Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Aphex Twin

Halo 3 v9 settings

Recommended Posts

 

How about Anonymous maps? Unidentified maps? Foreign Maps? Unfamiliar Maps? Strange Maps!? 

 

You are splitting hairs here, it all means the same thing as being Random.

p5k1g.jpg

 

 

If you weren't my friend already you would be after this. Tsoukalicious

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Its funny how a thread about hypothetical changes in the settings of a 6 year old game has created a back and forth similar to that of the v5 thread. Sure its fun to think about, but the bottom line is that these settings aren't being changed. Everyone is entitled to their opinion but it really doesn't matter! Here is some perspective: There is no MLG Halo. The playlist isn't changing. There is one H3 event planned that is already on short notice...Why are people going as far as to constantly question opinions just because they don't match up with their own? It really is ludicrous. 

 

It's interesting to see what other people think, and why they hold those opinions. It helps to gain perspective if we all try to understand each other in detail.

 

Maybe it's not very common but I know that I don't believe in simply giving opinions without explanations and attempts at justification. Just claiming that something is liked or disliked is pretty shallow feedback and doesn't give any information as to what was done well or what was done poorly by the designer.

In this case it's all hypothetical, but it's still fascinating to see the justifications for various opinions because often they differ even amongst a given consensus of opinion.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of settings, how do you set drop spawns in H3 to be consistent without having a coordinate system to ensure all of the weapons drop from exactly the same height? And what kind of height do they need to drop from? I know it's 0.8 units in Reach & H4 but with no way to measure that in H3 I'm not sure what objects to use as appropriate measuring sticks.

 

I don't think it matters how high you set them at all. It just has to physically drop and then come to a rest. That's the whole reason drop spawns worked in H3. The game treats the weapon as if it was picked up when it immediately drops from the spawn to the ground. It's also why if you pick up a weapon as it spawns and continue to move around it doesn't detect the weapon as having been picked up yet (aka "dirtying" weapon spawns). If you didn't know, you can hold your weapon pickup button as it spawns, stay moving for 30 seconds, stand still for 2-3 seconds, then the next spawn will be delayed by 30 seconds. It's a great way to get a jump on the other team, especially when the players are trying to time the weapons. Just the other day I dirtied a rocket spawn in customs on The Pit and when the next spawn came around, they were all rushing green hall so we flushed them out with nades and picked up the rockets after killing them. I also love dirtying the enemy's sniper (especially easy on Narrows because of lifts), and then stay moving for as long as possible so their sniper takes forever to respawn. lol

Share this post


Link to post

On the topic of settings, how do you set drop spawns in H3 to be consistent without having a coordinate system to ensure all of the weapons drop from exactly the same height? And what kind of height do they need to drop from? I know it's 0.8 units in Reach & H4 but with no way to measure that in H3 I'm not sure what objects to use as appropriate measuring sticks.

I believe they used to use a Fusion Coil. Place the weapon on top of that, let the weapon come to rest, then delete the Fusion Coil.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't think it matters how high you set them at all. It just has to physically drop and then come to a rest. That's the whole reason drop spawns worked in H3. The game treats the weapon as if it was picked up when it immediately drops from the spawn to the ground. It's also why if you pick up a weapon as it spawns and continue to move around it doesn't detect the weapon as having been picked up yet (aka "dirtying" weapon spawns). If you didn't know, you can hold your weapon pickup button as it spawns, stay moving for 30 seconds, stand still for 2-3 seconds, then the next spawn will be delayed by 30 seconds. It's a great way to get a jump on the other team, especially when the players are trying to time the weapons. Just the other day I dirtied a rocket spawn in customs on The Pit and when the next spawn came around, they were all rushing green hall so we flushed them out with nades and picked up the rockets after killing them. I also love dirtying the enemy's sniper (especially easy on Narrows because of lifts), and then stay moving for as long as possible so their sniper takes forever to respawn. lol

 

I understand dirtying the weapons, Halo 3's weapon respawn timers don't start until the weapon has "come to rest" for 2 seconds after being moved off it's spawn. I've made it in certain games so that weapons never respawn by abusing that (mostly the Laser on Standoff lol), I was mostly concerned that I had recently attempted to set up drop spawns yet for some reason instead of respawning at a consistent time they were roughly 4 seconds later with each consecutive spawn, which lead to me wondering if height was a factor at all.

Share this post


Link to post

I understand dirtying the weapons, Halo 3's weapon respawn timers don't start until the weapon has "come to rest" for 2 seconds after being moved off it's spawn. I've made it in certain games so that weapons never respawn by abusing that (mostly the Laser on Standoff lol), I was mostly concerned that I had recently attempted to set up drop spawns yet for some reason instead of respawning at a consistent time they were roughly 4 seconds later with each consecutive spawn, which lead to me wondering if height was a factor at all.

