Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

True... however at the same time, it'd be kind of cool to have to stabilize or Ground Pound hover momentarily to slow your fall and reduce fall-damage.

 

That's just me thinking out loud though... they'd have to make Ground Pound an even greater risk though. If you miss your target you take damage, relative to your height, for example.

I'd like to see fall damage with double jump in Halo, imagine timing your second jump perfectly while falling to negate the damage. I'd also like to see health packs back in Halo again, what is everyone elses thoughts on health packs?

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This thread right now is almost the same as when we said "wouldn't it be better if we could just always thrust at all times" in 2013. Careful now.

 

Here's some common sense everyone seems to lack: if a new mechanic wouldn't improve Halo 2 or 3, then it is a bad mechanic for Halo 6. If a mechanic is added to Ranked Halo 6 before being tested in Social Halo 6 for a few months, then it is a bad mechanic.

 

There are a handful of potential mechanics that could work: double half-jumping (or double hopping, not to be confused with double jumping), increasing the fucking player speed (come on now), horizontal hovering (meaning no forward-backward, so it's for strafing and complicated jumps), multiple firing modes for some weapons (may increase the meta, but at least increases the iconicness of the weapon and therefore everything else in Halo and Halo's iconicness itself, and also serves as a more vivid positive association by which you can enjoy the game both in direct experience and in memory), simplified & more controllable spawn systems.

 

And aesthetically & human-expression-wise (which I've always said is about 50% of the experience), unlike Halo 4 and 5's new mechanics, none of those mechanics would shift the game's character expression (and therefore the player's gameplay mindset and emotions) from "medium-pace but consistent, heavy or deep, detailed, intense, connoisseur-ish, filtering out the rest of the world, tense and chesslike" (CE) to "technical, futuristic, egoic, Spartan Palmer-ish, light, mean, leather jacket and shades, quick but inconsistently so" (H5).

Share this post


Link to post

Are we really bitching because something in Halo is "unoriginal"?

Aren't most of the problems with this game from all the "innovation" they have tried to push?

 

All they did with strongholds was change the way the scoring works with 3 plots, which is probably the structure it should have had all along.  Da fuq are we complaining about?

 

Sometimes i swear people will take one detail they don't like and blow it up like its a giant problem just because hating on Halo 5 is the "Cool thing to do".

 

If you want to bitch about something, make it something legit like the fact that its been well over a year and we still dont have KotH and Oddball as default gametypes, or debate the size and positioning of the strongholds themselves.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

The discussion was whether strongholds is a good gametype fit for Halo. I've explained why in a 4v4 environment the amount of objectives is completely ridiculous, especially under the subpar level design of 343 (empire). Your response was "yet it still plays fine."

 

I'll try not to be so childish.

 

And yeah, everything in this world is subjective. Why ever talk about anything ever again then?

I had seen how you were responding to others about it.

 

You were not having discussions, you were attempting to tell people why they were wrong. There is a distinct difference.

 

There is nothing objectively flawed about having 3 objectives split between 8 players. If anything due to the akward nature of h5(long kill times+ slow in movement combat+very fast out of combat movement) multiple objectives is probably a good thing.

Share this post


Link to post

What was ever the reasoning for implementing melee lunges back in halo 2? It's as if they don't think that players can be good enough to actually time their melee in a gunfight. We've all had moments where the opponent lunges in such a large distance despite us attempting to kite them in the first place.

 

What's even worse than the melee lunges themselves is the correction for a bad melee. There is literally a magnetism for connecting one even if you're not aiming straight at the enemy, like we have no capability of aiming if we were to put the time into it. I don't think anyone should take CQC seriously until 343 begins to prioritize skillful game play over whatever is 'fun' for casuals.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wait, hold on. So having 3 objectives isn't random, but having 4 is? You're argument is self defeating, your example of what 4 objectives would become fits EXACTLY what strongholds plays like. Most players, without extreme coordination AND a map with controlled enough pathing would have no fucking clue what objective will be contested next. You leave one stronghold to capture another, and while you secure it the one you left is being capped. It's too many objectives split between not many players.

