Jump to content
Multichem

V5 Ideas, requests, and Concerns

Recommended Posts

personally, the days of one-weapon for all starts should be done.

 

loadouts like the td playlist add more diversity to the game and gives players chances to play different roles, making up for halo 4's low skill ceiling

 

for me the new lightrifle should be used, unity settings with 4sk descoped

Even 'Slayer Pro' style loadouts don't add diversity - they add randomness.

 

We're playing Abandon. We both have BRs and we get one of those awkward 'out BR'd each other' moments. We're both on respawn. I pick the BR loadout because... well, it's been working for me so far. I spawn Beach. You select the LightRifle loadout, on a whim, and spawn Top Gold and run Ring 3. Now, thanks to a random spawn, you have top control and a weapon that allows you to lay down some massive hurt from a distance. I, on the other hand, am now exposed, on the low ground, with a weapon that can't truly contest you. This isn't an example of diversity or metagame. This is an example of dumb luck that can, to some extent, have an effect on the outcome of the game.

 

Whether it's been BR only, Magnums, DMR only, whatever... competitive Halo has always been upon people spawning on the exact same playing field. The only advantages that competitive Halo offers is map and power weapon control. Thanks to these rifles and their placement on map, we also see a bit of meta developing - the go-to point seems to be having someone with a LightRifle stay up top on Simplex to just become an assist machine. This isn't Call of Duty where you can develop some sort of synergy with your team's starting weapon choice, how a lot of teams seem to have one player roll Sniper and roam the map. It also has the complexity of their loadout system so that, even though Assault Rifles might not be as good up close as SMGs, with proper add-ons, you can close that gap significantly.

 

Loadouts work well in a semi-competitive settings. For instance, if loadouts stay, it'd be nice to see the staple become one rifle loadout options, with an AR/Magnum option in the 5th spot. It's a nice gap closer between Infinity and Throwdown settings, but it shouldn't be taken as seriously. While the weapon tuning balanced the rifles, it did very little to address the issues that BR only starts solved - namely, the fact that the RRR on the DMR and LightRifle are both pretty much 3x that of the BRs, which can more often than not, filter the gameplay down to poking wars across map. While the BR's killtime has been increased to make it a much more viable and fast-paced option, it's done nothing to give it a buff over long ranges due to it's spread. It's still a mid-range weapon that's okay at everything - the perfect utility weapon. The Carbine can wreck it up close, hell, even the Magnum can if used properly... while the BR and LightRifle have an advantage far away.

 

This idea that just because the DMR is now the midrange kill time weapon and isn't as powerful long range as the LightRifle (scoped) is and is now viable as a starting weapon is a bunch of bull. The RRR did not recieve a significant enough nerf to prevent people from poking cross map. The larger the maps, the smaller of a problem this is... but do any of us want bigger maps, especially if we want no sprint...?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Even 'Slayer Pro' style loadouts don't add diversity - they add randomness.

I agree with most of your post. It would be nice to have default Halo gametypes reverting to the game loadouts only sytem. Have 4 primaries and an assault/pistol loadout for vanilla gametypes and a one rifle loadout for competetive settings.

 

Even though Halo's main audience isn't the competetive one it still should be a balanced game with an almost even playing field off spawn and very little randomness.

 

AA and armor mods need to go first, they are for sure a much bigger issue than the primary rifle choice.

Share this post


Link to post

The RRR did not recieve a significant enough nerf to prevent people from poking cross map. The larger the maps, the smaller of a problem this is... but do any of us want bigger maps, especially if we want no sprint...?

 

I don't understand this line of reasoning; surely the smaller the map the less of an issue the long RRR is because there are fewer lines of sight that are long enough to be considered "abusable" by the long RRR?

 

This is why I've never understood why people seem to think that having a long range weapon is better for bigger maps than smaller maps, I'd say it's actually the other way around - exactly how many genuinely long range (by this I mean only accessible to the DMR and LR) lines of sight are there on 4v4 maps? Base to base on Simplex? Bottom gold through blue tunnel on Abandon? Blue side beach to top mid or purple cliffs on Abandon? Lift corridor doorway to the opposite doorway on Adrift? Sniper corners to bases on Adrift? Bridges to EXT B site on Haven? Bottom open to bottom closed on Haven? Some LoS on Dispatch (which I honestly feel should be removed anyway).

