Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

Holy fucking trainwreck. It was a discussion of hitscan vs projectile and y’all let it turn into that

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, xSociety said:

Some people have obviously never played 16 player BTB CTF on Boarding Action. Good fucking times right there.

Yikes.

3 hours ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Boarding Action sniper CTF is one of my favorite gametypes of all time. 

Double yikes.

  • Downvote (-1) 4
  • Salt (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@MultiLockOn  If the arcanum key was ever officially implemented in a Halo game, what class of item would it be?  It’s not time-limited so it’s not really a Power Up but it doesn’t require any input from the user so it’s not really Equipment either.

Its almost like “passive equipment”;  Equipment that requires no button presses from the user to function.

What would you think about a Key equipment that has 10 passive uses, doors automatically open for the user without any button presses, or 2 active uses, the user approaches an auto turret and presses a button to activate it?

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
12 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Yikes.

Double yikes.

Imagine that guy arguing with you about the competitive nature of CE 4s. LOL.

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Arftacular said:

Imagine that guy arguing with you about the competitive nature of CE 4s. LOL.

Where do people get these massive egos? You do know fun is subjective right? Chiron TL-34 Invis Shotties is one of my favorite gametypes. I still prefer 2v2s, but sometimes you gotta sit back and relax. 

 

Some people like vanilla H4, and can kick your ass in CE. Not me, but I'm positive there are some. 

  • Like (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post
15 minutes ago, Boyo said:

@MultiLockOn  If the arcanum key was ever officially implemented in a Halo game, what class of item would it be?  It’s not time-limited so it’s not really a Power Up but it doesn’t require any input from the user so it’s not really Equipment either.

Its almost like “passive equipment”;  Equipment that requires no button presses from the user to function.

What would you think about a Key equipment that has 10 passive uses, doors automatically open for the user without any button presses, or 2 active uses, the user approaches an auto turret and presses a button to activate it?

The Arcanum key actually does function like that, it has 10 uses and then the 11th will burn the key and teleport you to a dead end. Like an ammo limit.

It is being implemented into a game.

And I don't think it really needs to be defined, I refer to it as a map specific pickup.  But at its core it IS part of Arcanum as a map, they go hand in hand. I don't think it really needs any specific title past that, ya know.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, OG Nick said:

Where do people get these massive egos? You do know fun is subjective right? Chiron TL-34 Invis Shotties is one of my favorite gametypes. I still prefer 2v2s, but sometimes you gotta sit back and relax. 

 

Some people like vanilla H4, and can kick your ass in CE. Not me, but I'm positive there are some. 

It's alllll about perspective, baby.

Share this post


Link to post

@Boyo I would never be in favor of a turret, but a manually activated trap might be kinda cool, like the furnace on Forge from Gears of War 4 or something.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@Boyo I just reread your post more carefully and saw auto turret.  Nothing in a multiplayer game, ever, ever ever ever, should be automated as an AI.  Auto turrets, roaming enemies, "smart grenades" (Destiny has tracking grenades with some degree of intelligence), and most commonly.. the spawn system.  Anything that is determined by an AI can just as easily skew a hundred times worse against you then it would the enemy for seemingly no understandable reason.  I'm pretty much anything that the game itself controls in an MP match.

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, MultiLockOn said:

@Boyo I just reread your post more carefully and saw auto turret.  Nothing in a multiplayer game, ever, ever ever ever, should be automated as an AI.  Auto turrets, roaming enemies, "smart grenades" (Destiny has tracking grenades with some degree of intelligence), and most commonly.. the spawn system.  Anything that is determined by an AI can just as easily skew a hundred times worse against you then it would the enemy for seemingly no understandable reason.  I'm pretty much anything that the game itself controls in an MP match.