 

If a team is playing perfectly and holds all 3 objectives, that means there's literally 1 player guarding each stronghold, with 1 left over. So a majority of the time gaining or losing a stronghold comes down to a 1v1 battle. That's it, every encounter (in theory) comes down to just individual battles + 1 roamer IF YOU PLAY PERFECTLY. With 2 strongholds you stack 2 to a zone but then it just seems like teams that play perfectly and 3x cap get punished because the game becomes unpredictable at that point. And randomness is shitty game design.

 

Obviously strongholds doesn't always play out like this because you don't NEED to stand in the zone to get points, you can play middle man and stand between two objectives- but I could make that exact same argument for Koth couldn't I. Koth has rotation of strongholds provided the Hill moves (which it does) but allows for way more interesting setups. As goat said, strongholds would work better as 6v6.

 

 

Not really an argument considering you could just halt the game timer when someone is in the Hill and give stacking seconds per player each player in hill, problem solved.

Strongholds matches almost never play out how you've described it though.

 

The number of zones really has nothing to do with how many players there in the game. On a decent team, You never have this scenario where individual players are assigned to a guard a single zone. Everyone is moving about the map trying to manage spawns, offer help, secure powerups and powerweapons all while confining the enemy to 1 zone or fewer.

 

Success, requires well timed rotations. You can almost describe it as 'fluid setups' as opposed to the stationary setups seen in KotH. I think maintaining a setup on the go is far more interesting than what we had before.

 

It works with 3 zones due to the scoring system: teams score whenever they are controlling a majority of the zones. It being a 4v4 gametype is irrelevant. With an even number of zones your map becomes instantly less contentious . And with more zones, you'd just dilute the action.

 

Teams that 3cap arent punished: is a risk that rewards them with points twice as fast and allows them to split enemy spawns. The knowledge of when to push for a 3cap and when to let it go adds another layer of strategy.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I had seen how you were responding to others about it.

 

You were not having discussions, you were attempting to tell people why they were wrong. There is a distinct difference.

 

There is nothing objectively flawed about having 3 objectives split between 8 players. If anything due to the akward nature of h5(long kill times+ slow in movement combat+very fast out of combat movement) multiple objectives is probably a good thing.

If I can explain to people why they're wrong and they can't refute it, what does that tell you.

 

It should tell you you're arguing based on feelings and you can't even explain why you like what you like.

 

 

Also your analysis of Halo 5 is flipped. If the movement is as fast and unpredictable as well all know it is then we need single objectives to create predictable movement.

Strongholds matches almost never play out how you've described it though.

 

The number of zones really has nothing to do with how many players there in the game. On a decent team, You never have this scenario where individual players are assigned to a guard a single zone. Everyone is moving about the map trying to manage spawns, offer help, secure powerups and powerweapons all while confining the enemy to 1 zone or fewer.

 

Success, requires well timed rotations. You can almost describe it as 'fluid setups' as opposed to the stationary setups seen in KotH. I think maintaining a setup on the go is far more interesting than what we had before.

 

It works with 3 zones due to the scoring system: teams score whenever they are controlling a majority of the zones. It being a 4v4 gametype is irrelevant. With an even number of zones your map becomes instantly less contentious . And with more zones, you'd just dilute the action.

 

Teams that 3cap arent punished: is a risk that rewards them with points twice as fast and allows them to split enemy spawns. The knowledge of when to push for a 3cap and when to let it go adds another layer of strategy.

You telling me that player counts have nothing to do with the gametype tells me all I need to know. Even something as simple as slayer plays so much better as 2's than 4's just for game design reasons. Excuse me while I go play 1v1 CTF.
  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

If I can explain to people why they're wrong and they can't refute it, what does that tell you.

 

It should tell you you're arguing based on feelings and you can't even explain why you like what you like.

 

You telling me that player counts have nothing to do with the gametype tells me all I need to know. Even something as simple as slayer plays so much better as 2's than 4's just for game design reasons. Excuse me while I go play 1v1 CTF.

Thats not what i said though... nice strawman argument.

 

I said that the number of zones chosen (3) isnt compromised by there being 4 players on each team.

 

We are talking about 4v4 strongholds. Not slayer. Not ctf.

 

The problem you seem to have with 3 strongholds it is that taking/losing strongholds boils down to 1v1s, but that isnt true and senarios you presented almost NEVER happen.

