Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

I do prefer CE but love me some H2 as well. I agree with the shortcomings of lockout regarding it being a standoffish map that isn't helped out by the dynamic weapon spawn system.

 

I do think breaking a set up on lockout requires a lot of coooridinaton and team skill. I still remember going to my first NJ halo tournament and sitting down at a table with our team going over how we planned to break the set up. Things evolved and improved strategy wise since then. We actually would try to rush top mid to library with a guy bottom blue who would shoot window, lift and keep applying pressure. Two teammates up at snipe 2/3 that would also apply pressure and the last would jump from the tail of s1 to top mid to library.

 

This was like 05, at the end of 2007 we were going down to elbow and throwing nades into window and short ramp etc.

 

 

It reminds me sorta of damnation and the coordination it takes when you have no map control and camp is coming up. It's typical that one player throws a grenade to knock camo into pit. Camo is too important to give up so players will either drop for it themselves, or be forced to make the decision to watch top port and keep a beneficial spot on the map. Watching top players coordinate this is always cool.

 

Obviously things are a bit different in the situation, but it's an example of how sometimes unfavorable situations demand a tighter window of coordination.

 

 

i agree with your example of CE. lockouts failures as a map aren't because of the overall design of the map itself but the positioning of the power weapons and the lack of a power up to control that would help you make a push or a play. that's halo 2's biggest shortcoming as a competitive game overall is the lack of relevant power ups. The only power up, even throwing power weapons into the mix that is solidly contested every time it comes up across all the gametypes is the OS on beaver creek. If only we had more customizable options lol.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

People who don't like lockout or think lockout is a bad map don't know how to play it.

I used to hate lockout and made excuses for my shortcomings as a player on that map. The main one was "the map is bad, the map is standoffish etc". Then i realized it's the map the requires the most teamwork, the most coordinated teamshot, the most nerdy nades and the most overall team coordination. It's also one of the few maps that still has room for insane amazing individual plays and teamplays (like headjumping) specifically because of it's map design. It's the map that offers the most but also requires the most and that makes it unique in the skillgap for halo 2.

That reasoning is in line with "Halo 2 is more skillfull than CE because it forces teamwork and requires teamshot."

 

Lockout is imbalanced. It FORCES you to hand hold and perform a sequence of miraculous feats to flush a team out of a tower, whereas holding it is brainless. A balanced map doesn't mean you can't have teamwork, or requires less teamwork. It just doesn't force it on you. I remember about 2 years ago lemon when describing H2 said something like, "it's not a ratio. Losing individual skill doesn't make the game require more teamwork, you can absolutely lose one aspect and gain nothing in return" and the same is true of level design. There's no reason pro Halo should revolve around 4 players sitting in the corner of a map watching lanes. It's quite literally idiotic and requires no thinking whatsoever on the winning team.

 

Except oddball, because for whatever reason the collective community agrees that camping in a room is stupid until we're playing oddball and then it's cool. It's for that reason that maps that usually blow at slayer end up great for oddball. Lockout, Guardian, literally any map with enclosed rooms.

  • Upvote (+1) 6
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

That reasoning is in line with "Halo 2 is more skillfull than CE because it forces teamwork and requires teamshot."

 

Lockout is imbalanced. It FORCES you to hand hold and perform a sequence of miraculous feats to flush a team out of a tower, whereas holding it is brainless. A balanced map doesn't mean you can't have teamwork, or requires less teamwork. It just doesn't force it on you. I remember about 2 years ago lemon when describing H2 said something like, "it's not a ratio. Losing individual skill doesn't make the game require more teamwork, you can absolutely lose one aspect and gain nothing in return" and the same is true of level design. There's no reason pro Halo should revolve around 4 players sitting in the corner of a map watching lanes. It's quite literally idiotic and requires no thinking whatsoever on the winning team.

 

Except oddball, because for whatever reason the collective community agrees that camping in a room is stupid until we're playing oddball and then it's cool. It's for that reason that maps that usually blow at slayer end up great for oddball. Lockout, Guardian, literally any map with enclosed rooms.

Whatever game you end up designing maps for I will play.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

that's halo 2's biggest shortcoming as a competitive game overall is the lack of relevant power ups.

 

You mean besides the fact that Halo 2 practically aimed for you? In a "competitive" shooter?

 

That was a large part of why games became so standoff-ish; everyone could land every shot, so positioning and teamshot dominated everything.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wall of text incoming.

 

I rocked that skill gap signature forever and am a bigger fan of CE than I am of Halo 2 but I feel like we are treating the game as if it's the easiest and most brainless shooter out there.

 

Compared to CE there are a lot of things that I really don't like, but compared to the rest of the series I feel it does a lot better. Yes, Halo 2 is a mainly a teamshot based game. There is opportunity for you to kill multiple people quickly with tools like BXB, BXB, Doubleshot and a bunch of other small random glitches like throwing a nerd and picking up an OBJ, double nades, RRXB, etc. Are any of these really incredibly skill inducing? I view doubleshot and the RRXB as glitches that require some skill.

 

Compare this individual power to Halo 3 and the later games.

 

How many people played competitive Halo 2 to the point where they discussed hypothetical situations regarding what happened once you were set up and they attempted to break it? I'm not talking about competitive custom games with skilled friends, but an actual practiced team of 4 that could execute these fairly easily?