I agree with you.  I was just trying to give an easy example that shows the difference between passive and active uses of the key.  Key has 10 uses total.  Having a door automatically open for you costs 1 use.  Actively triggering a more powerful map element costs 5 uses.  Something along those lines.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 minutes ago, Boyo said:

I agree with you.  I was just trying to give an easy example that shows the difference between passive and active uses of the key.  Key has 10 uses total.  Having a door automatically open for you costs 1 use.  Actively triggering a more powerful map element costs 5 uses.  Something along those lines.

There is a very, very delicate line that separates 'gimmicky map element' from an actual true depth-filled implementation of dynamic elements. That seems like it kinda steps over the line for me, but it would really depend on specific implementations of what exactly you're cashing in your extra uses for. What are the tells? Are they located in specific spots? There's about a hundred other qualifiers I'd need to begin thinking about stuff like that, but if you have any ideas I'd love to hear them. I personally never thought I'd ever seen an example of dynamic map elements done in a way that had integrity outside of Elder//Quake, which is why I made Arcanum. As a proof of concept.

I'll say it's also been a challenge thinking of a new type of dynamic element that is as controllable, simple, and carries the same level of depth as the key.  Working on ideas for a 'cage match' style 2v2 map right now, where anytime two players of opposite teams enter the same room they are locked in until one dies.  So no 2 opponents can ever exist in the same room at the same time. It's simple, and will probably lead to a LOT of positioning, foreplay, mind games to bait and goosestep around, and then end all encounters with a really cool duel style. It's pretty challenging to design it in a meaningful and flexible way though.

  • Like (+1) 6
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@MultiLockOn  I’ll give it some more thought but my first reaction to your cage match idea is this.  Depending on the layout and verticality of the map, say two players get locked into a room on level 1, like two doors come down from the ceiling to seal the room, that means that two new paths have opened on level 2 (because the doors that came down from the ceiling were originally blocking routes on level 2 but are no longer blocking those routes while the level 1 cage match is active).

 

Basically, whenever a cage match occurs, the rest of the map is changed in a unique way depending on which room the cage match took place in.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Boyo said:

@MultiLockOn  I’ll give it some more thought but my first reaction to your cage match idea is this.  Depending on the layout and verticality of the map, say two players get locked into a room on level 1, like two doors come down from the ceiling to seal the room, that means that two new paths have opened on level 2 (because the doors that came down from the ceiling were originally blocking routes on level 2 but are no longer blocking those routes while the level 1 cage match is active).

I've had that idea as well, but it implies that the doors that WOULD be on the 2nd level would now be locked to the first level. So if 2 other players walked into the higher rooms, they would either not be locked in together, or the lower doors would raise up and free the bottom players. Pretty much breaking the whole ruleset of the idea.


Also think bigger than just closing doors. Maybe when two players step into a room the floor opens and they're dropped into a pit. Maybe they're on the roof of hte structure and the connecting bridges disconnect.  Maybe it's as simple as a ring of fire that spawns around them. There's hundreds of ways you could confine players to a playspace beyond just physical doors :) 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@MultiLockOn  My initial reaction is to say that only one cage match should be active at any given time.  In addition, caging a room should modify the rest of the map in some way.  This makes it about the controlling the map as much as it’s about killing your enemy.  Simultaneous cage matches make it too focused on the players and their specific 1v1s.

 

Like, my teammate gets locked into a room with a superior enemy so he calls out to me so I rush the other enemy so my teammate can be freed.  Seems like there is much more depth with one cage match at a time that modifies the rest of the map.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, Boyo said:

@MultiLockOn  My initial reaction is to say that only one cage match should be active at any given time.  In addition, caging a room should modify the rest of the map in some way.  This makes it about the controlling the map as much as it’s about killing your enemy.  Simultaneous cage matches make it too focused on the players and their specific 1v1s.

 

Like, my teammate gets locked into a room with a superior enemy so he calls out to me so I rush the other enemy so my teammate can be freed.  Seems like there is much more depth with one cage match at a time that modifies the rest of the map.