 

Personally I can't think of many more long lines of sight off the top of my head and none of those aside from the beach spawn on Abandon leave a player exposed for so long that they're completely helpless and guaranteed to die while taking shots. The range argument, or more specifically the claim that matches devolve into "poking wars" frustrates me because I've yet to see anyone actually back it up with a reasonable amount of proof - if anything the opposite seems to have been proved from the DMR start games I've watched that people are taking somewhat seriously.

I would seriously love for a LAN tournament to swap the BR starts for DMR starts just in order to give it a genuine test run at a truly competitive level so that all players will take it seriously regardless of their own preferences.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I like how people act like all 4 rifles will significantly change the game. The BR is superior to the DMR in every way besides aim assist range. Its a 2 shot beatdown, has bleedthough, takes less shots to kill, and allows you to sweep to finish kills. This idea of randomness in loadouts can be applied to stuff on the map as well, its cluttered everywhere and they can very well have a weapon you wouldn't expect them too because you didn't see where they went off spawn. The needle rifle did nothing to change reach and the other weapons will do the same thing. 90% of people would be stupid to not pick the BR anyway. 

 

The community is far too stuck in BR only mentality. You cant tell people from the getgo that the DMR is incredibly overpowered and doesn't belong in halo 4 and expect to be able to bring it back like Ghost tried later on. I honestly feel like theres no point in trying to put multiple weapon loadouts in throwdown because the community would bitch beyond belief regardless of how small of an impact it has on gameplay. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This does not reflect the current state of the rifle balance. Every single rifle is better than the DMR within their niche to such a point that players actively challenge those fights much in the same way that the DMR did before the update. The difference between the rifles is noticeable in so far as it creates range preferences but none of these are not overcome-able through player action.

 

 

 

Again this doesn't reflect how the game actually plays out with the current balance;

  1. Human error ensures players beat out other players even within their niche, this happens in every game single game even before the TU.
  2. Weapons aren't powerful enough against the starting option to be fought over. No one is going to stop or challenge you for a different primary. forcing players to traverse the map for their choice is merely an inconvenience for the illusion of structure i.e. it is just as random as being given the choice of primary.

 

 

It just simply wouldn't be accepted. Giving people the choice, these types of decisions would form naturally anyway.

 

See Viral's post above.

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Putting the primaries about the map in a strategic way is in no form random, and is certainly no where as random as being able to spawn with whatever primary you like. Sure, the interactions later on in the match will have somewhat the same effect in that you won't know what your opponent has, but it's different when you can battle for said weaponry. And trying to say that there isn't enough difference in the primaries is just as far fetched. I would much rather (and routinely set out to) jump onto ring 3 with a LR than  BR any day. I would prefer to find a DMR to keep suppressive fire from across the map and retain relatively easy assists that the LR makes me work harder for. I'll pick up the carbine to drain shields quickly and effectively to team shot at most ranges. If you aren't utilizing the sandbox in such ways you are being basic and predictable, and you probably shop at Khols.

 

My point is simply that having the weapons on map gives plenty of incentive to seek them out and utilize them in accordance to a gameplan, whereas being able to spawn with them takes out a key part to an evolving metagame that we haven't seen develop until Halo 4.

 

You are right, however, that human error can cause upsets within niche. But, t high level play, we won't see as much of that. Therefore we need everyone on the same footing until they gain advantage through skill and teamwork, not predetermined weapon niches.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't understand this line of reasoning; surely the smaller the map the less of an issue the long RRR is because there are fewer lines of sight that are long enough to be considered "abusable" by the long RRR?

 

This is why I've never understood why people seem to think that having a long range weapon is better for bigger maps than smaller maps, I'd say it's actually the other way around - exactly how many genuinely long range (by this I mean only accessible to the DMR and LR) lines of sight are there on 4v4 maps? Base to base on Simplex? Bottom gold through blue tunnel on Abandon? Blue side beach to top mid or purple cliffs on Abandon? Lift corridor doorway to the opposite doorway on Adrift? Sniper corners to bases on Adrift? Bridges to EXT B site on Haven? Bottom open to bottom closed on Haven? Some LoS on Dispatch (which I honestly feel should be removed anyway).

 

Personally I can't think of many more long lines of sight off the top of my head and none of those aside from the beach spawn on Abandon leave a player exposed for so long that they're completely helpless and guaranteed to die while taking shots. The range argument, or more specifically the claim that matches devolve into "poking wars" frustrates me because I've yet to see anyone actually back it up with a reasonable amount of proof - if anything the opposite seems to have been proved from the DMR start games I've watched that people are taking somewhat seriously.

