Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

So no, no speculation here. The honeymoon phase will pass and the analytical crowd will be shitting on nearly every aspect of h5 (thrust included, you can see it happening now in some threads) just like they did with reach. The population will take a huge plunge just like the last 2 games and halo 5's product life cycle won't be anything comparable to what halo used to be.

Are you sure you know what speculation means? Because this entire paragraph is speculation...

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm amazed at all the people who are fine with AR & Pistol for matchmaking, but want BR starts for HCS.

 

The pistol is simply a much more skilled weapon, and would be versatile with a buff (they're buffing it, though a few things are up in the air)

 

1) Lower aim assist and bullet magnetism.

2) Single-shot vs BR burst-fire.

 

 

And the AR is being nerfed guys, so chill out. 

Share this post


Link to post

If Chief is Canadian, why did he let a sunbelt team beat the Red Wings who are fifteen minutes away from being Canadian.

 

"Join me next time on #HuntTheTruth"

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Using the week 1 vs week 2 player retention stats is an awful way to evaluate preferred weapon sets. Two flaws. 1.) Maps were different. Whether they were better or worse is subjective. Still different. 2.) A lot of people played so much the first week that they simply didn't want to continue playing week 2.

It's a data point. It's impossible to draw concrete conclusions as I mentioned before. One point of clarification though. When I mentioned retention I am talking about each week as its own cohort. IE: the week that the players starting playing in. The heightened drop off was within the group of players that STARTED playing in week two with BR starts (relative to players that started playing in week one or to a lesser extent week three).

 

Again, it's a data point. As you rightly mention there were other factors at play (maps, dates, environmental landscape, etc) that must bee considered as well.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The team has been experimenting with an objective (one flag). This adds depth by giving you two ways to win the round: push the flag or eliminate the opposing team. It helps address stalling/camping when the stakes are high. No guarantees it'll ship this way but the results have been positive so far.

Have you guys thought about spawning in a hill about 45-60 seconds in for the objective?

Share this post


Link to post

It's a data point. It's impossible to draw concrete conclusions as I mentioned before. One point of clarification though. When I mentioned retention I am talking about each week as its own cohort. IE: the week that the players starting playing in. The heightened drop off was within the group of players that STARTED playing in week two with BR starts (relative to players that started playing in week one or to a lesser extent week three).

 

Again, it's a data point. As you rightly mention there were other factors at play (maps, dates, environmental landscape, etc) that must bee considered as well.

@@Sal1ent I think another factor is people like us who were waiting for br starts are a lot more picky and didn't like some of the new mechanics and movement and thus quit. This is opposed to the casual player who was just desperate for new halo in the first week and wanted to play a lot.

Share this post


Link to post

Are you sure you know what speculation means? Because this entire paragraph is speculation...

 

English is not my mother tongue, but even I can know what speculation is. :P

Share this post


Link to post

The thing that burns my ass is that the casuals wont be playing h5 in 6 months, the competitive community will. The casuals arent gonna care and they dgaf now about sprint. And 343 are too dumb to see that I guess. We can explain this as much as we want it doesnt matter. They will do what they want to. We have done all we can as a community in my opinion. We have this down to a science with hundreds of thousands of hours of gameplay in each title. If 343 is gonna let halo die because of ignorance/stubborness, so be it. Im tired of fighting.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

We have functioned just fine for many years without having the player start with a spray and pray weapon that doesn't reward accuracy. The H5 AR is marginally better and is much more of a niche weapon than the BR or pistol. Pickups should be niche weapons or power weapons, not utility weapons. 

It's funny you'd say that, because I remember back around Reach MLG or H4, I forgot, but I stumbled across a thread that genuinely considered competitive Halo a joke because its players insist on playing different settings and their (significantly changed) own rules while they suck at the game in default settings. Of course, I realize that at the time, the game had to be made different to even be bearable to watch, but it is food for thought. We start we changing the starting weapon because of whatever reason, then we end up removing sprint, then we end up adding one or two maps, then we end up moving weapons around... etc.

 

End result: Someone who has played default settings a lot could hop into the competitive playlist and not have the slightest clue what's going on and why so much stuff is different. At this point, I feel like, considering how early the Halo 5 beta came, and how much room for feedback there was for pros to give... if significant changes are made to default settings in order to create HCS settings, non-competitive people will end up thinking a lot of this stems for personal preference to make it easier on competitive players.

