Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

It is the definition of everything wrong with Halo 2 (and later games); a blatantly obvious power position, very little hope for any individual to actually do anything against that power position, and no map movement other than "capture that power potion." It "forces map movement" because there is literally nothing else to do but push against the middle and hope you get lucky. Everyone has the same basic strategy on that map because there is no other viable strategies. It's a static power setup with massive team-shot advantage. Sure, it's fun to gain control and wreck the other team, but so is gaining top control in 4v4 Derelict slayer. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

It's a pretty map, but it simply exacerbates everything wrong with modern Halo.

If people play super predictably then yes it will be a bad match, but you're forgetting how mind games will come into play around the power position. Players aren't forced to run at the power position they can also go for a flank or a delayed push from their own side of the map.That's how it will become fun. If a player pressures the ring 3 guy down and doesn't push ring 3 from his side of the map but instead flanks the opponents bon or rocks to await a new fight, they probably will win the new encounter. You can't say "hope to get lucky" if Final Boss (Halo2), Instinct (Halo Reach), and Evil Geniuses (Halo 2 Anniversary) almost always won Sanctuary in tournaments. That means they understood the map and how to play with an unpredictable mindgame strategy consistently, plus they had great teamwork. But it's not like they won off of "gun skill" otherwise they would of never of gone on flanks.

 

It can't be everything wrong with halo 2 and later games by having an "obvious power position" that's what actually makes maps good. Like I just said mindgames are what will make maps like that come to life. Look at Halo 5, so many maps have bad power positions the game play becomes about constant rotating, that becomes so predictable and bland because if the player doesn't rotate, they WILL die in H5. Mindgames are in H5 too but hardly at all due to poor map power position design.

 

Derelict vs Sanctuary is way different in your example here. Sanctuary actually has good lines of sights and routes to make sneaky flanks an option. Derelect is so open and big that the odds of pulling a flank off is super slim. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not trying to carry this on any further, but to chime in with a different perspective:

 

We do have statistics that quantify players making the sacrifice plays or plays that don't lead to personal kills: damage done and assists. Now that doesn't add much to the remove slayer/don't remove slayer discussion, but they are valid stats nonetheless.

 

Now, about kills. I preach into my headset everytime I'm playing to people in flag/strongholds game not to give up their life for the objective when it's a dead play. For example, diving on a flag that has half reset time only to die isn't a good play. Hanging back with a good sightline to help pick off the enemies returning the flag is.

 

The important thing to consider is that dying in an OBJ game can be as bad as dying in a Slayer game in certain situations. Then again, that brings into play the discussion of if casuals want to think or not while playing.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

It is the definition of everything wrong with Halo 2 (and later games); a blatantly obvious power position, very little hope for any individual to actually do anything against that power position, and no map movement other than "capture that power position." It "forces map movement" because there is literally nothing else to do but push against the middle and hope you get lucky. Everyone has the same basic strategy on that map because there is no other viable strategies. It's a static power setup with massive team-shot advantage. Sure, it's fun to gain control and wreck the other team, but so is gaining top control in 4v4 Derelict slayer. That doesn't mean it's a good thing.

 

It's a pretty map, but it simply exacerbates everything wrong with modern Halo.

Now here’s an interesting discussion. For the record I totally agree with you, but I like the map anyways. I think problems arise when you have too many maps like this in the same game (Onslaught, Narrows, etc). I think it’s an enjoyable map whose style should be used sparingly.

 

How do you think this map would play with a stronger utility? Does that alleviate or exacerbate its problems?

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Not trying to carry this on any further, but to chime in with a different perspective:

 

We do have statistics that quantify players making the sacrifice plays or plays that don't lead to personal kills: damage done and assists. Now that doesn't add much to the remove slayer/don't remove slayer discussion, but they are valid stats nonetheless.

 

Now, about kills. I preach into my headset everytime I'm playing to people in flag/strongholds game not to give up their life for the objective when it's a dead play. For example, diving on a flag that has half reset time only to die isn't a good play. Hanging back with a good sightline to help pick off the enemies returning the flag is.

 

The important thing to consider is that dying in an OBJ game can be as bad as dying in a Slayer game in certain situations. Then again, that brings into play the discussion of if casuals want to think or not while playing.

You are absolutely right. It’s all situational really. Sacrificing your life and position for a flag you could never move very far is stupid but on the other hand when your teammates are two seconds away from respawn and the flag is in your base then sacrificing your life for a flag touch is worth it.