I would seriously love for a LAN tournament to swap the BR starts for DMR starts just in order to give it a genuine test run at a truly competitive level so that all players will take it seriously regardless of their own preferences.

 

I don't think the issue is that the DMR can reach all the way across the map on every 4v4 that we have. I think that it supports well in that fact and should do so well if that's what it's niche is going to be. However, the problem stems from not being able to do so with the Carbine and BR. Because of this, the DMR/LR can overpower and pick people apart without being threatened by the power of both mid range weapons.

 

Not saying that isn't how it should go. Just point out the frustration that is being felt.

Share this post


Link to post

Even 'Slayer Pro' style loadouts don't add diversity - they add randomness.

 

We're playing Abandon. We both have BRs and we get one of those awkward 'out BR'd each other' moments. We're both on respawn. I pick the BR loadout because... well, it's been working for me so far. I spawn Beach. You select the LightRifle loadout, on a whim, and spawn Top Gold and run Ring 3. Now, thanks to a random spawn, you have top control and a weapon that allows you to lay down some massive hurt from a distance. I, on the other hand, am now exposed, on the low ground, with a weapon that can't truly contest you. This isn't an example of diversity or metagame. This is an example of dumb luck that can, to some extent, have an effect on the outcome of the game.

 

Whether it's been BR only, Magnums, DMR only, whatever... competitive Halo has always been upon people spawning on the exact same playing field. The only advantages that competitive Halo offers is map and power weapon control. Thanks to these rifles and their placement on map, we also see a bit of meta developing - the go-to point seems to be having someone with a LightRifle stay up top on Simplex to just become an assist machine. This isn't Call of Duty where you can develop some sort of synergy with your team's starting weapon choice, how a lot of teams seem to have one player roll Sniper and roam the map. It also has the complexity of their loadout system so that, even though Assault Rifles might not be as good up close as SMGs, with proper add-ons, you can close that gap significantly.

 

Loadouts work well in a semi-competitive settings. For instance, if loadouts stay, it'd be nice to see the staple become one rifle loadout options, with an AR/Magnum option in the 5th spot. It's a nice gap closer between Infinity and Throwdown settings, but it shouldn't be taken as seriously. While the weapon tuning balanced the rifles, it did very little to address the issues that BR only starts solved - namely, the fact that the RRR on the DMR and LightRifle are both pretty much 3x that of the BRs, which can more often than not, filter the gameplay down to poking wars across map. While the BR's killtime has been increased to make it a much more viable and fast-paced option, it's done nothing to give it a buff over long ranges due to it's spread. It's still a mid-range weapon that's okay at everything - the perfect utility weapon. The Carbine can wreck it up close, hell, even the Magnum can if used properly... while the BR and LightRifle have an advantage far away.

 

This idea that just because the DMR is now the midrange kill time weapon and isn't as powerful long range as the LightRifle (scoped) is and is now viable as a starting weapon is a bunch of bull. The RRR did not recieve a significant enough nerf to prevent people from poking cross map. The larger the maps, the smaller of a problem this is... but do any of us want bigger maps, especially if we want no sprint...?

 

Very well said.

 

The only thing I'd like to reiterate here is that Competitive Halo has always started with a single weapon and forced you to fight for the others about the map. period. That's the main part of this argument that I want to push. We should not, and should never attempt, to move away from that principle.

Share this post


Link to post

Even 'Slayer Pro' style loadouts don't add diversity - they add randomness.

 

We're playing Abandon. We both have BRs and we get one of those awkward 'out BR'd each other' moments. We're both on respawn. I pick the BR loadout because... well, it's been working for me so far. I spawn Beach. You select the LightRifle loadout, on a whim, and spawn Top Gold and run Ring 3. Now, thanks to a random spawn, you have top control and a weapon that allows you to lay down some massive hurt from a distance. I, on the other hand, am now exposed, on the low ground, with a weapon that can't truly contest you. This isn't an example of diversity or metagame. This is an example of dumb luck that can, to some extent, have an effect on the outcome of the game.