 

I ask because keeping a set up wasn't as brainless as I feel you guys are making it out to be. It is a million times easier to hold the set up than break it but even on practiced teams I found that people were poor at knowing what to do when a specific person on their team goes down and how to rotate and make up for it. Lockout's map layout makes it easier than trying to maintain some set up on Warlock, but the point still stands. This would be an example of what I am talking about.

 

 

 

I get that there is a large difference of nuances in the game from Halo CE to Halo 2 that make CE a better and more balanced competitive title for their premier game modes. I think that the mechanics of Halo 2 don't actually help with any favors regarding to the strategy of the game. Easy melees, high bullet magnetism, and the dynamic spawns detract from the skill of Halo 2. Dynamic weapon spawn systems do more than anything to force this camping play style.

 

So while I can admit and agree that Lockout does not play well for competitive 4v4 slayer, I do think it's a good map overall in Halo's universe. I'm guessing that's just sarcasm as to why you can't figure out why people give it more of a pass for oddball. Despite the ease of Halo 2 compared to Halo CE, I just disagree with the notion that maintaining set ups at a high level required no thinking whatsoever. I will admit it requires a lot more coordination for the pushing team than the camping team. I just don't believe that the ability to rotate properly depending on who is being pressured and who goes down first relative to their approach is such an unskillful ability. For 4v4 Halo I think basketball is usually a good analogy in terms of how the game is so dynamic (compared to say football) The fundamental skill of dribbling a basketball is not difficult (shooting in Halo 2) but the ability to read and adapt properly to the offense/defense is, and of course the better the competition the better your dribbling/shooting needs to be overall.

 

Go to a Halo CE LAN and see how many people want to play Damnation after playing it 2-3 times that day. You would be shocked at how often that map is skipped at LANs for the sole reason that people do not want to play a 20 minute TS game that's best strategy is to safely wait for the new camo cycle and nade it down (when you aren't in control) and to nade it back (when you are). The reasons I dislike Damnation are the same reasons I dislike Lockout. I love the maps overall, but they aren't flawless by any means and despite the differences nuances, they suffer the same fate.

 

tl;dr - I think you guys are downplaying the skill of Halo 2 all together and this is coming from someone who greatly prefers Halo CE to Halo 2 and recognizes the difference of skill gap.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

That reasoning is in line with "Halo 2 is more skillfull than CE because it forces teamwork and requires teamshot."

 

Lockout is imbalanced. It FORCES you to hand hold and perform a sequence of miraculous feats to flush a team out of a tower, whereas holding it is brainless. A balanced map doesn't mean you can't have teamwork, or requires less teamwork. It just doesn't force it on you. I remember about 2 years ago lemon when describing H2 said something like, "it's not a ratio. Losing individual skill doesn't make the game require more teamwork, you can absolutely lose one aspect and gain nothing in return" and the same is true of level design. There's no reason pro Halo should revolve around 4 players sitting in the corner of a map watching lanes. It's quite literally idiotic and requires no thinking whatsoever on the winning team.

 

Except oddball, because for whatever reason the collective community agrees that camping in a room is stupid until we're playing oddball and then it's cool. It's for that reason that maps that usually blow at slayer end up great for oddball. Lockout, Guardian, literally any map with enclosed rooms.

 

 

As a halo 2 player who openly credits halo CE as being the most competitive console game in history i thought the bold was ironic. you seem to be operating under the assumption that the team holding BR is the team that is always in the lead which absolutely is not the case. You're also reducing defensive rotations, counter nading for area control and smaller windows for communication to a "brainless" activity which is also not the case. In my experience trying to hold a setup can be more demanding than pushing but it's extremely situational on both ends. I've never played lockout at a professional level but i have played it against a full team of pros and the pushing part was fine for me in this example. I had no problems initiating challenges, getting underneath and flanking or going up top to challenge etc. I did however have a minor panic attack when trying to hold a setup. A lockout push isn't based on winning one full set of spawns like it can be with objs or other slayers like midship, it's about working your way through the other teams spawns (BR for example) and providing consistent pressure enough to force them on an out spawn like blue or s1 - that is especially true on this version of the game. The purpose of this is to force the defending team into those pure 1v1's that you believe do not exist on this map. I can tell you as some one who played 4s on lockout less than a week ago, they exist, and frequently if your team is working together.

 

 

All of that is really besides the point though because my original post doesn't at any point state that lockout is just as fast as other maps, or is not standoffish. My point was that that type of rhetoric shouldn't be an excuse or cover up for being shit at the map. The reason why i made that point is because the only people i see complaining about lockout are people who can't play it or those who can but refuse to play it at a slower place. You see more complaints about it now because MCC exacerbates the symptoms of lockout. But that doesn't mean that og h2 lockout games, both slayer and ball, weren't some of the more exciting games on the MLG circuit. Sure there are some games that ran slow and stand offs occurred but that's the nature of the map and i accept that fact. Saying something shouldn't be that way just because it shouldn't be that way is silly. I used to think like that, i used to say literally the exact same shit you're saying now so i get it. But lockout is what it is for a reason and i think it's place in the 11 core competitive gametypes is fine.