 

One place I think @@Hard Way ‘s logic fails is when he says “if half the team is slaying and half the team is going for the objective then it will be fine because everything will even out”. That is absolutely not the case. Each individual player needs to know when to slay and when to play the objective. There is nothing more frustrating than having an easy cap but your slayer won’t come out of his sniper scope. In the same vein, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to put the enemy team down a man or two but your idiot teammates keep running straight at the objective and getting blained.

Share this post


Link to post

You are absolutely right. It’s all situational really. Sacrificing your life and position for a flag you could never move very far is stupid but on the other hand when your teammates are two seconds away from respawn and the flag is in your base then sacrificing your life for a flag touch is worth it.

 

One place I think @@Hard Way ‘s logic fails is when he says “if half the team is slaying and half the team is going for the objective then it will be fine because everything will even out”. That is absolutely not the case. Each individual player needs to know when to slay and when to play the objective. There is nothing more frustrating than having an easy cap but your slayer won’t come out of his sniper scope. In the same vein, there is nothing more frustrating than trying to put the enemy team down a man or two but your idiot teammates keep running straight at the objective and getting blained.

I didn’t say that...

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I didn’t say that...

Forgive me for misunderstanding.

 

some people won’t like occasionally sacrificing their life for the obj. But others feel like they’re dying for a purpose, and feel way more valuable in obj than they do in Slayer.

What did you mean?

Share this post


Link to post

Now here’s an interesting discussion. For the record I totally agree with you, but I like the map anyways. I think problems arise when you have too many maps like this in the same game (Onslaught, Narrows, etc). I think it’s an enjoyable map whose style should be used sparingly.

 

How do you think this map would play with a stronger utility? Does that alleviate or exacerbate its problems?

 

It would alleviate some of the issues because it would reduce the emphasis on team shot. An individual could, with enough skill, break the setup aspect of the map pretty easily. However, it's still a pretty bland map conceptually; a circle with a wall in the middle that gives almost complete LOS to the other team's half.

 

 

The important thing to consider is that dying in an OBJ game can be as bad as dying in a Slayer game in certain situations. Then again, that brings into play the discussion of if casuals want to think or not while playing.

 

Dying in OBJ can be way worse than in Slayer in a lot of situations. The objective is the determining factor, and a single death at the wrong time can swing the whole match.

 

 

 

It can't be everything wrong with halo 2 and later games by having an "obvious power position" that's what actually makes maps good. Like I just said mindgames are what will make maps like that come to life. Look at Halo 5, so many maps have bad power positions the game play becomes about constant rotating, that becomes so predictable and bland because if the player doesn't rotate, they WILL die in H5. Mindgames are in H5 too but hardly at all due to poor map power position design.

 

 

An obvious power position makes map static and predictable. Mind games will always be part of competitive games, but when everyone uses the same strategy (because it's the only viable strategy due to map design or gameplay design) it's not a very interesting game. Strategy revolves around figuring out the best way to attack a power position in a game that gives massive benefits to power positions due to the weakness of individuals. Yes, it's "interesting" on paper to try and figure out ways to overcome that, but hardly a balanced fight and incredibly frustrating when you have no viable alternatives.

Share this post


Link to post

Now here’s an interesting discussion. For the record I totally agree with you, but I like the map anyways. I think problems arise when you have too many maps like this in the same game (Onslaught, Narrows, etc). I think it’s an enjoyable map whose style should be used sparingly.

 

How do you think this map would play with a stronger utility? Does that alleviate or exacerbate its problems?

 

I'm kind of in the same boat.  I see on paper the flaws with the map, but when i play it its just fun to play and generally gives me good matches.  Ring 3 is a power position but the jump to get up there actually takes a second and modicum of skill to get to. Ring 2 has enough ways to get into it that when playing properly with no radar, it is still an attack-able position. In Halo 5 with the movement abilities that map would be terrible.

 

Not trying to carry this on any further, but to chime in with a different perspective:

 

We do have statistics that quantify players making the sacrifice plays or plays that don't lead to personal kills: damage done and assists. Now that doesn't add much to the remove slayer/don't remove slayer discussion, but they are valid stats nonetheless.

 

Now, about kills. I preach into my headset everytime I'm playing to people in flag/strongholds game not to give up their life for the objective when it's a dead play. For example, diving on a flag that has half reset time only to die isn't a good play. Hanging back with a good sightline to help pick off the enemies returning the flag is.

 

The important thing to consider is that dying in an OBJ game can be as bad as dying in a Slayer game in certain situations. Then again, that brings into play the discussion of if casuals want to think or not while playing.

