adjustment made at the same sensitivity, because the overall image is changing less (the pixels of the bot don't have to move as far on your screen). When the pixels from the image are scrolling by at a relatively slower speed, it can make on the fly adjustments easier. 

MIzYRj1.png

 

Taking that to an extreme, a 20° FOV would make everything absolutely enormous. It would be like walking around permanently in 10x zoom. So yeah their head would be huge, but a single strafe movement would cause the enemy to completely leave your screen. Your reaction time would have to be inhuman to accurately track it. 

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

The point is, "aiming" isn't just a matter of your x/y coordinates vs the volume of pixels of the enemy all in a vacuum. It's the accuracy of moving your reticle from point A to point B in a manner effective in the conditions of the game. Honing in on the enemy is part of that, especially when you're talking about thumbsticks with maximum velocities determined by your sensitivity. 

A blanket statement like lower FOV = easier to aim is meaningless when you're talking about needing to react to moving targets at various distances. You could lower your FOV to the point where enemies take up 50% of your screen, and you'd never miss if they happened to be in front of you. Would that mean that you're aiming well? I would argue no.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

True, but the difference is that locating your enemies and killing your enemies are two different matters entirely, and you win by doing the latter not the former. There's also the matter that aim assist is a greater factor when your FOV is smaller as it registers across a greater portion of your view, the fact that zooming in and out in Halo is a very common technique, and also the fact that Halo isn't a twitch shooter in which you only need to land a couple of shots to kill your opponent, thus meaning that you need to continuously track your opponent on screen. Mind you, we're (hopefully) not talking about far extremes - 180 degrees FOV versus 20 degrees or something ludicrous like that. 

There are other variables of course, such as whether/how the game reacts to the FOV regarding deflection/sensitivity/acceleration curves, but in general I've never bought the bitching about FOV in Halo. 

Share this post


Link to post
37 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

locating your enemies and killing your enemies are two different matters entirely

Well... I mean... yeah? But the game isn't "pull the trigger when your reticle turns red". It's center the enemy on your screen and kill them. If an enemy is IN your FOV, and then ceases to be by their actions (jump, strafe, movement ability), then you did not react quickly enough and aim at them well enough to prevent that. 

I don't really see how what I'm saying is controversial at all. If some H5 guy comes at you with a shotty, jumps onto your head, then jumps and hits a jumpjet Dougie before clambering onto a lamp post or whatever the fuck happens in that game, will it be easier to aim at him throughout that set of moves in 70° or 100°? To me there is an obvious answer. I would say the opposite in the case of a guy cross map corner peaking you: give me 70°. Aiming isn't just sniping or just CQC. It's both, and no one setting is ideal for everything. 

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/18/2019 at 8:28 AM, Fixaimingsorry said:

Only old ass CE players use split screen,

I snorted when I read this

Share this post


Link to post
18 hours ago, Bonesaw said:

Well... I mean... yeah? But the game isn't "pull the trigger when your reticle turns red". It's center the enemy on your screen and kill them. If an enemy is IN your FOV, and then ceases to be by their actions (jump, strafe, movement ability), then you did not react quickly enough and aim at them well enough to prevent that. 

I don't really see how what I'm saying is controversial at all. If some H5 guy comes at you with a shotty, jumps onto your head, then jumps and hits a jumpjet Dougie before clambering onto a lamp post or whatever the fuck happens in that game, will it be easier to aim at him throughout that set of moves in 70° or 100°? To me there is an obvious answer. I would say the opposite in the case of a guy cross map corner peaking you: give me 70°. Aiming isn't just sniping or just CQC. It's both, and no one setting is ideal for everything. 

Like I said in my original post, the easier aiming at a lower FOV definitely has a threshold you can't pass. and definitely close range, you can track people right in front of you better with higher FOV. I've lost track of countless people on h2/h3 because of the low fov up close. I wouldn't classify that as solely aiming though.  There's no realistic FOV where you wouldn't be able to keep track of someone falling off blue/redbase. I definitely have a better shot in FFA on CE because its 70 vs 108 FOV  and that's not even easier to see in, and when I switched from a crt to a monitor for halo 3, going from 55->70 FOV, I definitely felt it hard. I had one of the best shots and I felt useless after switching and always thought my monitor was just super laggy. 

 

In CE, we have the cqc map that is chilly and portals on 5/7 maps, but in other halos we don't really have that other than portal camping in warlock. h3+ cqc battles are so simple that people don't even juke, the pros just go for a 2shot beatdown trade every time. but you are right. In quake, they say if you are a rocket heavy player, have a higher FOV. If you are a rail/lg player, have a lower FOV. For 95% of ranges, you'd want lower FOV to hit targets easier. 

Share this post


Link to post

Part of the reason ninja-ing players became so prevalent in H3 is because of how easy it is to leave someone's screen with a jump in that game. That low FOV definitely makes it harder to track people up close.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I personally miss screen watching in goldeneye. 

Share this post


Link to post
On 1/21/2019 at 3:34 PM, Hard Way said:

Part of the reason ninja-ing players became so prevalent in H3 is because of how easy it is to leave someone's screen with a jump in that game. That low FOV definitely makes it harder to track people up close.

Yeah I fucking hate halo 3 FOV. 

I can't believe people actually prefer lower FOV. In CE we've hacked the game so we can play online in a higher FOV on single screen. It's a significant advantage imo. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
5 hours ago, VinnyMendoza said:

Yeah I fucking hate halo 3 FOV. 

I can't believe people actually prefer lower FOV. In CE we've hacked the game so we can play online in a higher FOV on single screen. It's a significant advantage imo. 

Wait on xbox? 

And followup if so, is it a half screen or just the regular 4:3 box with higher FOV? 

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.