Jump to content
LeandroTrooper

Why people think Ricochet is Random?

Recommended Posts

The better team is the team that wins. 

 

You can absolutely play a game of Middy bomb the "wrong" way, even if you're a bunch of Mexican gunslingers. 

The only one that can make Mexicans jokes is me.  :quinn: 

 

 

 

Last I was seeing throwdown had 200 or so people playing it. The playlist was literally deader than Legendary Slayer, and that was AR starts. So even though I'm not a fan of how competitive ricochet, I still say at this point why not? What have we got to lose? 

In average, Ricochet is ABOVE 1000 :) and we seriously got nothing to lose, specially when we're trying new stuff that can benefit Halo in general. People are really scared to even.. TEST something new?

 

 

 

 

Not very many people seem to like it, the only ones that do THINK it could work or just have a theory.

There are more people liking it with excellent points, in the other hand the people who don't like it just call it random and Grifball's lost brother. (Which is not bad, where Grifball is competitive in their own league)

 

Like someone in the forums said:

 

  • Maintains the focus on slaying map control and power weapons.
  • Has a risk vs reward factor for scoring with either throws or walk-ins.
  • Introduces a neutral Objective game to Halo 4.
  • By requiring the action button to be held in order to catch the ball passes and interceptions will require higher awareness from players and will allow for fumbles and clutches. The ball carrier can't just pass the ball to an opponent in order to gain an advantage in a gunfight either.
  • Due to the throwing mechanic if the goals are placed in certain positions there could be a lot more viable setups to attempt to score from on a given map than there are viable flag routes which could lead to more experimentation amongst teams and deeper gameplay overall.
  • It's well announced in-game which makes it very spectator friendly without having to rely so heavily on good casters.

     

     

    I think neutral flag would just be way too easy. Instead of having to control mid and then penetrate the enemy's base, you only have to gain control of mid. Sometimes you don't even have to gain control. I'm sure on plenty of maps you could get a cap by sneaking in for a pull and then just having your teammates lay down cover fire on the best lines of sight to take out the flag guy. This problem is often exacerbated by the fact that maps tend to have a natural wall (either a physical barrier or dead space) between both teams. Sanc, Pit, Beaver Creek, Lockout, etc. are all situated such that it's very easy to GET to the middle, but very difficult to push PAST the middle.

    How about ONE flag? You score one flag and end the round, change positions (from offense to defense)  Maybe not for Throwdown, but a new variant of gametypes would be nice. What do you think?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If you weren't able to close a plant, then you weren't the better team, or you simply weren't playing as well. 

 

Getting close to scoring isn't the point of the gametype. Scoring is. Being good at getting close is not being good. 

 

All 4 of you dying means you played bad. 

 

Getting forced into a bad spawn means the other team controlled the spawns well. 

 

Sure there is a little luck involved in spawns, but it isn't all luck, and in Halo 2, it was completely possible to control spawns because of the way influence worked in that game, so saying you got a bad spawn because you were unlucky is pointless. The other team could have easily been controlling the good spawns or immediately identified your spawn to trap you. Saying it was luck and that they weren't better is an excuse to justify your team's shortcomings. If you lose, then you lose. 

Share this post


Link to post

Playlist population really has nothing to do with what makes a gametype competitive:

 

In Halo 3, SWAT, Action Sack, and BTB would often have more players than Team Throwback and MLG.

 

In Halo Reach, BTB, Infection, Grifball, and several other playlists had more players than v7 MLG.

 

In Halo 4, BTB, SWAT, Flood, Snipers, Action Sack, Dominion, Infinity Slayer, and Grifball all have/had a higher population than Team Throwdown.

 

Higher population does not equal more competitive.  

I wasn't talking about what makes a playlist competitive - I was talking about what the majority of the people like. Competitive has never been popular because most people aren't good enough to play at that level, or they think competitive players are jerks.

Share this post


Link to post

It just reflects badly on AGL due to his Member I.D. stating he is a member of the AGL Staff. For a company and league who wants to be taken more seriously when it comes to knowing Halo and how to improve viewership you would expect them to want their Staff to be more mature on a Halo Community Forum. All anyone will end up seeing when looking at his Member I.D. is AGL, and he should know better than to act such a way honestly, at the least reading someones opinion and statement beforehand would do him wonders.

My opinion is an opinion, nothing else. I have a different idea of what would make the game good - does that bother you?

Share this post


Link to post

My opinion is an opinion, nothing else. I have a different idea of what would make the game good - does that bother you?

Apparently, yes. I also have no idea where he got personal attacks from, I thought your opinion was well said

Share this post


Link to post

Apparently, yes. I also have no idea where he got personal attacks from, I thought your opinion was well said

I said once that Sprint was cool for custom games such as Indiana Jones or playlist like BTB/Action Sack and shouldn't disappear 100% from Halo. You can imagine how "destroyed" I was (dont really care) with neg rep.

Most people have different ideas, beliefs, etc and I get that people have different opinions.