 

Well like you said, the timer doesn't start until the weapon comes to a rest. If your weapon spawns from a million feet in the air or it's bouncing around for a while, that will delay your spawns. Make sure whatever weapon you are dropping isn't hitting the ground at a weird angle so it comes to a rest asap.

Share this post


Link to post

Citadel is a dope map. I'm surpirsed there's hate for it. It's one if those maps that could be used for multiple game types. Plus it's a good looking map.

Share this post


Link to post

Narrows and the pit are the worst maps ever to be used by mlg.

 

Okay that's your opinion. I don't have to have the same one.

 

Why can't everything be that simple?

 

And I know you said that to try and irritate me. I don't even like narrows. Pit is also average compared to some h1 and h2 maps

Share this post


Link to post

Okay that's your opinion. I don't have to have the same one.

 

Why can't everything be that simple?

Cause it's not just an opinion. You can objectively look at a map and say whether it's good or not.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing that needs to go is Amp.  And if people don't like, or don't think maps like Blackout, Cold Storage, or Citadel will work in competitive play, are there any good forge maps made in Sandbox?  I remember how awesome that map was as a forge canvas but I don't remember any popular MLG-type maps from it?

Share this post


Link to post

Cause it's not just an opinion. You can objectively look at a map and say whether it's good or not.

Some people think solace sliced was a good map.

 

Also some of you didn't like that I said "not like it matters anyway"

Do you actually think these "V9 settings" matter when they won't be put in the MLG playlist because 343 said they "Can't" (Yeah deff) and there will probably be only one more big halo 3 tournament and it's too late in the game to change settings

 

I guess some people could use them for fun but there is really no need to call them v9 settings when they are not made by the same people as the last 8 versions

Share this post


Link to post

The only thing that needs to go is Amp. And if people don't like, or don't think maps like Blackout, Cold Storage, or Citadel will work in competitive play, are there any good forge maps made in Sandbox? I remember how awesome that map was as a forge canvas but I don't remember any popular MLG-type maps from it?

People think Amp is bad cause of spawns, but from my experience of playing the game it's not hard to predict spawns. If your team is proper position and they get a lucky spawn they should always be able to help you since you can shot from anywhere on the map. But I don't care if it's removed if that means Citadel would be put in.

 

I don't know why we never got a Sandbox map. I seen some pretty good Sandbox maps. It's disappointing we didn't get Citadel in the rotation and a Sandbox map. Would've been nice

 

Some people think solace sliced was a good map.

Go on..

 

There's people who like Solace, I don't get your point.

Share this post


Link to post

People think Amp is bad cause of spawns, but from my experience of playing the game it's not hard to predict spawns. If your team is proper position and they get a lucky spawn they should always be able to help you since you can shot from anywhere on the map. But I don't care if it's removed if that means Citadel would be put in.

 

I don't know why we never got a Sandbox map. I seen some pretty good Sandbox maps. It's disappointing we didn't get Citadel in the rotation and a Sandbox map. Would've been nice

 

 

Go on..

 

There's people who like Solace, I don't get your point.

Didn't Sandbox have some issues with bumpy terrain? The blocks had rounded edges if memory serves. Foundry made it much easier to have a flat surface.

Share this post


Link to post

People think Amp is bad cause of spawns, but from my experience of playing the game it's not hard to predict spawns. If your team is proper position and they get a lucky spawn they should always be able to help you since you can shot from anywhere on the map. But I don't care if it's removed if that means Citadel would be put in.

 

I don't know why we never got a Sandbox map. I seen some pretty good Sandbox maps. It's disappointing we didn't get Citadel in the rotation and a Sandbox map. Would've been nice

 

 

Go on..

 

There's people who like Solace, I don't get your point.

theres people who don't like citadel. and there's people who do.

 

same with solace. It's all opinion

Share this post


Link to post

Didn't Sandbox have some issues with bumpy terrain? The blocks had rounded edges if memory serves. Foundry made it much easier to have a flat surface.

There was probably little things, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having a different terrain. Like I would've rather had grass for Sanc than just forge pieces in Reach.

 

theres people who don't like citadel. and there's people who do.

 

same with solace. It's all opinion

You can still make an argument why Solace isn't a good map. Go ahead like it, but it plays poorly.

Share this post


Link to post

There was probably little things, but I don't think there's anything wrong with having a different terrain. Like I would've rather had grass for Sanc than just forge pieces in Reach.