 

 

Your big argument against loadouts in that post wasn't really saying anything bad about loadouts at all. It's really about the importance of a good spawn system. I'm going to go off a limb and say this example is actually a true example and has happened to you before. Abandon's spawns aren't exactly good, if not downright bad. Default spawns anyway. I'm going to also assume the variant of Abandon you were playing was not utilizing the 250 spawn point system, as I hear when that map uses that system it's spawns improve greatly. But whatever spawns happened, it's the spawns fault that you were put on Beach with a LR user within 4sk range and no cover.

 

 

 

I don't think the issue is that the DMR can reach all the way across the map on every 4v4 that we have. I think that it supports well in that fact and should do so well if that's what it's niche is going to be. However, the problem stems from not being able to do so with the Carbine and BR. Because of this, the DMR/LR can overpower and pick people apart without being threatened by the power of both mid range weapons.

 

Not saying that isn't how it should go. Just point out the frustration that is being felt.

 

 

You're right, the Carbine and BR can't do what the DMR can because they're not long range weapons. They're mid range weapons. Once the BR/Carbine user closes the gap and they now have RRR active, the DMR will lose. (assuming they're equal skilled and BR/Carbine user isnt a durp and yadda yadda thats all given in these scenarios) Now the frustration that will be felt is shifted to the DMR guy, and why? Because he and or his team failed to shut down the BR guy. In other words, they got outplayed fair and square. 

 

The point in time in which the DMR can out shoot the other niche weapons isn't a problem either if map design is good. Say DMR guy is sitting on that little tiny narrow ramp a foot past the railing that overlooks Sniper spawn, the little tiny narrow ramp next to the actual blue/red ramps. (sorry if you dunno what i mean...i actually dont know the callout for that spot) They have a good view to Mohawk. Perfect range for DMR/LR, not so perfect range for other weapons. Engagements at those ranges will yield a kill for the DMR/LR guy, but a really simple strategy can work for those guys at Mohawk. Go into the curved hallways and get closer. Now the tables are turned if they're left unstopped by DMR/LR guy's team. 

 

For an example of when loadouts are BAD...let's use an extreme example. Complex, top jerk/roof everyone loves with a DMR. And, well...yeah, what else needs to be said? In regards to this particular issue, loadouts are balanced by map design.

 

 

 

I like how people act like all 4 rifles will significantly change the game. The BR is superior to the DMR in every way besides aim assist range. Its a 2 shot beatdown, has bleedthough, takes less shots to kill, and allows you to sweep to finish kills. This idea of randomness in loadouts can be applied to stuff on the map as well, its cluttered everywhere and they can very well have a weapon you wouldn't expect them too because you didn't see where they went off spawn.

 

 

Exactly. Good example here: Playing a v4 1v1 on Onyx, I lose a fight. I spawn bottom base and there's a plasma pistol just sitting there for me, granting me a noob combo off spawn. I have something the other guy doesn't know about off spawn and I may as well just have been given the option for a loadout with the noob combo built in because that very thing was bestowed upon me anyway. I didn't fight for that. Same goes for any map where you spawn in a base and weapons are there. No fighting involved with picking those up. You're just given it, just like loadouts do.

 

 

Very well said.

 

The only thing I'd like to reiterate here is that Competitive Halo has always started with a single weapon and forced you to fight for the others about the map. period. That's the main part of this argument that I want to push. We should not, and should never attempt, to move away from that principle.

 

 

I'm going to relate that saying to something I hear other people say, and nothing more needs to be said about it at all because it's a hot button, I know. 

 

"My family has always voted Conservative, so they must be right. That's why I'm voting Conservative also."

 

Don't get me wrong, these kind of mentalities are good for when some rookie company tries to change everything, but refusing to budge at all because an idea is different at all is just close-mindedness, not a valid defense mechanism in the name of all that makes Halo good. 

Share this post


Link to post

There's a reason why we didn't have multiple loadouts in halo 1/2/3

Share this post


Link to post

There's a reason why we didn't have multiple loadouts in halo 1/2/3

 

I can't tell if troll or not but I'll bite regardless.

 

 

Because 1/2/3 had clear cut defined utility weapons that could, with enough skill from the user, always overcome another weapon. They were not limited by niche, their effectiveness extended beyond defined niches. Ergo, a player's effectiveness and skill was able to shine through much more. There was just no need for loadouts at all.

 

Thing is with H4 is that there is no weapon as utilitarian as the M6D Magnum and so on and so forth, all the weapons ARE limited by niche. Therefore, give a player only one weapon all the time, their skill is limited by that weapon.