Honestly - not the worst idea.  I can definitely imagine what you're getting at, now it's just a matter of thinking about what that actually changes on a psychological level.

 

I'd imagine with the whole cage match idea that there would be quite a bit goose-stepping back and forth with enemies, teetering the edge of a doorway trying to trick the enemy into thinking whether or not you're going to commit to the room. Maybe you think you're safe and an enemy flies into a side door outside of your FOV and looks you into just moments before you leave that radius. It also would be awesome for aggressive players to be able to hunt down players on the run and literally force them into a fight. I like the idea of it because it focuses a lot on the lead up to a fight just as much as the fight itself that takes place, perhaps even more. Which is good in a game like Halo 5 that (thanks to hitscan :^)  ) has really shallow gunplay and encounters, so anything I can do to bring depth outside of the raw combat is a win.

 

Making it so only one cage is active at a time basically tells you that you should  be separate from your teammate in case one of you becomes trapped they can bum rush the enemy partner to force the cage on them (if they can get there in time).  In that sense it stresses individualism a lot more than my implementation in which case there would probably be a lot of butt hugging. Because who would bum rush the enemy to lock themselves into a room when their teammate is locked their too.. unless the doors aren't always solid doors and they're bars, so even people from the outside can intervene and shoot in. Which...isn't a bad thing at all considering the whole idea of a cage map is that you can rely on your individual skill to kill someone once you've earned the 1v1, so bringing that individualism to the preceding gameplay would be cool. 

 

Biggest drawback I'm thinking of is the messaging. First of all, why is only 1 cagematch permitted at a time. That's an arbitrary rule that kinda ventures into the game-y side of things that I like to avoid. And secondly, the messaging as to why a cagematch would have ended early for those in it isn't exactly clear if the new cagematch was activated out of sight on the other side of the map. This isn't a drawback of functionality and has no detriment on what the potential depth of the map could be, it's more just....odd, rule wise. But again - not the worst idea. I'll give it a look.

  • Like (+1) 3
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
4 hours ago, Fixaimingsorry said:

They need a FOV slider on console. Fucking ridiculous having to play 70 FOV on h3! FOV barely effects performance in game so don’t give me some bs it can’t be done.

Changing the fov to even like 90 increases how much you have to render on the screen at any given time by just over 25%. Saying it has minimal impact on performance is silly especially when you have no idea if that would be difference between a stable 60 or not. 

  • Thonking (+0) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Just read the ... conversation? ... All I learned is moving is random and if you run out of arguments to just start insulting people.

  • Like (+1) 5
  • Fire (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Halo 3 introduced players to mobile turrets.  Players could rip a Heavy Machine Gun off its base and carry it around with them.  What are some others ways that turrets could be mobilized?

 

How about a turret that can teleport itself and its user to one of four predetermined locations.  For example, an asymmetric gametype like Invasion might allow the Defender’s turret to teleport between low, high, left side and right side of their base.  Perhaps another map has a centrally located tower.  This turret can teleport between North, South, East, and West facing positions.  On a more linear map, a turret could teleport near the enemy spawn to mid to near your spawn.

 

Do mobile turrets encroach too much into vehicle territory?

Share this post


Link to post
1 minute ago, Boyo said:

Halo 3 introduced players to mobile turrets.  Players could rip a Heavy Machine Gun off its base and carry it around with them.  What are some others ways that turrets could be mobilized?

 

How about a turret that can teleport itself and its user to one of four predetermined locations.  For example, an asymmetric gametype like Invasion might allow the Defender’s turret to teleport between low, high, left side and right side of their base.  Perhaps another map has a centrally located tower.  This turret can teleport between North, South, East, and West facing positions.  On a more linear map, a turret could teleport near the enemy spawn to mid to near your spawn.

 

Do mobile turrets encroach too much into vehicle territory?

Better question is do people even like turrets/ do we need more of them. I'd venture to say probably not.

  • Like (+1) 3

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.