 

 

You can still make an argument why Solace isn't a good map. Go ahead like it, but it plays poorly.

What I mean by terrain was that the blocks didn't line up properly, so there would be a ton of bumps as you walked over them.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

theres people who don't like citadel. and there's people who do.

 

same with solace. It's all opinion

There are people who like solace. That doesn't make it a good map.

 

There are people who don't like citadel, that doesn't make it a bad map.

 

There are objective reasons as to why narrows is a bad map. Regardless if people like it or not, it's a bad map because of these reasons.

 

Popularity=\=competitive merit.

Share this post


Link to post

No map is "objectively" better than another because there are tons of different opinions on what it means to be "better". To some people Narrows may feel like the epitome of competitive Halo. To myself and others, they consider it linear aggression personified.

 

If you want to determine which maps are objectively the best, you must agree on a definition of what constitutes a good map. For noobs, it would simply be how much they enjoyed it. If you have 100 people playtest Narrows and Midship and 90% of the people consider Narrows more fun, then by the standard of noobs, Narrows would be a "better" map. Ofc, if you did the same test with hardcore players, you'd probably get a much different result (though some of the posts on these forums make me not so sure).

 

To me, a great way to objectively determine the competitiveness of a map is to look at a the key components of competition. Two basic ones that hopefully everyone on these forums could agree with are:

1. How well is the skill gap represented in the score?

2. How consistently is the skill gap represented in the score?

 

#1 is tested by taking statistics of score disparity on each map and the preferred gametype (because you can't play maps in a vacuum ofc). If both maps are being tested for competitive viability with TS, then a map which frequently ends close to 50-45 can be said to be a poor competitive map. Assuming you are sampling a wide range of player/team skill levels randomly, you should not be ending with a lot of close games. A map that ends with a 50-30 to 50-35 kill disparity is a much healthier competitive map because when you get more evenly matched teams competing, the score must reflect the skill of each tmie with more and more precision.

 

#2 prevents "broken" maps from being perceived as competitive. If a map allows super broken spawn killing that is nearly impossible to get out of, it will seem to be competitive in the statistics when you are looking at component 1, but if you notice that teams are winning about half of their matches on a certain map, you can chalk up the score disparity of each game not to a reflected skill gap but to the map being a virtual coin toss. The best team should always win, and while that may not be the case in reality where emotions run high and teams choke, consistency is still a great thing to look at.

 

With all this in mind, it's important to realize these are not everyone's opinions about what makes a map good. It's dumb to argue with someone about whether a map is better than another when you have two different opinions on what "good" is. It's unlikely two players experienced on the same two maps have had relatively different experiences. Their perspective is what makes them disagree with you, not their experience (though it can play a factor when you start talking about drastically different skill levels and such).

 

If you want to brag about how some maps are "objectively" better or worse, I'm all for that because I'm pretty confident my opinions would reflect the competitive aspects most people (claim to) value in their Halo games. All I'm saying is at least collect some statistics to back up your claim if you're going to bring objectivity into the discussion. Just saying something is objective or even a FACT without any quantitative evidence is embarrassing and frankly pitiful to watch.

 

Quantitative evidence to support a change for v9: Amplified gets vetoed 99% of the time in the MLG playlist.

Source: my years of watching the veto counter hit 8 in under 3 seconds every time it get chosen

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

No map is "objectively" better than another because there are tons of different opinions on what it means to be "better". To some people Narrows may feel like the epitome of competitive Halo. To myself and others, they consider it linear aggression personified.

 

If you want to determine which maps are objectively the best, you must agree on a definition of what constitutes a good map. For noobs, it would simply be how much they enjoyed it. If you have 100 people playtest Narrows and Midship and 90% of the people consider Narrows more fun, then by the standard of noobs, Narrows would be a "better" map. Ofc, if you did the same test with hardcore players, you'd probably get a much different result (though some of the posts on these forums make me not so sure).

 

To me, a great way to objectively determine the competitiveness of a map is to look at a the key components of competition. Two basic ones that hopefully everyone on these forums could agree with are:

1. How well is the skill gap represented in the score?

2. How consistently is the skill gap represented in the score?

 

#1 is tested by taking statistics of score disparity on each map and the preferred gametype (because you can't play maps in a vacuum ofc). If both maps are being tested for competitive viability with TS, then a map which frequently ends close to 50-45 can be said to be a poor competitive map. Assuming you are sampling a wide range of player/team skill levels randomly, you should not be ending with a lot of close games. A map that ends with a 50-30 to 50-35 kill disparity is a much healthier competitive map because when you get more evenly matched teams competing, the score must reflect the skill of each tmie with more and more precision.