 

There have always been one off style gametypes in halo's competitive scene (at least when it was CE/Halo 2) that stress one specific aspect of the game far more than others. That's why we had sniper style games for example in 2005-2006. For one map out of eleven in halo 2 i think lockout served it's purpose in being that super heavy area control and teamwork map which provided an edge for more coordinated and patient teams, not just teams with talented players. I think that's a good thing for halo 2 because overall it lacks so many of the nuances and creativity that it's predecessor had. Furthermore, there are already so many situations where an individual can make an insane play for no reason at any given time on any part of the map in halo 2. The last thing the rotation needed was another midship or warlock slayer (which you yourself basically stated earlier). I agree. While i think fully symmetrical arena maps are the backbone of halo and i think their inclusion should be a necessity, at the end of the day halo 2 needed something to balance that out. enter lockout. So you can cry and complain til the sun comes up about how lockout as a map is not balanced but it's purpose in the rotation was. As a side bar, you want to see unbalanced? Play Ivory at a high level - It can always be worse (Ironically, Ivory was taken out during halo 2's tenure at MLG, lockout was not).  There's always going to be the bad guy when it comes to maps... the question you have to ask isn't whether it's design philosophy is in line with your personal philosophy but whether it serves a purpose and contributes to the competitive environment it's in, or the game it's in. You don't grade a game by one map, or a competitive scene by one map so i don't see the point in arguing about whether a twelve year old map is or isn't something because to put it plainly, it's the perfect map. It's the map casual players love, it's the map montagers love, it's the 1v1 map, it's one of the maps that helped separate the men from the boys on a team level.... It's literally the dust 2 of halo... So saying what it should be is moot because it is what it is: A map that did it's job on all levels - that's a fact. Maybe it wasn't pretty at times, but a fact nonetheless.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

You mean besides the fact that Halo 2 practically aimed for you? In a "competitive" shooter?

 

That was a large part of why games because so standoff-ish; everyone could land every shot, so positioning and teamshot dominated everything.

 

Saying lockout is stand offish and saying halo 2 was standoffish (untrue) are two really really really different points so i'd be more careful in what you're trying to say. 

 

People make this argument all the time, it's an insanely stupid one. Anyone who has been in a 1v1 fight with a pro on halo 2 knows this. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

People make this argument all the time, it's an insanely stupid one. Anyone who has been in a 1v1 fight with a pro on halo 2 knows this. 

 

It's not a stupid argument; it shouldn't even be an "argument." Anyone being objectively honest with themselves should be able to see that the massive aim assists are the biggest problem with Halo 2's competitive viability. I'm not saying you can't enjoy Halo 2, but you should also be able to acknowledge that the aim assist are incredibly detrimental to it as well. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but we should all be well past the stage of being willfully ignorant of the flaws of our favorite Halo game.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It's not a stupid argument; it shouldn't even be an "argument." Anyone being objectively honest with themselves should be able to see that the massive aim assists are the biggest problem with Halo 2's competitive viability. I'm not saying you can't enjoy Halo 2, but you should also be able to acknowledge that the aim assist are incredibly detrimental to it as well. I'm not trying to insult anyone, but we should all be well past the stage of being willfully ignorant of the flaws of our favorite Halo game.

 

 

it absolutely is stupid argument for a number of reasons.

aim assist is a reality of console gaming first and foremost. Raw aim using a controller is not the primary basis for overall combat skill on console shooters for this exact reason. after having a gaming pc and using a mouse and keyboard this year it's become even more obvious to me. Joysticks are imprecise by nature. They're clunky, hard to control and ultimately random to some degree. How much auto aim a game has becomes more and more irrelevant the more peripheral tools the player has at his disposal in combat. It becomes less about aim and more about how well you use all your other combat skills - halo 2 happened upon a number of these skills by accident, but it also influenced by map features like wall glitches as well as core mechanics like descope.

 

A game like halo 3 is not automatically more skillful because it has less auto aim. Adjacently, Halo CE is not a more skillful game because it has less autoaim. It's a more skillful game because it requires a higher degree of creativity and critical thinking, more stress on map awareness and movement as well as all the peripheral skills that come with combat itself. I've played CE on mcc against some really good players, as well as having the opportunity to play NHE against some really dedicated locals - in that case, i got wrecked very badly. Though the pistol in CE is a much more skillful weapon no doubt, i felt comfortable in pistol battles and with my shot. I lost battles not because my shot was bad. My pistol was fine. it was everything else i was bad at. Me getting shit on for a full series had nothing to do with my aim. 

 

By your logic, since everyone can aim on a competitive level and "it takes no skill to aim", every fight should be considered a 50/50. Why doesn't halo 2 function like that? why do better players continually win battles against less skilled players? Why is every player who plays halo 2 competitively not a top tier player? 

This is because at the highest level in halo, everyone's pistol/br/dmr is more or less exactly the same. Aim is essentially irrelevant at this point in the skill gap. In terms of halo 2 just because your aim can get to that level much quicker because of the auto-aim, does not limit it competitively. It just means one aspect of combat out of many is easier to achieve - Halo 2 is lucky in that it has it's fair share of skills to make this a reality and keep it competitive, particularly on an individual basis. 

