Jump to content
CyReN

Halo: The Master Chief Collection Discussion

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, JordanB said:

Why though dude. I'm all for debates that are back and forth. I'd rather read points about something I completely disagree with then having to read and resort to "fuck you I'm right you're wrong you're dumb". What does that possibly due for the conversation. 

Because this debate is STUPID! Only reason people debated in the first place was to be respectful and nice. Let’s face the facts the positives of friendly fire out weigh the cons. The positives are the punishments towards teams making bad plays(grenadine and rocketing teammates for example) just because trolls can betray doesn’t make it a bad feature. You don’t design a game around how R tards will play, you design it how you expect it to play on LAN. Whenever rainbow six siege was showed off they had players who communicated and everything, obviously ransoms online won’t play like that because they’re dumb, don’t want to communicate out of laziness, etc(basically a bunch of BS excuses) but it’s how the games expected to play. Halo isn’t expected to have intentional team kills and trolls, it just happens. God forbid you get grenaded by a teammate when you overextended or something or The teammate throws a nade across map and it hits you. Like come on this convo started because ice is Salty about a teammate killing her. She plays other shooters and says “FF off works here why not halo”  But Warzone works, except we have teams blasting explosives in small rooms with no consequences of killing their teammates so I’d say that’s not a win. 

  • Like (+1) 2
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
59 minutes ago, Arlong said:

Because this debate is STUPID! Only reason people debated in the first place was to be respectful and nice. Let’s face the facts the positives of friendly fire out weigh the cons. The positives are the punishments towards teams making bad plays(grenadine and rocketing teammates for example) just because trolls can betray doesn’t make it a bad feature. You don’t design a game around how R tards will play, you design it how you expect it to play on LAN. Whenever rainbow six siege was showed off they had players who communicated and everything, obviously ransoms online won’t play like that because they’re dumb, don’t want to communicate out of laziness, etc(basically a bunch of BS excuses) but it’s how the games expected to play. Halo isn’t expected to have intentional team kills and trolls, it just happens. God forbid you get grenaded by a teammate when you overextended or something or The teammate throws a nade across map and it hits you. Like come on this convo started because ice is Salty about a teammate killing her. She plays other shooters and says “FF off works here why not halo”  But Warzone works, except we have teams blasting explosives in small rooms with no consequences of killing their teammates so I’d say that’s not a win. 

Uhhhhh No. You don't balance a game around less than 1% of the population under perfect conditions. When it's going to be played online a million times more than on LAN. That would make no sense from any standpoint. And using the top players with full comms as the end all be all is literally just a disaster waiting to happen. Cuz again the vast majority of people playing the game are not going to be like that. You need to account for all aspects of the population ESPECIALLY the majority. And dude what you absolutely balance shit around what tards will do. That's a huge aspect. Making a system that isn't easily abused. To think you should ignore that is mind blowing. Perfect conditions are literally that. Perfect. If you don't test the norm and the worst you're gonna have a shit game. 

Also "ur just salty you get betrayed" being used as an insult is hilarious. Yea no shit it's almost like being betrayed is stupid. And not fun. And as far as your WZ example (lol on its own) AGAIN that doesn't work with ricochet. So stop saying stuff like that. 

  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Question time in light of this.

The gametype is Oddball, any game in the franchise. Someone is slaying the enemy team and not picking up the ball. Do they deserve to be betrayed for that?

Share this post


Link to post

Just pick the ball up yourself if your teammate is slaying so hard.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
10 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:

Question time in light of this.

The gametype is Oddball, any game in the franchise. Someone is slaying the enemy team and not picking up the ball. Do they deserve to be betrayed for that?

How does this question relate to the conversation beyond being superficially about Friendly Fire?

Share this post


Link to post
13 minutes ago, L377UC3 said:

How does this question relate to the conversation beyond being superficially about Friendly Fire?

I'm just curious about people's answers and what they deem to be the good or valid course of action, given FF exists. It's a prober, not inherently related.

24 minutes ago, Boyo said:

Just pick the ball up yourself if your teammate is slaying so hard.

Sleek.

Share this post


Link to post
2 hours ago, My Namez BEAST said:

Also "ur just salty you get betrayed" being used as an insult is hilarious. Yea no shit it's almost like being betrayed is stupid. And not fun. And as far as your WZ example (lol on its own) AGAIN that doesn't work with ricochet. So stop saying stuff like that. 

I don't like dying. Dying's not fun. Take it out plz.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Obviously not because slaying is the most important aspect of winning any game, aside from spawn control. Unless they're griefing by throwing the ball off the map or something then fuck em.

Share this post


Link to post
11 minutes ago, Larry Sizemore said:

I don't like dying. Dying's not fun. Take it out plz.

Yea if only there was a difference between dying to enemies and dying to teammates. If only. 

Share this post


Link to post
4 minutes ago, My Namez BEAST said:

Yea if only there was a difference between dying to enemies and dying yo teammates. If only. 