Share this post


Link to post

Your big argument against loadouts in that post wasn't really saying anything bad about loadouts at all. It's really about the importance of a good spawn system. I'm going to go off a limb and say this example is actually a true example and has happened to you before. Abandon's spawns aren't exactly good, if not downright bad. Default spawns anyway. I'm going to also assume the variant of Abandon you were playing was not utilizing the 250 spawn point system, as I hear when that map uses that system it's spawns improve greatly. But whatever spawns happened, it's the spawns fault that you were put on Beach with a LR user within 4sk range and no cover.

 

 

 

 

 

You're right, the Carbine and BR can't do what the DMR can because they're not long range weapons. They're mid range weapons. Once the BR/Carbine user closes the gap and they now have RRR active, the DMR will lose. (assuming they're equal skilled and BR/Carbine user isnt a durp and yadda yadda thats all given in these scenarios) Now the frustration that will be felt is shifted to the DMR guy, and why? Because he and or his team failed to shut down the BR guy. In other words, they got outplayed fair and square. 

 

The point in time in which the DMR can out shoot the other niche weapons isn't a problem either if map design is good. Say DMR guy is sitting on that little tiny narrow ramp a foot past the railing that overlooks Sniper spawn, the little tiny narrow ramp next to the actual blue/red ramps. (sorry if you dunno what i mean...i actually dont know the callout for that spot) They have a good view to Mohawk. Perfect range for DMR/LR, not so perfect range for other weapons. Engagements at those ranges will yield a kill for the DMR/LR guy, but a really simple strategy can work for those guys at Mohawk. Go into the curved hallways and get closer. Now the tables are turned if they're left unstopped by DMR/LR guy's team. 

 

For an example of when loadouts are BAD...let's use an extreme example. Complex, top jerk/roof everyone loves with a DMR. And, well...yeah, what else needs to be said? In regards to this particular issue, loadouts are balanced by map design.

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. Good example here: Playing a v4 1v1 on Onyx, I lose a fight. I spawn bottom base and there's a plasma pistol just sitting there for me, granting me a noob combo off spawn. I have something the other guy doesn't know about off spawn and I may as well just have been given the option for a loadout with the noob combo built in because that very thing was bestowed upon me anyway. I didn't fight for that. Same goes for any map where you spawn in a base and weapons are there. No fighting involved with picking those up. You're just given it, just like loadouts do.

 

 

 

 

I'm going to relate that saying to something I hear other people say, and nothing more needs to be said about it at all because it's a hot button, I know. 

 

"My family has always voted Conservative, so they must be right. That's why I'm voting Conservative also."

 

Don't get me wrong, these kind of mentalities are good for when some rookie company tries to change everything, but refusing to budge at all because an idea is different at all is just close-mindedness, not a valid defense mechanism in the name of all that makes Halo good. 

 

Your last quip about the conservative family isn't very relatable to the reasons why I feel we shouldn't have load outs in the competitive settings. That would imply that because a higher power (be it god or your parents or whoever) said something, you followed suit because "they must be right". in relation to this scenario, that would mean that because Ghost/Ghandi/Ninja said that a single load out weapon was right, that I'm going to follow them blindly, because "they must be right". And although you might be right about a lot of the community following blindly and adhering to that ideal, I'm not part of that crowd. I know this game in and out. I know it from every standpoint and have filled every role in the past decade. I know what works, and what doesn't, and the reasons for why they work and don't. I have studied and played countlessly to come to my decisions, and I'm certainly not lead by any group of individuals, no matter how many titles they have under their belt. The fact that I agree with some things they say is mostly because they, too, know this game like the back of their hand. I have come to these decisions based of logic and realistic thought, and will argue them as such. "I vote conservative, because I have studied and gotten to know the politicians at hand. My parents have also, and that's why we agree."

 

There will always be disagreements. But I do want you all to know that you are my brothers, and that we do this all for a common cause. And I cherish that, and all of you guys (even the ones I don't agree with) because this is a huge part of my life. And I thank you all for the opportunity that is given to me to be a part of it.

Share this post


Link to post

 

Thing is with H4 is that there is no weapon as utilitarian as the M6D Magnum.

 

Tell you what. Let's play H1 you and me. We will only fight at very close range. I'll let you use the pistol.