 

Like every person i have this conversation with you're more than welcome to play halo 2 with me, though i only get on once every week or so these days. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong since, in your mind, aiming is the critical basis for what makes a halo game competitive on a combat level. That's not a challenge, that's an invitation.

 

People say this shit all the time like you've said because it's common rhetoric that people regurgitate and everyone nods their head and says "yeah yeah yeah it's been said a bunch of times so it's true" but it's not. Halo 2 has a pretty rich skill gap, not nearly as significant as halo 1, but still fairly rich and i think lowering the autoaim wouldn't have a significant impact on the overall skillgap because the game is still strong peripherally. 

 

I'm sorry if that's being "willfully ignorant". 

  • Upvote (+1) 10
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@MultiLockOn, when I get home from this field rotation, remind me to show you this map I’ve held onto in H3.

It’s a tiny little killbox of a 1v1 map but it plays really interesting, fast and fun. It was called Exile. No idea who the author is. Curious to hear your thoughts.

Share this post


Link to post

it absolutely is stupid argument for a number of reasons.

aim assist is a reality of console gaming first and foremost. Raw aim using a controller is not the primary basis for overall combat skill on console shooters for this exact reason. after having a gaming pc and using a mouse and keyboard this year it's become even more obvious to me. Joysticks are imprecise by nature. They're clunky, hard to control and ultimately random to some degree. How much auto aim a game has becomes more and more irrelevant the more peripheral tools the player has at his disposal in combat. It becomes less about aim and more about how well you use all your other combat skills - halo 2 happened upon a number of these skills by accident, but it also influenced by map features like wall glitches as well as core mechanics like descope.

 

A game like halo 3 is not automatically more skillful because it has less auto aim. Adjacently, Halo CE is not a more skillful game because it has less autoaim. It's a more skillful game because it requires a higher degree of creativity and critical thinking, more stress on map awareness and movement as well as all the peripheral skills that come with combat itself. I've played CE on mcc against some really good players, as well as having the opportunity to play NHE against some really dedicated locals - in that case, i got wrecked very badly. Though the pistol in CE is a much more skillful weapon no doubt, i felt comfortable in pistol battles and with my shot. I lost battles not because my shot was bad. My pistol was fine. it was everything else i was bad at. Me getting shit on for a full series had nothing to do with my aim. 

 

By your logic, since everyone can aim on a competitive level and "it takes no skill to aim", every fight should be considered a 50/50. Why doesn't halo 2 function like that? why do better players continually win battles against less skilled players? Why is every player who plays halo 2 competitively not a top tier player? 

This is because at the highest level in halo, everyone's pistol/br/dmr is more or less exactly the same. Aim is essentially irrelevant at this point in the skill gap. In terms of halo 2 just because your aim can get to that level much quicker because of the auto-aim, does not limit it competitively. It just means one aspect of combat out of many is easier to achieve - Halo 2 is lucky in that it has it's fair share of skills to make this a reality and keep it competitive, particularly on an individual basis. 

 

Like every person i have this conversation with you're more than welcome to play halo 2 with me, though i only get on once every week or so these days. You're more than welcome to prove me wrong since, in your mind, aiming is the critical basis for what makes a halo game competitive on a combat level. That's not a challenge, that's an invitation.

 

People say this shit all the time like you've said because it's common rhetoric that people regurgitate and everyone nods their head and says "yeah yeah yeah it's been said a bunch of times so it's true" but it's not. Halo 2 has a pretty rich skill gap, not nearly as significant as halo 1, but still fairly rich and i think lowering the autoaim wouldn't have a significant impact on the overall skillgap because the game is still strong peripherally. 

 

I'm sorry if that's being "willfully ignorant". 

 

 

You're creating a complete strawman argument here. I never once said that raw aim with a controller was the absolute basis for determining competitive merit. I never even hinted at that. Let's just clear that up right now: I don't believe that aiming skill is the sole determinant of the competitive merit of a game.

 

HOWEVER, it is the primary thing holding Halo 2 back, which was my original point. You claimed that power-up locations and timing was the biggest issue, which is ignoring the elephant in the room. Aiming skill can be large on console games and it's effects impact every other aspect of the game. Your point about everyone's BR being the same at "high-level" misses that critical point. Everyone being able to land shots easily has a massive affect on strategy, movement, and almost any other relevant factor I can think of. It's not just 1 skill out of 20 being affected, it's every skillset being affected.

 

That doesn't mean it is the sole factor in competitive viability, but it does have a large role to play.

 

Halo 2 "emphasizing" other skillsets has nothing to do with it being a deeper game and everything to do with the shallow shooting skill gap. If we can't admit to ourselves that Halo 2 would have benefited immensely from reduced aim-assists then this whole conversation is a non-starter. There is no rational argument otherwise.

  • Upvote (+1) 6
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

You mean besides the fact that Halo 2 practically aimed for you? In a "competitive" shooter?

 

That was a large part of why games because so standoff-ish; everyone could land every shot, so positioning and teamshot dominated everything.