 

#2 prevents "broken" maps from being perceived as competitive. If a map allows super broken spawn killing that is nearly impossible to get out of, it will seem to be competitive in the statistics when you are looking at component 1, but if you notice that teams are winning about half of their matches on a certain map, you can chalk up the score disparity of each game not to a reflected skill gap but to the map being a virtual coin toss. The best team should always win, and while that may not be the case in reality where emotions run high and teams choke, consistency is still a great thing to look at.

 

With all this in mind, it's important to realize these are not everyone's opinions about what makes a map good. It's dumb to argue with someone about whether a map is better than another when you have two different opinions on what "good" is. It's unlikely two players experienced on the same two maps have had relatively different experiences. Their perspective is what makes them disagree with you, not their experience (though it can play a factor when you start talking about drastically different skill levels and such).

 

If you want to brag about how some maps are "objectively" better or worse, I'm all for that because I'm pretty confident my opinions would reflect the competitive aspects most people (claim to) value in their Halo games. All I'm saying is at least collect some statistics to back up your claim if you're going to bring objectivity into the discussion. Just saying something is objective or even a FACT without any quantitative evidence is embarrassing and frankly pitiful to watch.

 

Quantitative evidence to support a change for v9: Amplified gets vetoed 99% of the time in the MLG playlist.

Source: my years of watching the veto counter hit 8 in under 3 seconds every time it get chosen

Obviously you base it off game flow and spectator value. No one is gonna find Solace interesting to watch. I'm pretty sure it'd be pretty hard to find someone who says they enjoyed watching two teams standing their own sides of the map shooting at each other.

 

Taste is all preference yet foods are still judged by food critics. You can objectively look at something that's subjective. Same with movies. Just saying.

 

Also who's bragging? Lol

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously you base it off game flow and spectator value. No one is gonna find Solace interesting to watch. I'm pretty sure it'd be pretty hard to find someone who says they enjoyed watching two teams standing their own sides of the map shooting at each other.

 

Taste is all preference yet foods are still judged by food critics. You can objectively look at something that's subjective. Same with movies. Just saying.

 

Also who's bragging? Lol

 

First of all, SPECTATOR VALUE? GTFO of here with that ****. Giving a single **** about what spectators want when it comes to designing settings is the biggest bonehead move any competitive gaming community can make. If you dumb down the competitive experience to draw in more spectators, you end up exactly how Halo has. No depth and no fans. Great job on taking 7 versions of Reach to remove Sprint, MLG! All 5 spectators loved the Sprint and AAs being incorporated! Compromising the integrity of a sport to get a few extra people watching the stream is not only a disgusting disgrace to the game, but it doesn't even work! 95% of the spectators MLG ever got for Halo were players that wanted to see the most competitive Halo gameplay possible. Not somewhat competitive Halo. Not even mostly competitive Halo. The MOST competitive. I want to put two teams of 4 on even ground and watch them fight for their lives. The intelligent, resourceful, and dedicated survive. The rest get forgotten while the best are immortalized. I cannot fathom a world in which that same spirit can coincide with prioritizing spectators over the competitors.

 

Secondly, game flow is an extremely abstract concept. You cannot possibly wrap your head around the flow of a map or even a game because if the game has any depth at all the flow will constantly be evolving and changing. The flow of H2 in it's first year was so drastically different from its flow in 2007 because of how insane the game had gotten. I don't doubt that Solace has poor flow and probably never would have improved much at all, but it's certainly not an objective fact. Some people still consider two teams staying on their side to be a good flow. Like I said, the problem with using terms like "good" or "better" are that they are entirely opinion based. Just because someone says they think Solace has good flow or is a good map overall doesn't mean they are lying or somehow wrong. They just don't agree with you. If you can agree with them on what it means for a map to "flow" and can objectively prove that by looking at actual matches, then you'd have some ground to stand on when you say it has "objectively" poor map flow.

 

As far as your food analogy goes, the problem with that falls apart when realize the role of judges. They have multiple judges in sports without OBJECTIVE scoring methods (cooking, movies, diving, gymnastics, ice skating, etc.) exactly BECAUSE the judges are expressing their opinions, not facts. You could take a dive that received three 10s at one competition and show it to three different judges and get three 8s. That's the nature of those sports, and competitors are frequently at odds with how judges make their decisions. Even with efforts to standardize scoring for things like gymnastics has failed because different judges value the skill of different techniques more or less than others.

