Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

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.

I don't think there ever was a reason, but I suspect the high aim assist/melee lunge was to try and make the game latency-proof in a time when the internet was still fairly new. No excuse to include it in every other game in the series.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

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

Its not strawmaning you literally suggested that if we changed the scoring system to be slay based then we'd have a slayer variant.

 

Well, your score isnt attached to slays.

 

The focus of of Strongholds is to maintain control of 2 or more strongholds. Thats how you score points. Manipulating spawn is just a means of achieving the objective.... just like in any other objective mode. Killing your opponent makes it hard for them to score or stop your scoring The idea that the objective isnt in focus in SH is just false.

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

There's absolutely nothing circular about what I'm saying, nor the ridiculous reasoning that you're accusing me of using. But when you don't know what else to say it's always good to accuse someone of a logical fallacy that's not even pertinent, so good job on that.

 

You want to see circular reasoning?

 

Strongholds is good because it creates structure. > It creates structure because it has 3 different capture points to give multiple objectives to fight over. > 3 different capture points is good because it creates structure.

 

Let's get really hyperbolic with this for a second. Let's say we agree that Halo 5's movement creates uncontrolled consequences on the way players move around the map (which it does) and we want a way to funnel combat to make everything a little more intentional.

 

How about 100 strongholds? That'll give plenty of incentive to move and capture right? And because there's 100 there will be huge emphasis on capturing them!

 

See how stupid that sounds.  Now let's go to the opposite end of the spectrum, with 1 stronghold.  By your own logic because there's no emphasis on the objective because there's less of them.  Do you see how completely fucking ridiculous that sounds.

 

"You have decided that the game is too random and that talking measures to control it would take emphasis away from the objective"

 

 

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. 

 

If I were spawn trapping a team on Plaza or Rig during a strongholds match, and all the strongholds dissipated and magically became slayer, I would continue to do exactly what I was just doing and not change a thing,

 

 

  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?

 

Hypotheticals are as good as the person is knowledgeable.   I have enough common sense and have been making maps long enough to know exactly how strongholds would play if spawn trapping wasn't an active factor. Just like everyone on this forum knows that sprint is going to have harmful effects on an arena shooter even before we play it, it's more than hypothetical it's just basic reasoning.

 

Also, strawman.  I literally said nothing about CoD outside of the fact that 6v6 is a more suitable player count for 3 objectives. 

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.

 

 

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.

 
Yeah in all those gametypes you can abandon the objective for a moment to fight for your life.  You can drop the ball, leave the hill, STAY in the Hill, drop the flag, drop the bomb, whatever.  You don't have ANY of these sacrifices in strongholds.  You cap it, leave and do whatever the fuck you want and just keep slaying the enemy until the timer runs out.  But feel free to continue to dance around my reasoning while failing to provide any of your own.
 
 
Has anyone here played the Diminishing King gametype in action sack? That is literally a perfect representation of what happens in strongholds to an exaggerated extent.  The match starts with 7 HILLS and then removes them until there's 1.  You know what happens between good teams at the start of a match? There's 8 players, and 7 Hills.  You can guess.
 
 
Everyone grabs a hill and sits their ass down. There's 1 roamer. 
  • Upvote (+1) 8

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.

Just add this to the pile of posts explaining why the spartan abilities are bad for classic Halo.

 

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.

Good point, they have to put their 343 stamp of failure on it before hand.
  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

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

 

EVERY gametype is about spawn "trapping".  If you aren't trying to manipulate the other team's spawns to give you an advantage no matter the gametype, you aren't doing it right.  The same is true in KotH.  Control the hill, fan out in a way that will force the other team to spawn in certain areas, slay, repeat.

 

All these theoretical discussions are idiotic.  The simple fact that its possible to win a strongholds game while getting outslayed proves that its not just a re-branded slayer gametype.  And yeah i know, "but outslaying still gives you the advantage"  well no shit it gives you an advantage in every gametype of every video game that's ever been created in the history of Man.