 

If you think Halo 2 is standoffish, then you've never actually watched nor played Halo 2 at a high level.  And if you believe that H2 is the easiest game to shoot people in you're out of your fucking mind.  Have you ever actually fought an opponent that was countering your strafe or had any basic map awareness?  You're talking about situations that don't happen because it's painfully obvious you've never truly played this game on any of kind of deeper level.  In your head a 4v4 game of H2 is everyone 4 shotting each other from opposite side of the map and that couldnt be further from the truth.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

If you think Halo 2 is standoffish, then you've never actually watched nor played Halo 2 at a high level.  And you believing that H2 is the easiest game to shoot people in you're out of your fucking mind.  Have you ever actually fought an opponent that was countering your strafe or had any basic map awareness?  You're talking about situations that don't happen because it's painfully obvious you've never truly played this game on any of kind of deeper level.  In your head a 4v4 game of H2 is everyone 4 shotting each other from opposite side of the map and that couldnt be further from the truth.

 

Obviously we're not talking "standoff" like the TS on the Pit. "Power-position dominant" would have been a better phrase to use.

 

Look, I get that a lot of you grew up on Halo 2 and played the shit out of it, but we should all be able to look critically at past Halo games and not feel the need defend them to absurdity. Halo 2 was the easiest game to shoot people in except maybe Halo 5. How is this even an argument?

 

I was in the top 5 of the 1v1 playlist in Halo 2 before it became a bridging-fest. I played the game at a very high level and simply stopped playing it because I hated how little actual aiming skill gap there was and how that negatively affected almost everything I liked about Halo. I don't care if you believe me or not, look at my Bungie record if you care that much; I could have never played a game of Halo 2 in my life and my statement about it's aiming and the impact on the rest of the game would still be true.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously we're not talking "standoff" like the TS on the Pit. "Power-position dominant" would have been a better phrase to use.

 

You know if you have BR control on Lockout, you have to go to the other tower to get snipe right?

Share this post


Link to post

You know if you have BR control on Lockout, you have to go to the other tower to get snipe right?

 

Oh shit, I never knew that. Bobby Fischer would struggle with that level of complexity and strategic depth. Clearly I'm wrong about everything I said because you showed me an example of when you actually had to move on Lockout. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh shit, I never knew that. Bobby Fischer would struggle with that level of complexity and strategic depth. Clearly I'm wrong about everything I said because you showed me an example of when you actually had to move on Lockout. 

 

Well that's just one example, but again I'm not here defending 4v4 TS on Lockout, just everything else that happens to be a wonderful experience on that map.  It's a shame you and Multi never got those types of games.

Share this post


Link to post

Well that's just one example, but again I'm not here defending 4v4 TS on Lockout, just everything else that happens to be a wonderful experience on that map.  It's a shame you and Multi never got those types of games.

 

I'm not here to knock on whatever you find fun. That was never my argument nor my intent. Nor am I terribly interested in breaking down every single possible instance that proves players do indeed need to move around in Halo 2. My point has always been that Halo 2, due to how easy the aiming system was, limited the strategic depth of the game and gave disproportionately large advantages to power positions via teamshot. That doesn't mean people never moved. That doesn't mean certain gametypes, out of necessity, never made players move. All that means is that the potential of Halo 2 was extremely hampered by the limited shooting skill gap, and that often manifested itself in stand-offish gameplay.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

You're creating a complete strawman argument here. I never once said that raw aim with a controller was the absolute basis for determining competitive merit. I never even hinted at that. Let's just clear that up right now: I don't believe that aiming skill is the sole determinant of the competitive merit of a game.

 

HOWEVER, it is the primary thing holding Halo 2 back, which was my original point. You claimed that power-up locations and timing was the biggest issue, which is ignoring the elephant in the room. Aiming skill can be large on console games and it's effects impact every other aspect of the game. Your point about everyone's BR being the same at "high-level" misses that critical point. Everyone being able to land shots easily has a massive affect on strategy, movement, and almost any other relevant factor I can think of. It's not just 1 skill out of 20 being affected, it's every skillset being affected.

 

That doesn't mean it is the sole factor in competitive viability, but it does have a large role to play.

 

Halo 2 "emphasizing" other skillsets has nothing to do with it being a deeper game and everything to do with the shallow shooting skill gap. If we can't admit to ourselves that Halo 2 would have benefited immensely from reduced aim-assists then this whole conversation is a non-starter. There is no rational argument otherwise.

 

 

you're the one making a strawman argument right now by saying halo 2 is deeply hurt by aim assist. It absolutely does affect a games entire system but you're assuming they're negative effects because you inherently believe high aim assist is a bad thing in halo 2, and it isn't. It was it's own game in it's own system and it worked just fine. If you don't like that system then that's also fine. But just because you don't believe in the design philosophy doesn't make it bad or severely hampered or whatever you're trying to say. it just means it may not be the halo you want to spend your time on. 

Aiming skill will never be large on console games strictly because of a raw aim assist value. CE is the perfect example, it still has fairly significant auto aim but the pistol skill comes from lead and pacing not reduced auto aim. 