 

You usually see at least two people capping a hill (since it's much faster), and you usually see people help defend them from across the map. Depending on the situation, the amount of resources teams commit to specific zones changes dramatically . It's much more dynamic than you imply.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Thats not what i said though...

 

I said that the number of zones (3) isnt compromised by there being 4 players on each team.

 

We are talking about 4v4 strongholds. Not slayer. Not ctf.

 

The problem you seem to have with 3 strongholds it is that taking/losing strongholds boils down to 1v1s, but that isnt true and senarios you presented almost NEVER happen.

I understand that, and I already mentioned my thoughts on that.

 

You're not REQUIRED to sit in the zone, you can cap it and leave and from there you're doing your best to manage the other teams spawning. But at that point you're not even playing strongholds, it's just a spawn trap. Whether or not the strongholds are even there almost have no effect on how either team is going to play. So why are the objectives even there, a team that double capped plaza and has the enemy trapped spawning in garden would trap them there REGARDLESS if there are controllable zones on the map. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about that.

 

My example of a single player per stronghold was a hypothetical example of how the game would play out if we didn't have shallow spawning that could easily dilute an objective game like strongholds into what's basically slayer. If they were to spawn randomly to actually make the objective the FOCUS of the gamemode THEN you're going to be spread too thin between 3 zones. And rather than a team effort with team coordination it would [hypothetically] come down to a ton of individual encounters that had nothing to do with each other rather than actual coordinated team set ups. If they were placed in a way where it were actually valuable to capture all 3 zones because the spawns were going to randomize regardless, then you just have uncontrolled chaos like Empire. (If you think empire strongholds is fine then this discussion is over). Isn't every COD in the last decade played primarily 6v6 on domination? That's actually a somewhat reasonable player count given the amount of objectives.

 

No matter what way you split it, strongholds is either going to be an objective game mode where the objective takes a back seat to something completely unrelated and much less interesting (spawn trapping) or it becomes random uncontrollable bullshit chaos. You're not actually stopping and thinking about how the really basic principles of the game like player counts, spawn practices, weapon limits, movement speeds, all factor into how a game is going to play.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that, and I already mentioned my thoughts on that.

 

You're not REQUIRED to sit in the zone, you can cap it and leave and from there you're doing your best to manage the other teams spawning. But at that point you're not even playing strongholds, it's just a spawn trap. Whether or not the strongholds are even there almost have no effect on how either team is going to play. So why are the objectives even there, a team that double capped plaza and has the enemy trapped spawning in garden would trap them there REGARDLESS if there are controllable zones on the map. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about that.

 

My example of a single player per stronghold was a hypothetical example of how the game would play out if we didn't have shallow spawning that could easily dilute an objective game like strongholds into what's basically slayer. If they were to spawn randomly to actually make the objective the FOCUS of the gamemode THEN you're going to be spread too thin between 3 zones. And rather than a team effort with team coordination it would [hypothetically] come down to a ton of individual encounters that had nothing to do with each other rather than actual coordinated team set ups. If they were placed in a way where it were actually valuable to capture all 3 zones because the spawns were going to randomize regardless, then you just have uncontrolled chaos like Empire. (If you think empire strongholds is fine then this discussion is over). Isn't every COD in the last decade played primarily 6v6 on domination? That's actually a somewhat reasonable player count given the amount of objectives.

 

No matter what way you split it, strongholds is either going to be an objective game mode where the objective takes a back seat to something completely unrelated and much less interesting (spawn trapping) or it becomes random controllable bullshit chaos. You're not actually stopping and thinking about how the really basic principles of the game like player counts, spawn practices, weapon limits, movement speeds, all factor into how a game is going to play.

Why are we talking all these hypotheticals?

 

The objective of strongholds IS to capture and hold strongholds. If you aren't doing that you aren't going to win the game.

 

Killing the enemy is a means to help accomplish that objective. As is controlling their spawns. This is true in every single halo game mode ever. This gametype isn't any more about slaying and spawn manipulation than ctf is. The main thing here is being in the right place at the right time.

 

As far as having 2 cap and knowing where the enemy is spawning, there's nothing inherently interesting about that. But what is interesting is what happens next and how it unfolds. Will they break the setup and get a cap, or will their be a clutch defense, will you push for a 3 cap, will your push fall and result in a reverse 3 cap.