 

Show me a pattern of strongholds games that look the same as slayer games and i'll show you a liar.

 

I don't know where this sudden bandwagoning of "strongholds is really just slayer you know" is coming from but knock it off, seriously.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Its not strawmaning you literally suggested that if we changed the scoring system to be slay based then we'd have a slayer variant.

 

Well, your score isnt attached to slays.

 

The focus of of Strongholds is to maintain control of 2 or more strongholds. Thats how you score points. Manipulating spawn is just a means of achieving the objective.... just like in any other objective mode. The idea that the objective isnt in focus in SH is just false.

You said my argument was that if we made it more like Slayer, it would be Slayer, that isn't my argument.

 

My argument is that they all play like Slayer in the first place.

 

The former is making misrepresenting my argument so its sounds stupid, ie, strawmanning.

 

Strongholds takes the basic strategy of holding map positions to manipulate where your foe spawns from Slayer and simplifies it to a capture and forget objective based mode. How you win the match, is to force your opponent into a spawn trap, like Slayer.

 

So, in that vein, at a high level, the modes do not play very differently at all, what that causes them to play differently is the positions of the Strongholds themselves

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

EVERY gametype is about spawn "trapping".  If you aren't trying to manipulate the other team's spawns to give you an advantage no matter the gametype, you aren't doing it right.  The same is true in KotH.  Control the hill, fan out in a way that will force the other team to spawn in certain areas, slay, repeat.

 

All these theoretical discussions are idiotic.  The simple fact that its possible to win a strongholds game while getting outslayed proves that its not just a re-branded slayer gametype.  And yeah i know, "but outslaying still gives you the advantage"  well no shit it gives you an advantage in every gametype of every video game that's ever been created in the history of Man.

 

Show me a pattern of strongholds games that look the same as slayer games and i'll show you a liar.

 

I don't know where this sudden bandwagoning of "strongholds is really just slayer you know" is coming from but knock it off, seriously.

Literally no other gametype in Halo revolves around spawn trapping.

 

Ball is HUGELY defensive and revolves around bunkering down with the ball holder.  Assault and Flag is being hyper agro until you flag pull, then you guard the carrier. Koth is moving with the hill and nothing else.  What gametype outside of Strongholds plays as similar to Slayer? None.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

How bout a new action sack game called King of the Zero Gravity Hill.

 

Really big hill where player traits change in the hill to have really low gravity.

Share this post


Link to post

So did KoTH and Oddball...

 

So could

Yeah I didn't say otherwise. We have wasted like 10 pages on theoretical analysis of something that exists and plays fine and nobody is complaining about.

 

Multilockon get off your high horse bro, if it plays fine and it's fun , who gives a fuck if it 3 obj for 4 players . Remember that game design has no real theory behind it, do you think miyamoto went to school to study how to make Mario, fuck off dude.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah I didn't say otherwise. We have wasted like 10 pages on theoretical analysis of something that exists and plays fine and nobody is complaining about.

 

Multilockon get off your high horse bro, if it plays fine and it's fun , who gives a fuck if it 3 obj for 4 players . Remember that game design has no real theory behind it, do you think miyamoto went to school to study how to make Mario, fuck off dude.

1: this is a competitive forum for a dying video game. 99.99% of all discussion here is theoretical and completely above the heads of normal consumers.

 

2: everything we talk about here is near irrelevant in the scope of everything, does talking about game design offend you and trigger you that much?

 

3: game design is just reasoning, that's all it is. But sure, Halo 5 is fun as fuck bro! Who cares if Spartan charge is stupid it's fun let it go!

 

Maybe you should take some time off. I didn't realize using my head was pretentious.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

That's actually true and a good analysis, but only of gametypes with delivery points that require moving an objective. 

How so

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

If I were spawn trapping a team on Plaza or Rig during a strongholds match, and all the strongholds dissipated and magically became slayer, I would continue to do exactly what I was just doing and not change a thing,

 

IF the strongholds disappeared. But this isn't Hogwarts, the strongholds don't "magically disappear".