 

Anyhow, slight ramble, but it's something to think about. As for the AR, I think it's good to spawn people with it, because it's essentially an extension of your CQC / melee abilities. Considering how much faster you move in Halo 5, and how bigger the sight lines tend to be, people don't get in melee range all that often. I mean I could see it be replaced, but if we put it on the maps, then people would just never use it ever. Picking up an SMG over it is better, and the pistol is also supposed to better assuming you never miss. Of course, the AR meant to be a safer option and significantly stronger for team shooting... but if we remove it from the starting weapons, we just added one pointless weapon to the sandbox, and made the settings significantly harder for noobs to pick up.

 

I understand that it's a preference and neither side is right but I can't in any way, shape, or form see the majority of competitive players taking HCS seriously if there are AR starts. I'm okay with every other playlist having voting choices or a veto system with both gametypes but HCS should, in my opinion, be BR starts. I imagine, with the population that enjoys playing HCS and competitive Halo, there would be a lot of betrayals if every player had to sprint off spawn to fight over the few BRs available on the map. Maybe I'm in the minority. Also, on the subject of players feeling like the BR is ineffective as a result of them being destroyed by much more skilled players.... a proper functioning ranking system eliminates this concern. It should also not be a deciding or weighted factor in determining weapon starts. /opinion

What's a majority of competitive players vs the rest of the player base? What if most people, like I said above, find themselves thinking that HCS is a joke because it uses its very specific niche settings that are nothing like the default game to cater to so-called competitive players? End result is that not as many people as you'd want are interested in HCS nor end up taking it seriously. However, the difference, in numbers, is significant. Non-competitive players/casuals are the majority of there, that's a fact, and if they're not interested in HCS, it shows in stream views.

 

As for people betraying for BRs... really? People didn't betray for BRs in default settings in the past Halo games. And anyway, why does the competitive community have to be so scrubby and selfish to cause their team to potentially lose over not getting a Tier 2 weapon. How much do people care about their stupid stats? How dare they even call themselves competitive in the first place?

 

At the end of the day, getting the win is the most important thing, and anyone who doesn't respect that needs to be timed out from Matchmaking. I don't mean that as in "WIN THE GAME OR DIE!!!" but I mean everyone should at least kind of try to work towards it, or at least not get in the way of those who do, even if they don't really care about winning at the end of the day. People betraying over weapons should have significant penalties given to them (like Matchmaking bans over a few days).

 

Anyhow the main concern here is how much easier the BR is to use than the pistol, not so much if people get destroyed by it or not.

Share this post


Link to post

 

The AR is for casuals not us. The goal here is to get establish a balance in starting weapon selection that caters to both casual and competitive populations, as has been explained many times over in this thread. The importance of "competitive out of the box" is something the competitive community has always wanted, and we are so close to having it, but we have to understand that "out of the box" means casual friendly as well. We cannot exist without them, neither can 343. Just because you disagree with their style it doesn't mean they can be ignored.

 

I really enjoy this myth that compromising competitive settings is going to make us successful. Anybody remember "We have decided to reinstate sprint for version 2 of the MLG settings to allow the settings to better appeal to casual players and spectators"? When something is not an objectively good element for play and you keep it in, it does not grow the scene. It never has. There isn't a single time in any competitive game that I can think of someone adding bullshit mechanics to the game and it becoming a more successful game. Under this logic, Brawl would have been more successful than Melee because it appealed to casuals more, or having items on during play would grow the scene. Hell this logic means that Mario Kart is the most successful competitive game of all time. Oh wait, no. That is mario party. Casual games inherently don't become competitive games because of the fact that they are not designed to do that. When you add mechanics that do not appeal to the people who want to compete, you HURT your scene even if it is slightly more appealing to casuals because player retention is more important. A casual can eventually find a hardcore experience fun because of it's merits (or they aren't the type to ever find it good), but a lost competitive player will never come back. 

 

Obviously the AR isn't quite the same, but it isn't making the game more competitive either. Halo Reach was more casual friendly and it killed Halo. Halo 4 was also more casual friendly and it nailed the coffin for Halo. There are other issues at play but it certainly doesn't serve as evidence to support this case. Also you seem to be missing one huge argument that I have been fighting for since reach that for whatever reason nobody else seems to think is viable: 

 

Use the loadout system. Give casuals the option to play with AR off the start, but without forcing everybody else to as well. This one option single handedly strikes down the whole arugment. Sure they might not like to play against people playing with a BR off the start, but people like that would also complain about the Pistol being OP so it doesn't really matter. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

when playing the beta, the issue i had with the ar pistol start was that the game became a race to get rifles, and teams with rifles dominated. then when it was br pistol start.. the game had a crappy defense off spawn to close quarters.