I'll use the plasma rifle. After a while, you'll understand why that statement is so wrong. We can do the

same experiment only with the AR and you'll find I can win the majority of the battles close range.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Tell you what. Let's play H1 you and me. We will only fight at very close range. I'll let you use the pistol.

I'll use the plasma rifle. After a while, you'll understand why that statement is so wrong. We can do the

same experiment only with the AR and you'll find I can win the majority of the battles close range.

 

I would expect a user with a username such as your own to be more familiar with the ins and outs of, well, the three shot pistol.

 

It sounds like the premise of your post is that you could outperform me with X weapon whilst I used the M6D. It's true, YOU probably could. I'm not that good at H1. My average time to kill with the M6D would probably be longer than your average time to kill with the MA5B. However, a more skilled person could have a better average time to kill with the M6D than they would your average time to kill with the MA5B. And if a pro player were to be using the M6D, they'd probably be able to perform the minimum time to kill with a good percentage, and in that case someone's average time to kill with the MA5B would be irrelevant because it's minimum time to kill is longer than the M6D's.

 

 

So, back to what I said: 1/2/3 had clear cut defined utility weapons that could, with enough skill from the user, always overcome another weapon.

 

Key words: enough skill

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I would expect a user with a username such as your own to be more familiar with the ins and outs of, well, the three shot pistol.

 

It sounds like the premise of your post is that you could outperform me with X weapon whilst I used the M6D. It's true, YOU probably could. I'm not that good at H1. My average time to kill with the M6D would probably be longer than your average time to kill with the MA5B. However, a more skilled person could have a better average time to kill with the M6D than they would your average time to kill with the MA5B. And if a pro player were to be using the M6D, they'd probably be able to perform the minimum time to kill with a good percentage, and in that case someone's average time to kill with the MA5B would be irrelevant because it's minimum time to kill is longer than the M6D's.

 

 

So, back to what I said: 1/2/3 had clear cut defined utility weapons that could, with enough skill from the user, always overcome another weapon.

 

Key words: enough skill

 

I'm not going to go off topic anymore so I'll leave you with this. The plasma rifle slows your look speed down significantly when it hits you in H1. It doesn't matter how skilled a pistol shot you have, if I have the plasma rifle I will destroy you 99% of the time in my intended range. The assault rifle does not have the stun effect it does however have an insanely quick kill time at close range like it should. I'm telling you right now the skilled pistol user loses the vast majority of close range fights against the AR.

 

The pistol was not utilitarian. It lost to other weapons when it entered into their area of strength and you had to find and pick up those weapons on the map. Just like you should find and fight for the carbine, LR and other weapons that are not power weapons but have strong points in certain scenarios. Good old fashioned Halo. Like it should be.

 

PM me with anything else so this doesn't go too Off topic please.

 

P.S. I think you'll find that I am very familiar with the ins and outs of the pistol my friend. Nice try though.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So one thing that's come from watching AGL today - I really don't think the Scattershot is suitable for competitive play at all. LAN or not it's far too inconsistent at anything other than melee range. I'd rather see the Shotgun used on account of its greater consistency - now so many other weapons have been buffed I don't think it would be overpowered at all, especially not if it's placed as out of the way as Scattershots seem to be in v4.

 

I'd also like to see Dispatch get retired and replaced with something along the lines of Ender for CTF or Atlas for TS and EXT. It's so difficult to remain interested in Dispatch games if someone isn't doing phenomenal things with the sniper.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm sorry, but I can't agree. Putting the primaries about the map in a strategic way is in no form random, and is certainly no where as random as being able to spawn with whatever primary you like. Sure, the interactions later on in the match will have somewhat the same effect in that you won't know what your opponent has, but it's different when you can battle for said weaponry. And trying to say that there isn't enough difference in the primaries is just as far fetched. I would much rather (and routinely set out to) jump onto ring 3 with a LR than  BR any day. I would prefer to find a DMR to keep suppressive fire from across the map and retain relatively easy assists that the LR makes me work harder for. I'll pick up the carbine to drain shields quickly and effectively to team shot at most ranges. If you aren't utilizing the sandbox in such ways you are being basic and predictable, and you probably shop at Khols.

 

My point is simply that having the weapons on map gives plenty of incentive to seek them out and utilize them in accordance to a gameplan, whereas being able to spawn with them takes out a key part to an evolving metagame that we haven't seen develop until Halo 4.