 

 

Now can you explain you 6v6 argument? What issues do you have with it that would be fixed by adding players 2 players each team? COD did it doesn't really work as is a different game and mode. Are you suggesting that holding 2-3 zones is to much work for 4 people?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

If you want to bitch about something, make it something legit like the fact that its been well over a year and we still dont have KotH and Oddball as default gametypes,

 

while i miss koth, i feel like these maps we have in rotation would work better for oddball. regret, truth, fathom could all work. eden could work for koth, but i like oddball a little bit more

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Why are we talking all these hypotheticals?

 

The objective of strongholds IS to capture and hold strongholds. If you aren't doing that you aren't going to win the game.

 

Killing the enemy is a means to help accomplish that objective. As is controlling their spawns. This is true in every single halo game mode ever. This gametype isn't any more about slaying and spawn manipulation than ctf is. The main thing here is being in the right place at the right time.

 

As far as having 2 cap and knowing where the enemy is spawning, there's nothing inherently interesting about that. But what is interesting is what happens next and how it unfolds. Will they break the setup and get a cap, or will their be a clutch defense, will you push for a 3 cap, will your push fall and result in a reverse 3 cap.

 

 

Now can you explain you 6v6 argument? What issues do you have with it that would be fixed by adding players 2 players each team? COD did it doesn't really work as is a different game and mode. Are you suggesting that holding 2-3 zones is to much work for 4 people?

Because at any point when you have 2 cap and a spawn trap, you could quite literally remove the objectives from the map and it would play no different. You never need to interact with them again.

 

Getting a 3 cap isn't a bad play because it's difficult to do, it's a bad play because it turns every match into a random unpredictable slugfest where you have no idea where the other team will spawn. You shouldn't be punishing good teams for complete control.

 

IF WE WERE to have spawning that couldn't be abused so that this objective game mode actually focuses on the objective, then all the hypotheticals I mentioned would come true. I feel like we're talking in circles here common man.

 

6v6 at least can designate 2 players per stronghold so you're actually fighting for it outside of a 1v1 in a controlled environment. Even that doesn't seem great though. I've never liked 4v4 in Halo I think it's a stupid player count but if you're going to have that many players on the field to create the whole setup teamshot meta you need a gametype like KOTH that actually utilizes the team's dynamics, strongholds ignores all of that. Once again, it's either random, or completely irrelevant of the objective.

 

 

Doom's warpath (moving hill) would probably be one of the best gametypes in Halo since it has all the advantages of koth, but with all the "cycling" of strongholds. There's a warpath playlist for Halo 5 coming out in the next month and I hope that opens your eyes to what I'm saying.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

while i miss koth, i feel like these maps we have in rotation would work better for oddball. regret, truth, fathom could all work. eden could work for koth, but i like oddball a little bit more

H5 has a lot of asym maps, and oddball is great on asyms.  Kind of ironic really. 

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I understand that, and I already mentioned my thoughts on that.

 

You're not REQUIRED to sit in the zone, you can cap it and leave and from there you're doing your best to manage the other teams spawning. But at that point you're not even playing strongholds, it's just a spawn trap. Whether or not the strongholds are even there almost have no effect on how either team is going to play. 

What are you even talking about???? Of course it does, that's the objective of the game... The controlling team my be spawning their opponent in a spot that they wouldn't want to if it were slayer or CTF.  The location of the objectives and which ones happen to be controlled dictate how the spawning team is going to push out, and they have to push out even if they happen to be winning at the time otherwise they will end up losing, unlike slayer or CTF where its not required. 

So why are the objectives even there, a team that double capped plaza and has the enemy trapped spawning in garden would trap them there REGARDLESS if there are controllable zones on the map. There's nothing dynamic or interesting about that.

 

But the reaction of the spawning team would be entirely different if the gametype were different...