 

then when it was ar br start, it felt perfect. iwas dropping the br for the dmr every chance i could, but i would never pick up the pistol because it was too weak. if they just buffed the pistol and increased its scope range, it should be a weapon you would drop the ar for.

 

this notion that we shouldnt be able to kill from all ranges of spawn is wrong. go play quake, the true arena shooter, your starting weapon allows you to zoom and its hitscan across the map. it weak enough that you are still picking up better weapons but it's also strong enough to deplete a players armor and health and eventually kill me them.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent I don't know if you can answer but is Arena style gameplay the focus or the exception in H5G? Like is it going to be 10% Arena and 90% BTB?

Well the beta was focused on Arena and all we have heard about Halo 5's gameplay so far is Arena based. That should give you an idea of what the focus will be.

Share this post


Link to post

The team has been experimenting with an objective (one flag). This adds depth by giving you two ways to win the round: push the flag or eliminate the opposing team. It helps address stalling/camping when the stakes are high. No guarantees it'll ship this way but the results have been positive so far.

 

This sounds fantastic. I personally enjoyed Breakout quite a bit, but it really needed some objective modes to get people moving.

 

 

Not sure if you touched on this yet or not, but one of my biggest gripes with Breakout is the death cam.  I feel like being able to have nearly a full overview / pan of the map when you are eliminated is sort of a "reward" of sorts for losing your battle -  teammates can also just make "play-by-play" call outs for the people who are alive, which takes away from the intensity  of the match as well as that player being able to depend on people who he really shouldn't be able to depend on (because they died).

 

Wondering if any changes have been considered or made, something like when you are dead it goes to a 1st person view of whoever is alive, and you can cycle through players. So you are still able to watch what is going on, but you aren't able to pan around a corner or get a decent overview of the map.

 

 

Also someone correct me if I am wrong, but in Call of Duty when you are playing "Search and Destroy" I believe that it will not allow you to go into a "Party Chat" online, and you have to use "in game voice" only, and when you die, you are unable to communicate with your team.  The last time I played CoD seriously was during Black Ops 2 and if I recall correctly, thats how it worked (or close haha.) 

 

Would be cool to see the same thing in Breakout, make it hyper competitive, a really cut throat playlist. You died? Sucks to suck man. You cant communicate or help your team now, you just have to watch and cross your fingers.  Now this could be circumvented with Skype / Vent / TeamSpeak or whatever, but for 99% of people it would make Breakout a more competitive experience. 

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

Of course you have to bear in mind that 343 has its own twisted definition of "Arena":

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm. If I ever leave southern California (Which I won't) I'll have to go on the hunt for this poutine thing.

Share this post


Link to post

Hmm. If I ever leave southern California (Which I won't) I'll have to go on the hunt for this poutine thing.

It's like lead, but holy hell, it's so good. You'll be hooked forever. 

 

Just don't go trying to make it yourself, it never works out as good as those mom and pop trailers on the sides of the roads in Canada. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

This sounds fantastic. I personally enjoyed Breakout quite a bit, but it really needed some objective modes to get people moving.

 

 

Not sure if you touched on this yet or not, but one of my biggest gripes with Breakout is the death cam.  I feel like being able to have nearly a full overview / pan of the map when you are eliminated is sort of a "reward" of sorts for losing your battle -  teammates can also just make "play-by-play" call outs for the people who are alive, which takes away from the intensity  of the match as well as that player being able to depend on people who he really shouldn't be able to depend on (because they died).

 

Wondering if any changes have been considered or made, something like when you are dead it goes to a 1st person view of whoever is alive, and you can cycle through players. So you are still able to watch what is going on, but you aren't able to pan around a corner or get a decent overview of the map.

 

 

Also someone correct me if I am wrong, but in Call of Duty when you are playing "Search and Destroy" I believe that it will not allow you to go into a "Party Chat" online, and you have to use "in game voice" only, and when you die, you are unable to communicate with your team.  The last time I played CoD seriously was during Black Ops 2 and if I recall correctly, thats how it worked (or close haha.) 