Given that your only argument is "I don't like it", there isn't a difference. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
2 minutes ago, Cursed Lemon said:

Given that your only argument is "I don't like it", there isn't a difference. 

Are you joking? I don't need to write an essay on why betraying teammates is bad. What are you even on about? Yea no shit I don't like being betrayed. Why would I need to say more? 

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, TheIcePrincess said:

I'm just curious about people's answers and what they deem to be the good or valid course of action, given FF exists. It's a prober, not inherently related.

I don't really think we'll produce any sort of interesting dialogue from this line of questioning. In every proposed situation the answer is going to be no - you should not shoot your teammate. Nobody here intends to defend griefing; it's just the general consensus that it does not happen anywhere near often enough to justify altering mechanics in potentially damaging ways.

FF exists for the benefit of the other team to punish bad aggressive positioning - especially with heavy ordinance and power weapons. Removing it may indeed reduce griefing dramatically, but I think your experience is so far outlying that no one besides you and Beast will really give a shit.

Meanwhile Rockets in the hands of an effective team are that much more damaging and offer even fewer possible opportunities to reverse fortune for a team on the receiving end. As I've said before, for someone who dislikes power weapons because they contribute to snowballing, removing FF will only serve to make that shit snowballier.

If you're interested in making a game with kickass gunplay and movement mechanics with a dramatically streamlined and truncated sandbox and no FF, I think people would be more than happy to discuss the merits of that, because it could work in a holistic and interesting way. That just sounds alienating as the mainline gametype in a Halo though.

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Arlong said:

Because this debate is STUPID! Only reason people debated in the first place was to be respectful and nice. Let’s face the facts the positives of friendly fire out weigh the cons. The positives are the punishments towards teams making bad plays(grenadine and rocketing teammates for example) just because trolls can betray doesn’t make it a bad feature. You don’t design a game around how R tards will play, you design it how you expect it to play on LAN. Whenever rainbow six siege was showed off they had players who communicated and everything, obviously ransoms online won’t play like that because they’re dumb, don’t want to communicate out of laziness, etc(basically a bunch of BS excuses) but it’s how the games expected to play. Halo isn’t expected to have intentional team kills and trolls, it just happens. God forbid you get grenaded by a teammate when you overextended or something or The teammate throws a nade across map and it hits you. Like come on this convo started because ice is Salty about a teammate killing her. She plays other shooters and says “FF off works here why not halo”  But Warzone works, except we have teams blasting explosives in small rooms with no consequences of killing their teammates so I’d say that’s not a win. 

Yeah, except you debate as if THE LOUDEST PERSON IS ALWAYS right. Except that's not how it works. Especially on a text forum, lol. It doesn't make you wrong, but it sure as hell makes what I read from you less credible, in my opinion. You should be able to make a point clear without resorting to yelling "fuck you you're stupid". Those don't help your argument at all, you're just saying useless words that mean nothing. 

  • Like (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
43 minutes ago, JordanB said:

Yeah, except you debate as if THE LOUDEST PERSON IS ALWAYS right. Except that's not how it works. Especially on a text forum, lol. It doesn't make you wrong, but it sure as hell makes what I read from you less credible, in my opinion. You should be able to make a point clear without resorting to yelling "fuck you you're stupid". Those don't help your argument at all, you're just saying useless words that mean nothing. 

I can't even hear you you're too quiet

This Librarian whispering thing doesnt work

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
1 hour ago, My Namez BEAST said:

Are you joking? I don't need to write an essay on why betraying teammates is bad. What are you even on about? Yea no shit I don't like being betrayed. Why would I need to say more? 

Don't see a fundamental reason to make that change. We already can track how much damage was dealt and by whom in each game. MM should be able to identify and handle habitual abuse. Competitive modes/tournaments/LANs should remain as they have been forever. The entire reason people don't like friendly fire is that they play with some idiot online that betrays them for snipe or whatever. From a mechanical/skill perspective friendly fire is a good thing. Your problem is with people not the game and you want a gameplay mechanic to fix it when the reality is anyone creating that situation should be removed from MM.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
On 8/6/2019 at 1:03 PM, Gobias said:

Another solution is to nullify all damage done by explosives if a teammate is involved, so nading indiscriminately is not useful. You could inflict damage on the grenade thrower if the wasted grenade/opportunity for damage isn’t enough punishment. 

Not trying to boost a bad idea, but wouldn’t this kind of solve a lot of the concerns about substituting damage reflection for friendly fire? For example if one of your teammates is positioned “too aggressively” and you threw a nade that hit him and an opponent, you get punished more than with simple friendly fire because [hypothetically] the two who were hit by the grenade still have identical shield health while you are made one shot.

In other scenarios, it changes what can be considered a “well calculated play”. For example, instead of rocketing two opponents and one teammate and coming out +1, you either kill yourself or just waste a rocket depending if damage is reflected. Best of all, the potentially cheesy strategies in objective modes are avoided.

I find it interesting that people think friendly fire is really that important to Halo’s identity—I’ve seen people be more lenient about having random spread on the utility weapon.