My example of a single player per stronghold was a hypothetical example of how the game would play out if we didn't have shallow spawning that could easily dilute an objective game like strongholds into what's basically slayer. If they were to spawn randomly to actually make the objective the FOCUS of the gamemode THEN you're going to be spread too thin between 3 zones. And rather than a team effort with team coordination it would [hypothetically] come down to a ton of individual encounters that had nothing to do with each other rather than actual coordinated team set ups. If they were placed in a way where it were actually valuable to capture all 3 zones because the spawns were going to randomize regardless, then you just have uncontrolled chaos like Empire. (If you think empire strongholds is fine then this discussion is over). Isn't every COD in the last decade played primarily 6v6 on domination? That's actually a somewhat reasonable player count given the amount of objectives.

 

  Hypotheticals and theories are only good for initial design ideas.  Once a plan hits the real world, you make adjustments based on how it actually works....  And why are we comparing a gametype in halo to a variant in another game with a different scoring system, different map design philosophy, shorter kill times, variable spawn weapons etc and using it as an example for why 6v6 is better in Halo?

 

No matter what way you split it, strongholds is either going to be an objective game mode where the objective takes a back seat to something completely unrelated and much less interesting (spawn trapping) or it becomes random uncontrollable bullshit chaos. 

 

 

There is an ebb and flow from slaying to objective work in literally every objective gametype. Oddball, Assault, CTF, Strongholds, KotH etc all have this.  They all have moments of chaos.  In Halo and in CoD (since i know thats what you want to compare it to...) this is true.  The team that responds and controls that ebb and flow better is the team much more likely to win.

 

 

You're not actually stopping and thinking about how the really basic principles of the game like player counts, spawn practices, weapon limits, movement speeds, all factor into how a game is going to play.

 

This could be said about your pointless hypothetical and theoretical points earlier.  you were making those arguments in a vacuum without taking the rest of the gameplay elements into account.

 

 

You may not like strongholds, that's fine and perfectly legitimate.  But your actual arguments about how its a supremely flawed gametype that shouldn't be played 4v4 just don't hold water.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

To prelude this: I'm talking about the campaign, not the multiplayer.

 

 

I was reading that thread and was just as confused.

His only real supporting argument for Halo 5 in that thread is that the levels are more dense with objects/bits of scenery, and that this somehow makes movement more deliberate, and the denseness of the spaces somehow give you more choice than previous games in terms of how you approach encounters. The thing is that with the larger spaces in the older games, your choices weren't as linear as they are in Halo 5. Halo 5 has much more strict and much more defined pathing in many of the game's arenas, which present defined approach options to the player. The game's level design controls movement much more than the arenas in older titles, which were more freeform in terms of potential engagement opportunities.

Plus, he doesn't really explain in depth as to why or how the older games had worse on-foot combat in general, which makes his point harder to accept.

Haha, didn't realise someone had linked my post in here. I'll try to explain myself a bit better.

 

First off though I'm gunna qualify that I'm talking about largely on-foot encounters. I completely agree that previous Halo's had far better integration of vehicles into the levels. If the main thing you're looking for in a Halo campaign is sandboxy vehicle encounters then I completely understand the disappointment with 5's campaign. Personally I always preferred on-foot combat, hence my focus on it. Anyway...

 

The reason I prefer H5's on-foot combat is spartan abilities. Sprint, thrust and clamber allow for a hit and run style of gameplay which I really enjoy, in my experience the pace and level of action was much higher in 5 than previous titles. Sprint allows for quickly getting into and out of combat, thrust gives you a completely new dynamic in close quarters or an option to quickly escape into cover, and clamber allows for rapid and smooth ascension of terrain. I very rarely found myself sitting in cover waiting for my shields to recharge, instead I was constantly on the move. The way I play 5 is a dance of engage in combat, move into cover, flank and reengage, a high pace game of hit, run and hit again. The abilities also allow for more interesting movement across terrain, I feel much more grounded in previous Halo's than I do in 5.

 

The increased level density plays heavily into this. With increased object density you're always closer to cover which makes it easier to break the line of site with an enemy and flank. I'd also argue that more open and less dense levels don't actually give you more options for engagement. Speaking generally, consider an open field with a few pieces of cover to move between compared one with lots of cover. Yes, overall there will be more possible paths to take in the field with less cover, however, there are less viable routes and a large amount of redundancy. In a more dense play space the total number of options is reduced but the number of viable routes is greater and there is less redundancy. Halo 5 does appear to have more "defined" paths in its arenas, however, for the most part I found it easy to ignore them. Using thrust, clamber etc. you can easily move between these paths and create your own. I considered those paths less as control over your movement and more as suggestions. 