 

You are right, however, that human error can cause upsets within niche. But, t high level play, we won't see as much of that. Therefore we need everyone on the same footing until they gain advantage through skill and teamwork, not predetermined weapon niches.

 

I'm currently watching the event and the gameplay contradicts what you're saying;

  • Players aren't going out of their way to pick up the other primaries on the map
  • Players certainly aren't for fighting and timing the other primaries on the map
  • Players are missing with all weapons constantly and overcoming odds great and small

The action of picking up another primary for a specific use isn't random in so far as there is a planned function behind the action but the timing of the act is circumstantial / random i.e. you only pick one up in passing (spawn dependent) if it has spawned. Allowing multiple rifle starts puts the choice and thought process to the fore making the game much more readable;

 

Individual Preference - works throughout the skill gap, what do they lead with? Obviously if you're playing an unknown opponent the first encounter can only be predicted so far (see other factors) but after the initial engagement the game becomes much more readable. Players and teams that are familiar with one another will know individual preferences.

Team Structures - working at a higher level, becomes more known and widespread as the meta develops. We knew for instance that Warriors used x2DMR, x2BR setup at the MLG event.

Other Factors - Map Style, Gametype, Periods of play (opp. looking to stop a cap off spawn) e.t.c.

 

Re-posting some relevant pre-TU discussion because it's too late and too hot.

 

Level playing field (choice) - the idea that everyone starting with the same forced option is the only way to level the playing field. This isn't true because the field is already leveled in the equal choice we give the players. It wouldn't matter if one choice was vastly superior to another because all players are given equal opportunity to choose said option, however given proposed balance this isn't the case as the rifles are being setup for subtle role based advantage.

 

Testing player ability - is giving only a single option the best way to test player ability? To me this isn't really the case given a balanced sandbox because neither option is significantly better than the other (as say a ~1.4 DMR vs ~1.7 BR is). You're still testing the same skill set with relatively equal opportunity to best your opponent the only difference is you're testing the players ability to anticipate and adapt to a bigger variety of scenarios over the course of the match.

 

This isn't chaotic because it is predictable;

What is the most efficient combination of rifles in a team - e.g. x2 ranged x2 cleanup

Looking at the composition of the opposition who will be their aggressive players

Given their playstyle choices what will be their actions - routes, sight lines, responses e.t.c.

Looking at the composition of the opposition who will be their passive support players

Given their playstyle choices what will be their actions - routes, sight lines, responses e.t.c.

 

Player satisfaction - leading on from the last point the idea that you gain more satisfaction from beating someone with the same rifle than you do an alternative similar option. To me this comes down to what players have become accustom to in previous games with only a single primary option at our disposal - is this actually the case given real balance?

 

Does it feel more satisfying to beat someone who is on a level playing field or does it feel more satisfying to beat someone by over coming their upper hand? The best way to explain this is to look at exaggerated difference. This can be role based; consider an opponent with a sword, a sniper, rockets e.t.c. in their 'domain' (range, circumstance) is there not a greater elation in defeating them? Again looking at the X on X, the greatest moments of elation and satisfaction stem from overcoming expected defeat e.g. out-BRing someone whilst on 1 shot, out-shooting a player with overshield.

 

Bring this back to the primary choices - BR vs LR. Looking at the proposed balance we know that each rifle has a advantage albeit a subtle one at a particular range. BR players should in theory win out normal close-medium range fights against LR players and in turn they should be winning medium-long range fights. Due to player error you will constantly see players overcome the subtle role difference presented to them and with it comes the extra satisfaction of knowing they technically overcame the upper hand in that scenario.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Careh, what your describing sounds like it could be a very interesting and competitive FPS. To me, though, it doesn't sound like Halo.

 

Call me stuck in the past I guess, but Halo has it's own interesting and competitive gameplay that IMO doesn't include multiple loadouts. There is no doubt merit to your argument. I don't think it should be applied to Halo because Halo has established that starting all players on equal ground can not only be extremely competitive (MLG) but also very fun for the larger base of FPS gamers (H2 and H3 had large and sustained XBL numbers for the duration of their lifetime as titles).

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Careh, what your describing sounds like it could be a very interesting and competitive FPS. To me, though, it doesn't sound like Halo.

 

Call me stuck in the past I guess, but Halo has it's own interesting and competitive gameplay that IMO doesn't include multiple loadouts. There is no doubt merit to your argument. I don't think it should be applied to Halo because Halo has established that

starting all players on equal ground can not only be extremely competitive (MLG) but also very fun for the larger base of

FPS gamers (H2 and H3 had large and sustained XBL numbers for the duration of their lifetime as titles).