 

Would be cool to see the same thing in Breakout, make it hyper competitive, a really cut throat playlist. You died? Sucks to suck man. You cant communicate or help your team now, you just have to watch and cross your fingers.  Now this could be circumvented with Skype / Vent / TeamSpeak or whatever, but for 99% of people it would make Breakout a more competitive experience. 

That is how it works in SnD currently, correct. I actually don't like that it does that though. Every tourney or league allows players to communicate after death and so not reflecting that in the game just doesn't make sense to me. 

 

Death cam does sound OP though.

Share this post


Link to post

No Invasion ? That's not a great idea ... A big part of the community loved it.

I hope there'll be Elites playable ...

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I agree the ability to go 3rd person in Breakout was a little overpowered and a simple choice of making it first person would be great. 

 

We definitely need the ability to hear our team mates though. Because there will always be groups that will find a way to talk to each other so its not fair to punish the "casual" gamers who aren't playing with a team as they would always be at a disadvantage. Even if they had their mics plugged in which many casual gamers don't on a regular basis. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I agree the ability to go 3rd person in Breakout was a little overpowered and a simple choice of making it first person would be great.

 

We definitely need the ability to hear our team mates though. Because there will always be groups that will find a way to talk to each other so its not fair to punish the "casual" gamers who aren't playing with a team as they would always be at a disadvantage. Even if they had their mics plugged in which many casual gamers don't on a regular basis.

the thing about that third person can is, it literally makes being dead overpowered, think about that for a second.
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent

 

I gotta agree with the whole "1st person death-cam" idea. Dying should serve as a punishment for being out-skilled. To have this mode be the most competitive it can be, the ability to watch teammates should only serve as something to keep the player invested and communicative until the next round.

As soon as you give a dead player not a viable role, but an ADVANTAGE, don't you break the game by actually encouraging death for a certain type of player?

 

Also, one more question. Has the Halo 5 team experimented with keeping the spread of weapons the same when zoomed in, providing only the bonus of range? This would make it truer to other Halo games, pleasing more Halo veterans and making Smart-Scope truly a circumstantial ability, much like the other Spartan Abilities.

Thanks for taking your time to answer some of our questions. :)

 

EDIT: For comparison purposes, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XthuZAGTjpU shows Halo 5's spread normal vs Smart-Scope.

xboxdvr.com/Teh%20MooMoo/369ef613-dd9c-4a83-b44d-fa8ce1ace3e2/embed Shows how zoom normally works.

Share this post


Link to post

the thing about that third person can is, it literally makes being dead overpowered, think about that for a second.

 

So did you read my post?

 

 3rd person in Breakout was a little overpowered

 

 

 

Are any of guys seriously thinking about having one player kill themselves?  That is the dumbest thing I have heard since no descope. I a team actually tried doing that they would lose every game against a team of equal skill.

 

As soon as the other team knows you are one down they can overload a side and your team will crumble. 

 

Having one of your teammate kill themselves is laughable. 

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent and others.

 

How would you feel if the flag on breakout wasn't something you could score? You know, like objective or point wise. Let's say that the flag either gives you time like the oddball (not as much of a fan) or that possession of the flag at the end of the time limit will win the round, even in a 1v2 situation (more of a fan of this).

Another thing is the granting the flag holder prometheon vision until he drops it. It'd be a jarring experience switching back and forth, but I'm literally just stealing ideas from shadowrun. 4v4 attrition in Shadowrun worked really well but also worked very differently. Maybe instead of a flag you can have the oddball or bomb or something that somewhat throwable?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

tumblr_n1aqvdoRhi1rs8ziuo1_500.gif

 

Best food in the world. Hands down. 

 

It's a staple in NJ at diners as well but here we call the disco fries and we don't have those great cheese curds but melted mozz instead. Definitely lucky cause this is the greatest late night drunk munchie food.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent and others.

 

How would you feel if the flag on breakout wasn't something you could score? You know, like objective or point wise. Let's say that the flag either gives you time like the oddball (not as much of a fan) or that possession of the flag at the end of the time limit will win the round, even in a 1v2 situation (more of a fan of this).

Another thing is the granting the flag holder prometheon vision until he drops it. It'd be a jarring experience switching back and forth, but I'm literally just stealing ideas from shadowrun. 4v4 attrition in Shadowrun worked really well but also worked very differently. Maybe instead of a flag you can have the oddball or bomb or something that somewhat throwable?

I really like the first two ideas. The last one not so much. Out of the first two I prefer whoever has possession at the end of the round since we already have oddball.

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 & Privacy Policy.