 

Maybe you just don't understand the meaning of the word objective:

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

 

When people rate movies, they are expressing their opinions. If they were expressing facts, then how could they possibly disagree so wildly on almost every movie ever made? Some will inevitably average higher ratings than others, but that doesn't mean it is objectively better than other movies because it assumes the goal of the movie was to appeal to as many people as possible. What is probably the most ironic part about your post is that you disagree with me about what I value in competitive maps and try to tell me I'm wrong. You say we should "obviously" base it off of map flow and spectator value, but that is (wait for it) your opinion.

 

All these years I've tried to give idiots on the internet the benefit of the doubt when I see them expressing their opinion as fact. "Surely they are just getting emotional in the moment of typing their post!" I would tell myself. Even reading your post I had to believe that your username is appropriate and you're just trying to make people like me mad. If that's the case, then you win, but somehow I doubt it (though you may claim it was the case to save face). Your post has actually enlightened me to the truth that no, all of those people were actually ignorant enough to believe they were right in a matter that is completely subjective. Congratulations on relieving me of one of the few remaining slices of faith I had left in humanity.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

First of all, SPECTATOR VALUE? GTFO of here with that ****. Giving a single **** about what spectators want when it comes to designing settings is the biggest bonehead move any competitive gaming community can make. If you dumb down the competitive experience to draw in more spectators, you end up exactly how Halo has. No depth and no fans. Great job on taking 7 versions of Reach to remove Sprint, MLG! All 5 spectators loved the Sprint and AAs being incorporated! Compromising the integrity of a sport to get a few extra people watching the stream is not only a disgusting disgrace to the game, but it doesn't even work! 95% of the spectators MLG ever got for Halo were players that wanted to see the most competitive Halo gameplay possible. Not somewhat competitive Halo. Not even mostly competitive Halo. The MOST competitive. I want to put two teams of 4 on even ground and watch them fight for their lives. The intelligent, resourceful, and dedicated survive. The rest get forgotten while the best are immortalized. I cannot fathom a world in which that same spirit can coincide with prioritizing spectators over the competitors.

 

Secondly, game flow is an extremely abstract concept. You cannot possibly wrap your head around the flow of a map or even a game because if the game has any depth at all the flow will constantly be evolving and changing. The flow of H2 in it's first year was so drastically different from its flow in 2007 because of how insane the game had gotten. I don't doubt that Solace has poor flow and probably never would have improved much at all, but it's certainly not an objective fact. Some people still consider two teams staying on their side to be a good flow. Like I said, the problem with using terms like "good" or "better" are that they are entirely opinion based. Just because someone says they think Solace has good flow or is a good map overall doesn't mean they are lying or somehow wrong. They just don't agree with you. If you can agree with them on what it means for a map to "flow" and can objectively prove that by looking at actual matches, then you'd have some ground to stand on when you say it has "objectively" poor map flow.

 

As far as your food analogy goes, the problem with that falls apart when realize the role of judges. They have multiple judges in sports without OBJECTIVE scoring methods (cooking, movies, diving, gymnastics, ice skating, etc.) exactly BECAUSE the judges are expressing their opinions, not facts. You could take a dive that received three 10s at one competition and show it to three different judges and get three 8s. That's the nature of those sports, and competitors are frequently at odds with how judges make their decisions. Even with efforts to standardize scoring for things like gymnastics has failed because different judges value the skill of different techniques more or less than others.

 

Maybe you just don't understand the meaning of the word objective:

"not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts"

 

When people rate movies, they are expressing their opinions. If they were expressing facts, then how could they possibly disagree so wildly on almost every movie ever made? Some will inevitably average higher ratings than others, but that doesn't mean it is objectively better than other movies because it assumes the goal of the movie was to appeal to as many people as possible. What is probably the most ironic part about your post is that you disagree with me about what I value in competitive maps and try to tell me I'm wrong. You say we should "obviously" base it off of map flow and spectator value, but that is (wait for it) your opinion.

 

All these years I've tried to give idiots on the internet the benefit of the doubt when I see them expressing their opinion as fact. "Surely they are just getting emotional in the moment of typing their post!" I would tell myself. Even reading your post I had to believe that your username is appropriate and you're just trying to make people like me mad. If that's the case, then you win, but somehow I doubt it (though you may claim it was the case to save face). Your post has actually enlightened me to the truth that no, all of those people were actually ignorant enough to believe they were right in a matter that is completely subjective. Congratulations on relieving me of one of the few remaining slices of faith I had left in humanity.

Lol you need to chill out.

 

Edit: I don't even feel like explains myself what I meant by spectator value and objectively looking at something cause you're way too heated and you're just plain out insulting me I'd rather not have this conversation with you.

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
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

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