 

Because of the movement and the level design I felt like I could be more creative in how I approach and handle encounters in 5 than previous titles. Any route I chose across an arena would offer a different experience and would be equally viable. Don't get me wrong I loved the previous titles' on foot combat as well, however, in my experience 5 offered a faster and more dynamic style of gameplay.

 

 

Edit: Drive by downvotes and literally no counterarguments. Not sure why I expected anything else from this thread really.

  • Upvote (+1) 6
  • Downvote (-1) 8

Share this post


Link to post

 

your analysis of Halo 5 is flipped. If the movement is as fast and unpredictable as well all know it is then we need single objectives to create predictable movement.

 

Single obj gamtypes in h5 devolve into clusterfucks because the players near the objective are moving and engaging each other at a much slower speed than the players who are away from the obj, converging towards them.

 

This is why CTF(two objectives) plays much better than assault. In assault people can spawn and converge on the bomb too quickly because it's the single objective.

 

King would play terribly in h5 because the players who are away from the objective can converge on it too quickly. The player spacing would be way off.

 

The 3 objectives in Strongholds creates a much needed modicum of player spacing.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Single obj gamtypes in h5 devolve into clusterfucks because the players near the objective are moving and engaging each other at a much slower speed than the players who are away from the obj, converging towards them.

 

This is why CTF(two objectives) plays much better than assault. In assault people can spawn and converge on the bomb too quickly because it's the single objective.

 

King would play terribly in h5 because the players who are away from the objective can converge on it too quickly. The player spacing would be way off.

 

The 3 objectives in Strongholds creates a much needed modicum of player spacing.

That's actually true and a good analysis, but only of gametypes with delivery points that require moving an objective. Koth and strongholds are nether. If anything quick movement helps drive more contested gameplay towards the Hill where there would usually be ample downtime prior.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Single obj gamtypes in h5 devolve into clusterfucks because the players near the objective are moving and engaging each other at a much slower speed than the players who are away from the obj, converging towards them.

 

This is why CTF(two objectives) plays much better than assault. In assault people can spawn and converge on the bomb too quickly because it's the single objective.

 

King would play terribly in h5 because the players who are away from the objective can converge on it too quickly. The player spacing would be way off.

 

The 3 objectives in Strongholds creates a much needed modicum of player spacing.

This makes a lot of sense. Very good point. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

while i miss koth, i feel like these maps we have in rotation would work better for oddball. regret, truth, fathom could all work. eden could work for koth, but i like oddball a little bit more

 

I like oddball too, better than KotH.  At least for prior games anyway.  Who knows how it will play in Halo 5 though.

 

My fear with oddball is that they will try to do something fancy with the ball carrier to compensate for the new movement speed and just screw it up more.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post

 

I like oddball too, better than KotH.  At least for prior games anyway.  Who knows how it will play in Halo 5 though.

 

My fear with oddball is that they will try to do something fancy with the ball carrier to compensate for the new movement speed and just screw it up more.

 

 

 

like giving the carrier a pistol or grifball-esqe speed? yeah 343 seems good at fixing non-existent problems like that

Share this post


Link to post

Because at any point when you have 2 cap and a spawn trap, you could quite literally remove the objectives from the map and it would play no different. You never need to interact with them again.

 

Getting a 3 cap isn't a bad play because it's difficult to do, it's a bad play because it turns every match into a random unpredictable slugfest where you have no idea where the other team will spawn. You shouldn't be punishing good teams for complete control.

 

IF WE WERE to have spawning that couldn't be abused so that this objective game mode actually focuses on the objective, then all the hypotheticals I mentioned would come true. I feel like we're talking in circles here common man.

 

6v6 at least can designate 2 players per stronghold so you're actually fighting for it outside of a 1v1 in a controlled environment. Even that doesn't seem great though. I've never liked 4v4 in Halo I think it's a stupid player count but if you're going to have that many players on the field to create the whole setup teamshot meta you need a gametype like KOTH that actually utilizes the team's dynamics, strongholds ignores all of that. Once again, it's either random, or completely irrelevant of the objective.