Share this post


Link to post

If an enemy is about to cap a flag and I fire a rocket at him, I don’t care if I damage a teammate too, I want that enemy dead.

@Gobias

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, Snipe Three said:

Don't see a fundamental reason to make that change. We already can track how much damage was dealt and by whom in each game. MM should be able to identify and handle habitual abuse. Competitive modes/tournaments/LANs should remain as they have been forever. The entire reason people don't like friendly fire is that they play with some idiot online that betrays them for snipe or whatever. From a mechanical/skill perspective friendly fire is a good thing.

H5 literally tracks every possible stat nowadays. Accuracy, damage, distance traveled, weapons used, yada yada yada, but you're telling me they can't track team damage and punish griefers accordingly? Give me a break. Band-aid bullshit like removing FF or even ricochet should be last ditch efforts if teamkilling becomes a widespread problem (it's never really been an huge issue though despite the 3/10 statistic gettingt thrown around ITT). First implement an improved punishment system instead of the archaic "3 teamkills and you're out" model. Weigh betraying people off spawn or power weapon / objective carriers higher. Shame people with tons of betrayals on their service record. Ban them from MM just like quitters or even more harshly. Remove team damage from melees. You could even do something like blur the screen of someone who damages their teammate for a short period of time. But don't enable even more explosive spam and playing like a headless idiot.

Quote

Your problem is with people not the game and you want a gameplay mechanic to fix it when the reality is anyone creating that situation should be removed from MM.

I've been telling them this for ages, but apparently any sort of griefing and afking is okay as long as it doesn't affect their KD.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
27 minutes ago, Boyo said:

If an enemy is about to cap a flag and I fire a rocket at him, I don’t care if I damage a teammate too, I want that enemy dead.

@Gobias

So why can’t you use some other weapon? Your team is being punished because you were careless and hit your teammate. It takes more skill to avoid that. My point is that the consequences for friendly fire change, but are no less severe or rewarding lower skill.

There is also some cool stuff that could come from damage reflection. You could give your teammate a grenade jump with no shield disadvantage. It would blow my mind to see that play in a tournament.

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
3 hours ago, L377UC3 said:

I don't really think we'll produce any sort of interesting dialogue from this line of questioning.

I wasn't exactly looking for anything but a yes or a no, so that's okay.

2 hours ago, JordanB said:

Yeah, except you debate as if THE LOUDEST PERSON IS ALWAYS right. Except that's not how it works.

ARE YOU SURE ABOUT THAT?

46 minutes ago, Gobias said:

So why can’t you use some other weapon? Your team is being punished because you were careless and hit your teammate. It takes more skill to avoid that. My point is that the consequences for friendly fire change, but are no less severe or rewarding lower skill.

There is also some cool stuff that could come from damage reflection. You could give your teammate a grenade jump with no shield disadvantage. It would blow my mind to see that play in a tournament.

Yeah, that could be cool. Or, we could just introduce impulse nades into Halo, teehee. I'd still rather have those than nuking yourself to nade jump. Kinda ruins any potential with fun or whacky basic movement since you can't do it without killing yourself, essentially.

Share this post


Link to post

This is one of the most overblown conversations I have ever seen. Over a complaint about a system that works fine as is, that only effects a small portion of our gameplay experience, while it subtly protects our higher lever experience.

I don't like this response anymore than you are going to, but its basis is reality: If you don't like friendly fire, if you don't like being intentionally be trolled or betrayed, then the solution is already at you fingertips in the form of LFG. Play with people who won't contribute to your apparent constant suffering. You are already in perfect control of this, and begging for a change with obvious flaws out of a selfish desire is not the answer.

  • Like (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, The Tyco said:

If you don't like friendly fire, if you don't like being intentionally be trolled or betrayed, then the solution is already at you fingertips in the form of LFG. Play with people who won't contribute to your apparent constant suffering. You are already in perfect control of this, and begging for a change with obvious flaws out of a selfish desire is not the answer.

We've been over how you shouldn't design or have to play your game in perfect, tournament level conditions just to have an enjoyable, non-ruined experience by mechanics that really only reach their proper effectiveness levels on LAN.  

Why the hell do people argue for party restrictions if you could just full-stack and remove the downsides in a game without them, lol. Because, hey, like friendly fire, people don't always have the ability or want to full man a playlist. And they shouldn't be forced to JUST to ensure an enjoyable baseline experience without the downsides. 

  • Like (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post
16 minutes ago, TheIcePrincess said:
3 hours ago, L377UC3 said:

I don't really think we'll produce any sort of interesting dialogue from this line of questioning.

I wasn't exactly looking for anything but a yes or a no, so that's okay.

But I don't know under what conditions you'd expect anyone to say yes. :walshy:

Share this post


Link to post
Just now, L377UC3 said:

But I don't know under what conditions you'd expect anyone to say yes. :walshy:

I didn't know either, it's why I asked, lmao. Who knows, maybe someone thinks it's okay.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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