 

Hypotheticals are as good as the person is knowledgeable.   I have enough common sense and have been making maps long enough to know exactly how strongholds would play if spawn trapping wasn't an active factor. Just like everyone on this forum knows that sprint is going to have harmful effects on an arena shooter even before we play it, it's more than hypothetical it's just basic reasoning.

Also, strawman.  I literally said nothing about CoD outside of the fact that 6v6 is a more suitable player count for 3 objectives.

 

First, not strawman.  Please learn what that actually means. You used CoD as an example, i stated why it was stupid to use as an example. I responded directly to what you wrote. Not strawman.

 

Second, I don't care how many maps you have been making or how long you have been making them.  I can sketch 10 pictures a day every day for years, doesn't mean they aren't all still stick figures.

 

Yeah in all those gametypes you can abandon the objective for a moment to fight for your life.  You can drop the ball, leave the hill, STAY in the Hill, drop the flag, drop the bomb, whatever.  You don't have ANY of these sacrifices in strongholds.  You cap it, leave and do whatever the fuck you want and just keep slaying the enemy until the timer runs out.  But feel free to continue to dance around my reasoning while failing to provide any of your own.

 

Please continue to argue that the only way an objective matters is if its moving or can be moved.

3 capture points gives you 8 options for what points can and cant be captured at any given time (none, 1 of any 3 points, 2 of any 3 points, all). If you don't think that is going to make players move around the map, push and defend differently than in a pure slayer game,  i don't know what to tell you.

 

Share this post


Link to post

This thread. SH plays fine and is fun.

I am not offended by it's mere existance

 

But having it replace several actually different modes in the competitive circuit and indeed the core matchmaking circuit is stupid when it plays so similar to Slayer on a core level

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This post is annoying. EVERYTHING has theory behind it. Do you know how you get theory? With analysis and discussion. Not "it's fun. shut up." Do you think Miyamoto just pulled mechanics and levels out of his ass with no meaningful heuristic, planning, testing? It just happened to work? Are you honestly under the impression that bad game design cannot be identified? Is that just, like, people's opinion, man? OK, dude.

It was trial and error. And SH works so all the theory that multi lock is talking about is meaningless, because the game types literally proves him wrong.

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.

 

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.

 

You control the map to get slays to get points. But controlling the map to get points is COMPLETELY different, right? lmfao. And being forced to spawn in one area because every H5 map has like 5 major spawns isn't a spawn trap. OK.

 

The ideal triple cap is literally IDENTICAL to the ideal set-up in slayer. Collapse on their spawn (take the stronghold). Enemy spawns on the opposite side of the map, collapse and kill the spawners (reset the stronghold). Turn around and collapse again. Rinse, repeat. Double caps play pretty much exactly like a stand-off in Slayer. The only difference is that players are getting points for controlling the map instead of having to control the map and THEN get points. Are all of your arguments a matter of pedantic fixation on extremely minor details presented as major issues?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Literally no other gametype in Halo revolves around spawn trapping.

 

Ball is HUGELY defensive and revolves around bunkering down with the ball holder.  Assault and Flag is being hyper agro until you flag pull, then you guard the carrier. Koth is moving with the hill and nothing else.  What gametype outside of Strongholds plays as similar to Slayer? None.

 

Ball requires you to defend the ball carrier.  The best way to do this is to occupy defensive positions on the map and giving the opponent limited spawn options.

Assault requires that you push the bomb across the map, then slay and force the other team to spawn in disadvantageous positions long enough to arm the bomb

Flag requires that you position your team in a way that will force the other team to spawn where you want and run the flag through the protected route.

King requires you to hold the hill while forcing the other team to spawn in predictable locations for as long as possible so it makes the hill easier to defend.

 

Are you seriously saying that manipulating spawns in other gametypes is not relevant? 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It was trial and error. And SH works so all the theory that multi lock is talking about is meaningless, because the game types literally proves him wrong.