 

 

Doom's warpath (moving hill) would probably be one of the best gametypes in Halo since it has all the advantages of koth, but with all the "cycling" of strongholds. There's a warpath playlist for Halo 5 coming out in the next month and I hope that opens your eyes to what I'm saying.

Having a 2 cap isn't quite a'spawn trap'. as they still have over 1/3 the maps of spawns available to them.

 

I don't quite understand why you insist that the objective isn't the focus of the gametype. Hypothetically, if spawn locations weren't a function of objective status, then teams could defend more passively (1 person per SH or 2 in your 6v6 version)... but that isnt the case, and so isn't worth discussing. A preferable spawn situation is a consequence of holding a majority of the strongholds, which in addition to scoring, makes pushing the objective a necessity. The idea that taking them away wouldn't change the dynamics of the gametype is demonstrably false.

 

3caps aren't an inherently 'bad play', but there can be bad, unorganized, attempts at a 3 cap. It doesnt devolve into a 'random slugfest', but trying to maintain a 3 cap without having map control can, naturally, get out of hand. Thats the nature of a risk/reward dynamic.

 

We ARE taking in circles, but it's because you're line of reasoning is circular. You have decided that the game is too random and that talking measures to control it would take emphasis away from the objective. But the randomness isn't actually there. So you are poking holes in a 'solution' that YOU came up with, unnecisarily.

Share this post


Link to post

Just build on what multi said about strongholds:

 

How does one usually attempt to win a game of strongholds?

 

Cap two points, force the opponent to continually spawn in a location while they cannot score and you can, killing them before they get a chance to break the spawn trap.

 

Ok, so how is that fundementally different from how you attempt to win a team slayer match? You control positions and force your opponent to spawn in the weaker areas of the map. The only difference is the scoring, and the game mode has pre assigned positions to control, not the map itself.

 

If strongholds was scored based on kills, not holding objectives, it would be a glorified slayer variant. I provide Control from Destiny as my example of just how similar the gamemodes are on a base level. It is scored based on kills, with objectives to capture. Control, Team Deathmatch and Zone Control (Domination/Strongholds) in Destiny, all play almost identically at a "high" level.

 

Strongholds is taking the base strategies used to win a slayer match at a high level and making it easy for the average joe to understand. Now, I am not against that exisiting, but it shouldnt be replacing game modes that ACTUALLY play differently

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Just build on what multi said about strongholds:

 

How does one usually attempt to win a game of strongholds?

 

Cap two points, force the opponent to continually spawn in a location while they cannot score and you can, killing them before they get a chance to break the spawn trap.

 

Ok, so how is that fundementally different from how you attempt to win a team slayer match? You control positions and force your opponent to spawn in the weaker areas of the map. The only difference is the scoring, and the game mode has pre assigned positions to control, not the map itself.

 

If strongholds was scored based on kills, not holding objectives, it would be a glorified slayer variant. I provide Control from Destiny as my example of just how similar the gamemodes are on a base level. It is scored based on kills, with objectives to capture. Control, Team Deathmatch and Zone Control (Domination/Strongholds) in Destiny, all play almost identically at a "high" level.

 

Strongholds is taking the base strategies used to win a slayer match at a high level and making it easy for the average joe to understand. Now, I am not against that exisiting, but it shouldnt be replacing game modes that ACTUALLY play differently

So your argument if the gametype was changed to make it more like slayer, then it would be more like slayer.

 

The hypotheticals are killing me.

 

This gametype isn't about getting slays, it's about controlling the map. Slaying comes with the territory, just as it does in every other gametype.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So your argument if the gametype was changed to make it more like slayer, then it would be more like slayer.

 

This gametype isn't about getting slays, it's about controlling the map. Slaying comes with the territory, just as it does in every other gametype.

That is not my argument, stop strawmanning.

 

The argument is they are so similar on base level, using the comparison of TDM, Control and Zone Control in destiny to prove how similar they play on base level.

 

You can substitute the point scoring on domination esque game modes from hill control to points based on kills and nothing changes about how the mode plays. You control map positions to spawn trap to win

 

Which is how you win a match of slayer

 

With KOTH, the focus is on the objective, not spawn trapping

  • Upvote (+1) 4

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.