 

True.  Not all deaths are created equal in any gametype, but there are many more opportunities to have a "Smart death" in objective games.  Nothing grinds my gears quite like losing a close flag or stronghold game when someone on my team goes 25-5 with 0 objective work. You know if they went 20-10 instead, earning those extra deaths while pushing for the objective, we win the game.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Forgive me for misunderstanding.

 

 

What did you mean?

 

I believe he was referring to this, you know, the part that you quoted as saying he said but he didn't....

 

 

One place I think @ ‘s logic fails is when he says “if half the team is slaying and half the team is going for the objective then it will be fine because everything will even out”.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm kind of in the same boat. I see on paper the flaws with the map, but when i play it its just fun to play and generally gives me good matches. Ring 3 is a power position but the jump to get up there actually takes a second and modicum of skill to get to. Ring 2 has enough ways to get into it that when playing properly with no radar, it is still an attack-able position. In Halo 5 with the movement abilities that map would be terrible.

 

 

True. Not all deaths are created equal in any gametype, but there are many more opportunities to have a "Smart death" in objective games. Nothing grinds my gears quite like losing a close flag or stronghold game when someone on my team goes 25-5 with 0 objective work. You know if they went 20-10 instead, earning those extra deaths while pushing for the objective, we win the game.

I don't know, Royal 2 is on the best team in the league and he has historically played little to no obj.

 

IMO you need to let the slayers do what they do best. If someone can outslay the enemy team to all hell but you still lose the game I wouldn't fault that guy. He probably did so much to even allow the other people to do what they did.

Share this post


Link to post

I believe he was referring to this, you know, the part that you quoted as saying he said but he didn't....

Forgive me for asking someone to clarify their position.

 

Since you seem to be his Siamese twin, could you just clarify it for me?

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I don't know, Royal 2 is on the best team in the league and he has historically played little to no obj.

 

IMO you need to let the slayers do what they do best. If someone can outslay the enemy team to all hell but you still lose the game I wouldn't fault that guy. He probably did so much to even allow the other people to do what they did.

Yea that can definitely be true and i have been in plenty of games where it is, but its just as common to see that guy just hiding and baiting regardless of whatever else is going on.  Royal 2 will still do dirty objective work if its the right thing to do. A lot of MM kids wont period.

 

Forgive me for asking someone to clarify their position.

 

Since you seem to be his Siamese twin, could you just clarify it for me?

 

You don't need to be clairvoyant to understand the quote he was referring to... you just have to know how to read.  And as i have pointed out to you multiple times in the past, its a PUBLIC forum, meaning anybody that understands the question is free to reply.  If you only wanted a reply from a specific person, PM them.

Share this post


Link to post

An obvious power position makes map static and predictable. Mind games will always be part of competitive games, but when everyone uses the same strategy (because it's the only viable strategy due to map design or gameplay design) it's not a very interesting game. Strategy revolves around figuring out the best way to attack a power position in a game that gives massive benefits to power positions due to the weakness of individuals. Yes, it's "interesting" on paper to try and figure out ways to overcome that, but hardly a balanced fight and incredibly frustrating when you have no viable alternatives.

"Everyone uses the same strategy" would mean there is only one good strategy. In your context you're saying that one good strategy is to go for ring 3 control. I'm trying to let you know that there is more than one good strategy. You can either:

 

A) Go for ring control.

B) Slow push for ring control.

C) Flank.

 

Three main options. All having different variations in how they can be accomplished. Which means there are SEVERAL ways to accomplish getting control back on Sanctuary. Any map that offers several good ways to get map control back is a good map. 

Share this post


Link to post

Now here’s an interesting discussion. For the record I totally agree with you, but I like the map anyways. I think problems arise when you have too many maps like this in the same game (Onslaught, Narrows, etc). I think it’s an enjoyable map whose style should be used sparingly.

 

How do you think this map would play with a stronger utility? Does that alleviate or exacerbate its problems?

Pretty sure a stronger utility would make Halo in general play better.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm using the same update in that case, and while improved quite a bit since 2014, it's still not as snappy as 360 has been since at least 2008.

Surprise! The brand new Fall Update is the most significant improvement to the Xbone UI so far. There are still some oddities, but plenty of jank and clutter has been removed. It's 80% of 360 level now.

Share this post


Link to post

Now here’s an interesting discussion. For the record I totally agree with you, but I like the map anyways. I think problems arise when you have too many maps like this in the same game (Onslaught, Narrows, etc). I think it’s an enjoyable map whose style should be used sparingly.

 

How do you think this map would play with a stronger utility? Does that alleviate or exacerbate its problems?