 

Nothing is holding halo 2 back. It's a dead game that had three wonderful years in the sun as the premier "pre-esport" esport. halo games now would be INSANELY LUCKY to enjoy the competitive success that halo 2 had. You are making this claim that halo 2 is held back competitively but the reality is that it never was. it was a great success on the professional level and produced a number of the moments that people refer to as being the golden age of competitive halo. Why does this game need to be changed or improved in arbitrary ways like reducing aim assist ten years after the fact? The core population interested in halo 2 plays the game because they enjoy the natural system of the game. The worst thing you could do to the game is change something arbitrary like aim assist when you could be focusing on something that it's player base actually wants - which is what i referenced with powerup control. Halo 2's levels of skill right now make it accessible at the lower levels of the skill gap but harder to master at the higher levels. I think the spread is a great combination. It will never be as skillful as a game like CE but has it's own merits in it's own right because of the system it had and still has... what is the problem with that? What is the problem with making changes that will actually increase the skill gap for it's community as well as maintaining it's presence as a game that can still be accessible to new players coming in?

It's just like every other watcher on the wall. you love to make these arbitrary arguments about making games more skillful but the reality of our environment as competitive gamers is that there is almost no interest in games that are ultra competitive. Look at the landscape of CE. 60-100 viewers (of which i am one) for the top lan tournament each year to watch the best halo players play? it's a joke and i don't like it but it's reality. to add to that, there's no guarantee that lowering the aim assist in halo 2 will actually do anything. My assumption would be that it would largely play and operate the same way after a period of adjustment so what is the end game there? what is the point? there isn't one.

 

We have a game like halo 2 which is is more user friendly but still boasts a significant skill gap and was actually a game that bridged that gap between popularity and skill and people still want to tear it down for absolutely no reason ten years after the fact. what a joke. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@MultiLockOn, when I get home from this field rotation, remind me to show you this map I’ve held onto in H3.

It’s a tiny little killbox of a 1v1 map but it plays really interesting, fast and fun. It was called Exile. No idea who the author is. Curious to hear your thoughts.

I remember it from Halo 3. Forgehub used it in a 1v1 tournament about 10 years ago (I have a freakish memory for forge maps over the years I can remember EVERYTHING). Check the author, is it by Abandoned Heretic?

Share this post


Link to post

Just as a reminder, when Halo 2 came out, the majority of the competitive Halo community that attended events disliked the game. It caused a large amount of people to quit playing Halo all together and was a bigger shift than I think people realize in terms of the "classic" halo formula. People didn't universally praise Halo 2 until 07 when those H1 players were long gone, and newer players came in and got to play better maps/gametypes than Ivory Tower TS.

 

Regarding Aim Assist/Magnetism, I would be very interested in seeing how it would play out if it was toned down. Yes, it is very high, but I still never found pro's hitting perfect 4 shots EVERY single kill. As far as I know all of this was an intentional decision based on standard internet connections at the time. Since that has improved, I wonder how the game would play.

 

Regarding the viewership for Beach LAN, it's pretty tricky. We had a higher peak last year around 1000 when snipedown/lethul hosted us. I tried to contact pros seeking their support for this year but had no luck. I'm not too sure if they simply are busy, do not see my messages, or if they just don't like Halo CE. Despite those numbers, this year we had a higher average count. Our average throughout the week was close to 100. One video was 24 hours long, and the average on that day was like 120 which I thought was pretty cool cause there was like 7 hours of that stream that had very little viewers. Having hosts from popular people as well as other personalities tweet it out and stuff, but once the viewer makes it to the stream, they have no idea what is going on or why it is skillful.

 

Things like Quad POV, or even just the split screen throws people off. None of these viewers are aware of the spawn system and how often there are all these conscious decisions to spawn them safely, aggressively, randomly etc. I can write wall of text after wall of text, link to videos and threads but there is just no way to properly convey the skill level of 2v2 CE to the viewers. It really is amazing,

 

I even feel like a lot of the people here that praise CE aren't aware of all it's depth. Some on this site do go to the bigger LANs, but I have played CE from the start and have known about it's mechanics and depth but it wasn't until I started to go to LANs with top players did I realize there was so much more to executing the knowledge that I had. That probably exists at some level on every game.. but I don't know how to convey to the viewers that what they are watching is a great display of mental skill and awareness when to many of them it seems like people are just running around doing whatever.

 

Theres a website called fiver that I was looking at. Just a heads up, if you go to it you will get ads everywhere for it. Anyway the concept is you can get work done for cheap, and they have a few instructional videos like an animation of someone writing/explaining stuff on a white board. I mean, we have a training mode in the game now and it's a big help for newer players if those players ACTUALLY want to learn the game, but that requires them to attend a LAN. Idk where I am going with it but I figured I'd just write up my thoughts on the problem with viewership. I really think that if everyone who supported Halo ended up supporting Halo CE we would see a much bigger presence, and maybe some sort of small scale revival. We are lucky to have the support of some big names though. Puckett, Walshy, Ghost and a lot of others have tweeted us out. Unyshek hosted Beach LAN on Halo's official twitter, and thank fucking god for Moses. That guy does more than anyone for Halo online and his efforts help us out so much.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

you're the one making a strawman argument right now by saying halo 2 is deeply hurt by aim assist. It absolutely does affect a games entire system but you're assuming they're negative effects because you inherently believe high aim assist is a bad thing in halo 2, and it isn't. It was it's own game in it's own system and it worked just fine. If you don't like that system then that's also fine. But just because you don't believe in the design philosophy doesn't make it bad or severely hampered or whatever you're trying to say. it just means it may not be the halo you want to spend your time on. 