 

 

People like to argue that one gun starts is what defines Halo. It's true that it's one of the defining things of Halo but there are a huge plethora of things that define Halo from other games. If forsaking one of those things makes a more competitive Halo, I think it's a reasonable trade off. 

 

Maybe my reasoning for this is because the hyper competitive scene isn't my mainstay in Halo, more so the other aspects of the universe. When I think of things that define Halo, I think of Spartans in multiplayer, I think of Jeff Steitzer as the announcer, I think of the well designed multiplayer maps, I think of mechanics like lack of ADS, so on and so forth. Everyone spawning with the same weapon never really cried to me 'this is Halo!'. The only reasoning I can put behind some people thinking that way and some not is a matter of how one plays and experiences Halo. Myself personally, I think a lot of people would still very well acknowledge that Halo's multiplayer is still very much Halo's multiplayer if loadouts are in the competitive scene. 

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

People like to argue that one gun starts is what defines Halo. It's true that it's one of the defining things of Halo but there are a huge plethora of things that define Halo from other games. If forsaking one of those things makes a more competitive Halo, I think it's a reasonable trade off. 

 

Maybe my reasoning for this is because the hyper competitive scene isn't my mainstay in Halo, more so the other aspects of the universe. When I think of things that define Halo, I think of Spartans in multiplayer, I think of Jeff Steitzer as the announcer, I think of the well designed multiplayer maps, I think of mechanics like lack of ADS, so on and so forth. Everyone spawning with the same weapon never really cried to me 'this is Halo!'. The only reasoning I can put behind some people thinking that way and some not is a matter of how one plays and experiences Halo. Myself personally, I think a lot of people would still very well acknowledge that Halo's multiplayer is still very much Halo's multiplayer if loadouts are in the competitive scene. 

There is a lot of truth to your post. I have experienced Halo multiplayer for more than 10 years and in my experience both the competitive as well as regular or fun gametypes were so much better when there was set starting weapons/equipment/AA's e.t.c.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I can't tell if troll or not but I'll bite regardless.

 

 

Because 1/2/3 had clear cut defined utility weapons that could, with enough skill from the user, always overcome another weapon. They were not limited by niche, their effectiveness extended beyond defined niches. Ergo, a player's effectiveness and skill was able to shine through much more. There was just no need for loadouts at all.

 

Thing is with H4 is that there is no weapon as utilitarian as the M6D Magnum and so on and so forth, all the weapons ARE limited by niche. Therefore, give a player only one weapon all the time, their skill is limited by that weapon

 

My original point was that we couldnt do loadouts. However, theres only one weapon that fits the "utility" role, and thats the DMR, but its also laughably easy to use

Share this post


Link to post

I just find it annoying that its June, and we are still discussing loadouts.

 

Map/gametype choice and weapon placement/timers are far more important, but hey, 4sk Br!

Share this post


Link to post

I just find it annoying that its June, and we are still discussing loadouts.

 

Map/gametype choice and weapon placement/timers are far more important, but hey, 4sk Br!

I sometimes lie awake at night thinking how things would be if only Reach had never happened.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I just find it annoying that its June, and we are still discussing loadouts.

 

Map/gametype choice and weapon placement/timers are far more important, but hey, 4sk Br!

 

Speaking of weapon timers, why are things like Rail and rockets on 3 minutes? The BR kills extremely fast and we don't need weapons spawning at the snails pace they do now. 

 

We should also be asking Quinn if its possible to increase the despawn time of weapons to 1 minute across the board so we can finally have static spawns on weapons and be able to control the ammo of them (this is especially important in the ridiculous 12 bullet snipe). 

 

 

I can't wait to remove the aim assist and bloom off the DMR. Make the marksman part of it actually mean something.

 

 

Bloom should go, but every primary needs a good aim assist / bullet mag nerf, not just the DMR. 

Share this post


Link to post

I can't wait to remove the aim assist and bloom off the DMR. Make the marksman part of it actually mean something.

So we played a 4 v 4 lobby last night with reduced aim assist BR.

 

Did you think they liked the challenge, or say it was too hard?

 

Also, its more the bullet mag that kills the DMR with that massive reticle I feel.

Share this post


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

×

Important Information

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