 

It's interesting, despite its faults, I really think Halo 4's Dispatch is one of the best examples of the huge octagon dual base maps.  The outer second level tunnel system made it so matches didn't play predominantly through a middle/ring choke point like the Sanctuary/Shrines maps have, but it doesn't have a ton of easily controllable spawns on the first level like Derelict did (which is probably the most broken Halo map in terms of spawn control, despite the CE Magnum's prowess as a utility starter).  The cover throughout the lower section was balanced with the high visibility but vertical advantage of the outside ring.  Could be an unpopular opinion, but it was always one of my favorite flag matches, though in H4 fashion it tended to be 5v5.

 

To your second point, again despite all its faults, H4s BR was easy enough to use that even if it didn't provide an interesting skill gap, it at least made H4 a game where you weren't constantly spawn trapped.  There's definitely a balanced to be found in a utility that isn't dead simple to use, but has a skill potential/ceiling that makes it a spawn control buster.

 

 

I don't know, Royal 2 is on the best team in the league and he has historically played little to no obj.

 

IMO you need to let the slayers do what they do best. If someone can outslay the enemy team to all hell but you still lose the game I wouldn't fault that guy. He probably did so much to even allow the other people to do what they did.

 

My buddies and I struggle with this concept in 4v4, as one of our teammates played a ton of squad battle in H3 and really thinks of himself as the "Objective Guy", and another is by far our strongest slayer and doesn't really make the deep flag pulls.  I don't think you can have a single obj guy, but to your point, I don't think you want every person on the team hyper focused on objective.  I think there's a gradient of team skills on the scale of [Obj-----Obj/Slayer----Slayer] and you want/need a team that's balanced.  That said, there are times definitely times where a window of opportunity opens up, and the best thing for the main slayer to do is move the flag a bit more, or dive on a SH reset, or your guy who tends to be Obj focused needs to stop going for flag pulls and shoot more.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

@@BigShow36 You've definitely hit on an important topic here; the dumbing down of halo's teamwork/strategy into simple teamshooting. Out of interest, what are some of the maps, particularly outside of CE, that you think play well/have good qualities?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

What are the odds they fix CE hit detection and bullet magnetism?

 

Minimal.  Maybe if they roll back the CE and H2 versions to their proper OG Xbox versions, then port directly from there instead of porting a port of a port.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

What are the odds they fix CE hit detection and bullet magnetism?

Arglactable has better odds catching the contagion known as Boyoism.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@BigShow36 You've definitely hit on an important topic here; the dumbing down of halo's teamwork/strategy into simple teamshooting. Out of interest, what are some of the maps, particularly outside of CE, that you think play well/have good qualities?

 

That's hard to nail down. Due to how the games are designed, players are forced to implement strategies that maximize team-shot and static positioning. It's the most basic form of teamwork: more players shooting at one player = win. Is a map "good" if it allows for that? I'm not sure; it's "good" in the context of working with the gameplay, but it's "bad" as it relates to actual strategic depth and creative map movement. Let's use Lockout as an example. It has literally one or two viable strategies and it's a bunch of exposed walkways connecting two power positions. It's generally regarded as one of the better maps in Halo 2, but it is incredibly static and boring for actual strategic depth. Is that a "good" map? I don't think so, but it was a staple of Halo 2.

Share this post


Link to post

That's hard to nail down. Due to how the games are designed, players are forced to implement strategies that maximize team-shot and static positioning. It's the most basic form of teamwork: more players shooting at one player = win. Is a map "good" if it allows for that? I'm not sure; it's "good" in the context of working with the gameplay, but it's "bad" as it relates to actual strategic depth and creative map movement. Let's use Lockout as an example. It has literally one or two viable strategies and it's a bunch of exposed walkways connecting two power positions. It's generally regarded as one of the better maps in Halo 2, but it is incredibly static and boring for actual strategic depth. Is that a "good" map? I don't think so, but it was a staple of Halo 2.

 

Yeh, from an objective standpoint I have to agree with you there on lockout, everyone knows that at some point the map just becomes one big stand off between BR and snipe tower with the best possible situation being that the team over at BR tower can 'steal' snipe. I suppose oddball mitigates the problem of that map to an extent but yeh it's definitely one of those things where as time goes on and the maps get, generally speaking, progressively worse (along with the games imo) that we look back to something like lockout or sanc as sacred gems regardless of their flaws because what came after in later games was just really that much worse.

 

That being said I do still enjoy those maps a lot. I guess I just have a soft spot for Halo 2 :p

  • Upvote (+1) 2

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.