Aiming skill will never be large on console games strictly because of a raw aim assist value. CE is the perfect example, it still has fairly significant auto aim but the pistol skill comes from lead and pacing not reduced auto aim. 

 

Nothing is holding halo 2 back. It's a dead game that had three wonderful years in the sun as the premier "pre-esport" esport. halo games now would be INSANELY LUCKY to enjoy the competitive success that halo 2 had. You are making this claim that halo 2 is held back competitively but the reality is that it never was. it was a great success on the professional level and produced a number of the moments that people refer to as being the golden age of competitive halo. Why does this game need to be changed or improved in arbitrary ways like reducing aim assist ten years after the fact? The core population interested in halo 2 plays the game because they enjoy the natural system of the game. The worst thing you could do to the game is change something arbitrary like aim assist when you could be focusing on something that it's player base actually wants - which is what i referenced with powerup control. Halo 2's levels of skill right now make it accessible at the lower levels of the skill gap but harder to master at the higher levels. I think the spread is a great combination. It will never be as skillful as a game like CE but has it's own merits in it's own right because of the system it had and still has... what is the problem with that? What is the problem with making changes that will actually increase the skill gap for it's community as well as maintaining it's presence as a game that can still be accessible to new players coming in?

It's just like every other watcher on the wall. you love to make these arbitrary arguments about making games more skillful but the reality of our environment as competitive gamers is that there is almost no interest in games that are ultra competitive. Look at the landscape of CE. 60-100 viewers (of which i am one) for the top lan tournament each year to watch the best halo players play? it's a joke and i don't like it but it's reality. to add to that, there's no guarantee that lowering the aim assist in halo 2 will actually do anything. My assumption would be that it would largely play and operate the same way after a period of adjustment so what is the end game there? what is the point? there isn't one.

 

We have a game like halo 2 which is is more user friendly but still boasts a significant skill gap and was actually a game that bridged that gap between popularity and skill and people still want to tear it down for absolutely no reason ten years after the fact. what a joke. 

 

I have no interest in the mental gymnastics required to seriously "debate" how Halo 2's massive aim assists were a good thing. This is just going down a rabbit hole of absurdity. I don't want to tear down Halo 2 for no reason, I want to objectively evaluate and analyze what works and what doesn't in Halo games. If we can't even agree on general concepts about aim assists, it's no wonder Halo games have become so disjointed. Halo 2's popularity was due to several converging factors, and I firmly believe the aim assist was a detrimental one. Halo CE did a better job of bridging the gap between popularity and skill, because it didn't compress the skill-gap, and it did it all without the benefit of XBL. Just because Halo 2 became popular doesn't mean it couldn't have been both more popular and have a deeper skill-gap.

 

And changing the aim assist is "arbitrary"???? Do you have any clue how impactful the aim assist is in a Halo game, or any FPS for that matter? I can't believe I'm being forced to defend a deeper shooting skill gap in a Halo game. I don't even know where to go from here.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I have no interest in the mental gymnastics required to seriously "debate" how Halo 2's massive aim assists were a good thing. This is just going down a rabbit hole of absurdity. I don't want to tear down Halo 2 for no reason, I want to objectively evaluate and analyze what works and what doesn't in Halo games. If we can't even agree on general concepts about aim assists, it's no wonder Halo games have become so disjointed. Halo 2's popularity was due to several converging factors, and I firmly believe the aim assist was a detrimental one. Halo CE did a better job of bridging the gap between popularity and skill, because it didn't compress the skill-gap, and it did it all without the benefit of XBL. Just because Halo 2 became popular doesn't mean it couldn't have been both more popular and have a deeper skill-gap.

 

And changing the aim assist is "arbitrary"???? Do you have any clue how impactful the aim assist is in a Halo game, or any FPS for that matter? I can't believe I'm being forced to defend a deeper shooting skill gap in a Halo game. I don't even know where to go from here.

 

 

All you've done is speak in generalizations and pretend like everyone thinks like you do. 

 

You just keep saying that the auto aim is detrimental and say that it forces team play, which is something you don't agree with and that's fine. You're trying to make it sound like halo 2 is something that it isn't because you don't agree with the skill philosophy. the individual meta in halo 2 is FAR stronger than you give it credit for and that's just a reality. You're raving about needing a deeper shooting skill gap but you're conveniently leaving out significant portions of halo 2's meta like double shotting and pretending they don't exist for some reason. You also completely ignored my logical points about increasing the shooting skill gap without altering the aim assist in a game. 

 

This is the absolute bottom line: 

You lower the aim assist in halo 2. 

Everyone reduces their sensitivity by 1-2 ticks (most are on 5-6 at this point anyways, and a majority of pros played on 4-5 in the golden age).

Barring the adjustment period, everyone still shoots the same angles. Everyone largely has the same degree of success in their fights, except power positions would actually increase in their overall power particularly areas like ring 3/p3. This is a problem for me because you literally just said this: My point has always been that Halo 2, due to how easy the aiming system was, limited the strategic depth of the game and gave disproportionately large advantages to power positions via teamshot.