 

It just bothers me two things:

- People who doesnt have any type of opinion and just follows what other says. Like gandhi for example when he said he was moving to CoD and lots of people made a thread saying: "We're going to CoD cuz Gandhi told me the truth"

(Not bashing Gandhi, just pointing those people who left Halo cuz of Gandhi)

 

- People who likes to attack other opinions without strong arguments. You can't attack me because of my opinion. In fact, its stupid if you do. Unless I'm atacking everyone else, or affecting anyone in a negative way I shouldn't be judged or attacked by my opinion. A good example, Religion. If I believe or I dont believe in god. Nobody should fucking judge me or provokes me with his opinion. Exactly like Ricochet, I'm waiting for a good legit response, but until I see someone giving facts instead of attacking people's opinion I won't give up on Ricochet.

Share this post


Link to post

When halo 4 came out the concept of ordnance drops was made possible by the infinity theme. People complained that the ordnance made the game play randomly, because the ordnance was, well, random. Everyone hated the randomness of the game play and everyone jumped on the "we hate random" bandwagon. Now anything that people hate they declare is random.

 

People need to get their analysis on...

Share this post


Link to post

That makes no sense and you know it. 

 

 

The better team is the team that wins. 

 

You can absolutely play a game of Middy bomb the "wrong" way, even if you're a bunch of Mexican gunslingers. 

 

 

If you weren't able to close a plant, then you weren't the better team, or you simply weren't playing as well. 

 

Getting close to scoring isn't the point of the gametype. Scoring is. Being good at getting close is not being good. 

 

All 4 of you dying means you played bad. 

 

Getting forced into a bad spawn means the other team controlled the spawns well. 

 

Sure there is a little luck involved in spawns, but it isn't all luck, and in Halo 2, it was completely possible to control spawns because of the way influence worked in that game, so saying you got a bad spawn because you were unlucky is pointless. The other team could have easily been controlling the good spawns or immediately identified your spawn to trap you. Saying it was luck and that they weren't better is an excuse to justify your team's shortcomings. If you lose, then you lose. 

 

If you won the game, your team obviously played better than the opponents, I'm not denying that. But just because you win one game doesn't mean you're the better team. If team A beats team B in Assault 80% of the time, they are the better team when it comes to playing Assault. If team B finally pulls out a win, you can't immediately declare them the better team because there is an accepted level of variance in competition. What I'm saying is that when it's too difficult to score, you hinge entire games on a single 30-second spawn control and it's more likely for the worse team to win. There is higher variance. If you average all of the upsets on each gametype and find that Assault has more upsets than any other gametype, surely that shows that the better team wins less often because the gametype is, in some way, flawed past an acceptable level of variance. Also, I intentionally avoided using the word "luck" because of all the baggage that comes with it. I get annoyed as much as the next guy when I hear people complain that they got unlucky, but you also can't ignore the fact that the better team will occasionally play bad enough that they lose to teams they normally beat.

Share this post


Link to post

If you won the game, your team obviously played better than the opponents, I'm not denying that. But just because you win one game doesn't mean you're the better team. If team A beats team B in Assault 80% of the time, they are the better team when it comes to playing Assault. If team B finally pulls out a win, you can't immediately declare them the better team because there is an accepted level of variance in competition. What I'm saying is that when it's too difficult to score, you hinge entire games on a single 30-second spawn control and it's more likely for the worse team to win. There is higher variance. If you average all of the upsets on each gametype and find that Assault has more upsets than any other gametype, surely that shows that the better team wins less often because the gametype is, in some way, flawed past an acceptable level of variance. Also, I intentionally avoided using the word "luck" because of all the baggage that comes with it. I get annoyed as much as the next guy when I hear people complain that they got unlucky, but you also can't ignore the fact that the better team will occasionally play bad enough that they lose to teams they normally beat.

All that is fine about assault, but if anything that only gives more merit to the idea of ricochet working due to the fact that between throwing and running, you don't have super hard scoring. 

Share this post


Link to post

All that is fine about assault, but if anything that only gives more merit to the idea of ricochet working due to the fact that between throwing and running, you don't have super hard scoring. 

Yeah, I know. I was responding to Lemon's criticism that it was easier to score in Ricochet than it is to score in Assault. I am pro-Ricochet. lol

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah, I know. I was responding to Lemon's criticism that it was easier to score in Ricochet than it is to score in Assault. I am pro-Ricochet. lol

I still don't understand why people dislike Ricochet. And of course, no given arguments of why is random. In that case, anything can be random from what I'm getting with this topic.  <_<

Share this post


Link to post

Ricochet seems pretty popular - meanwhile Team Throwdown which "lives and dies" by those principals has a REAL SOLID 200 players. I think you're living in the past and don't want to see alterations to a tired game style.

 

The game has a real solid 17,000 online.... Your point?

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

On the right map, it's a good gametype I think. It is VERY different from anything else that has ever been in Halo but I think for the sake of making pros FINALLY do something new and different from the same strats that have been going on since Halo 2, it should be at least tried. Is it better than assault? seems like the answer is no but I actually really enjoyed watching that game of Ninja playing it on pitfall. An interesting question is how it would play with no radar.

 

Increase the score to win on maps that are more open and I don't think its a terrible game at all. It's not random in any way that is not player-controlled.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I am still at a loss as to why 343 spends resources on development of a new game type but won't do the same for our beloved assault, one flag, etc. And the voice tracks were added... did you notice? If they want to create a new gametype that requires new voice tracks they can.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

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.