 

Do you have an argument to make or are you going to just keep saying silly, vacuous nonsense? Game design is not just trial and error and Multi never said it doesn't "work." Do you even understand what is being discussed here?

Share this post


Link to post

Snip

 

 

When did i say anything about strongholds being good because of structure?

 

When did i ever tie "emphasis on the objective" to the number of objectives. The emphasis comes from the win conditions. Your argument is that strongholds really isn't about the strongholds, it's about slaying and spawn manipulation.... but every EVERY GAMETYPE has those elements.

 

 

3 strongholds wasn't chosen arbitrarily.

 

Having an odd number of zones that someone will always be scoring rather than having long stalemate periods while teams control even portions of the map.

 

Having more than one hill means that teams have to move about and control a large portion of the map simultaneously in order to score.

 

Like i said YOU have decided that the game is too random, so you came up with hypothetical variations that are broken (but honor your values) as a way to prove that the gametype doesn't work currently.

Share this post


Link to post

You control the map to get slays to get points. But controlling the map to get points is COMPLETELY different, right? lmfao. And being forced to spawn in one area because every H5 map has like 5 major spawns isn't a spawn trap. OK.

 

The ideal triple cap is literally IDENTICAL to the ideal set-up in slayer. Collapse on their spawn (take the stronghold). Enemy spawns on the opposite side of the map, collapse and kill the spawners (reset the stronghold). Turn around and collapse again. Rinse, repeat. Double caps play pretty much exactly like a stand-off in Slayer. The only difference is that players are getting points for controlling the map instead of having to control the map and THEN get points. Are all of your arguments a matter of pedantic fixation on extremely minor details presented as major issues?

How is this different than CTF? Or any obj game really? You want to get slays and force the opposition to spawn in the unfavorable section of a map so you can control them, slay them and gather points off the obj.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

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.

 

Instead of damage it should be that recovery time is relative to the height you descend. Direct hits should have minimal recovery time, but absolute misses for showboating should put you at risk. As funny as accidental suicides would be, I think they'd fall afoul of general online shenanigans a little too often.

 

As for Spartan Charge, I feel like it needs some kind of counterplay mechanic that discourages it being used to initiate fights but doesn't make it completely useless (because tbh I do think it'd be kind of cool if it wasn't so frustrating to have it used against you).

Something like some combination the following:

- Retains instakill ability for hits from behind.

- Longer recovery time and/or a small amount of damage to the user if you accidentally hit a wall.

- Vastly reduced magnetism and/or the ability for an opponent's thruster to nullify whatever magnetism it currently has.

- Knockback almost always (barring some weird geometry and position related stuff that can happen) puts enough to space between both players to prevent either player from immediately landing another melee attack. So if someone does try to hit you dead on you should be able to kill them by just continuing to shoot accurately as they charge and recover before they can shoot.

- During the recovery period make the user vulnerable to animated assassinations from any direction as a flashy way to punish whiffing the hit.

 

Basically I think it'd be cool if it was more of a situationally useful finishing move with more weighty risks than one used as carelessly as it is now (especially at medium levels of play where "charge & spray" can be more reliable than trying to use either your AR or Magnum optimally).

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

How is this different than CTF? Or any obj game really? You want to get slays and force the opposition to spawn in the unfavorable section of a map so you can control them, slay them and gather points off the obj.

 

Because the nature of H5 spawns and maps is that the strongholds will naturally be "Spawn A, Spawn B, and Spawn/Center C." My first sentence is intentionally simplistic (obviously spawn manipulation is always a factor), but the point is that the positioning of 3 objectives in Strongholds results in almost identical spawn manipulation to Slayer. In CTF, you have static spawns and an objective on each side. In one bomb, you have static spawns and the neutral objective and 2 goals. In Oddball, you have the ball spawn point and a moving objective. In Slayer/SH, you have the majority of the map that is being controlled, and the minority of the map where the team without map control is spawning.

  • 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.