 

Your solution to halo 2 actually makes the problems you think the game already has worse. If you reduce the auto aim on halo 2, because of descope and red reticule auto aim vs. white reticule autoaim, you are giving the advantageous player even more of an advantage. you do realize that right? 

A player is p3, he is waiting on spawns at your door, scoped in with br... A MASSIVE ADVANTAGE which is enhanced if you reduce the spawning players autoaim. He not only has scope advantage but height and angle advantage and you want to make him harder to shoot? The only sure way to have an even shot is to peek from glass in a scoped prefire. even doing this you're still likely to be the descoped player first in the battle and to even come to that conclusion as a player that you need to make that play you have to make a lot of risky assumptions about where p3's teammates are and commit yourself to an angle that leaves you super vulnerable from several other positions on the map. Because of this, the battle takes longer, the spawning team spends more time in base... The p3 controlling team has more time to keep you forced in. One of their teammates has extra time to hit p1 and prefrag your street trapping you even longer. Because you're getting less consistent damage from one player on to p3, you're actually forcing your teammates into a position where they have to do meaningful damage vs. clean up damage. This also takes extra time which gives the team with the advantage more time to come off spawn if they died or continue to push for position.  

 

When was the last time you played serious 4's on this game? You want a reduced sense of team play from a shooting perspective and less emphasis on power positions: reducing auto aim literally makes both of those problems worse in halo 2's system. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

If I may interject for a moment, I don't know ANY of the advanced tricks for either Halo 1 or 2, but in casual play, Halo 2 is a clunky, narrow, repetitive mess. Every match plays out almost the same way, the melee feels terrible, and the weapon balance is terrible, with only a few being viable, and the sword being vastly overpowered. Halo 1, on the other hand, feels like a sandbox where you can play your own way and still have a chance.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Your solution to halo 2 actually makes the problems you think the game already has worse. If you reduce the auto aim on halo 2, because of descope and red reticule auto aim vs. white reticule autoaim, you are giving the advantageous player even more of an advantage. you do realize that right? 

 

A player is p3, he is waiting on spawns at your door, scoped in with br... A MASSIVE ADVANTAGE which is enhanced if you reduce the spawning players autoaim. He not only has scope advantage but height and angle advantage and you want to make him harder to shoot? 

 

When was the last time you played serious 4's on this game? You want a reduced sense of team play from a shooting perspective and less emphasis on power positions: reducing auto aim literally makes both of those problems worse in halo 2's system. 

 

No it doesn't, that's all just patently false. Raising the shooting skill gap decreases the advantage of positioning because it allows a player on the lower ground to actually outshoot the other player. This is basic, fundamental stuff here.

 

To illustrate this point, let's use an extreme example: a game where everyone lands every shot. A player in a power position will have a dramatically higher chance of winning any engagement because the height and angle advantage make it much more likely that he sees the other player first. The player at the lower position will never win that fight. A team that has better positioning, allowing them to get more guns on a player (teamshot), will always win in a game where every shot lands. 

 

Now let's look at the other end of the spectrum; no aim assists at all. The player with higher aiming skill will have a much greater chance of overcoming the height/angle advantage, because there is now a whole new skill-space which allows them to overcome that positioning advantage. When everyone can easily land most of their shots, like Halo 2, the advantage of positioning is dramatically increased.

 

When you compress or reduce a certain skill, the relative benefits of other skills is enhanced (the skill depth is not increased, it is simply relatively more important). If you compress of reduce the shooting skill, the relative benefits of map positioning are enhanced. This should be pretty obvious. 

 

 

 

You're raving about needing a deeper shooting skill gap but you're conveniently leaving out significant portions of halo 2's meta like double shotting and pretending they don't exist for some reason. 

 

The only reason the "meta" of double-shotting works is because of the insane aim assists. The fact that refer to it as a "significant" portion of the meta should tell you everything you need to know. The fact that Halo 2 players hang their hat on a button combination that is only relevant due to the massive aim assists should be fairly indicative of how deep the shooting skill gap is. 

 

 

 

All you've done is speak in generalizations and pretend like everyone thinks like you do. 

 

You just keep saying that the auto aim is detrimental and say that it forces team play, which is something you don't agree with and that's fine. You're trying to make it sound like halo 2 is something that it isn't because you don't agree with the skill philosophy. 

 

I'm using generalizations because we're speaking about broad concepts that form the basis for a game.

 

I simply refuse to agree that a First-Person-Shooter that doesn't have shooting skill as part of it's skill philosophy can be as good of a game as it should be. That doesn't mean it can't be played at competitions or that you can't personally enjoy it or that there is no skill in the game, it simply means that it's potential is being unnecessarily and severely limited.  

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@MultiLockOn, when I get home from this field rotation, remind me to show you this map I’ve held onto in H3.

It’s a tiny little killbox of a 1v1 map but it plays really interesting, fast and fun. It was called Exile. No idea who the author is. Curious to hear your thoughts.

 

 

I remember it from Halo 3. Forgehub used it in a 1v1 tournament about 10 years ago (I have a freakish memory for forge maps over the years I can remember EVERYTHING). Check the author, is it by Abandoned Heretic?

 

Pretty sure the forger is Kon Artist

  • 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.