Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Custom browser is cool, but there are still benefits to having MM bringing people in and out of matches quickly. Anytime i hit the custom browser, I'm too slow getting matches that aren't full, then the ones with space i don't want to play.

You think of it like that, I think of it as a playlist space that is being wasted just like having two sniper playlists, Breakout and Super Fiesta.

 

Action Sack was a cool idea when getting custom lobbies together wasn't simple but now it's ez pz.  

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

The custom game browser made Action Sack obsolete.

 

You can argue it's winter-themed I guess but it would have made more sense to actually put it in the playlist before Christmas, not after.

I don't see why adding the custom games browser means you should remove action sack. It's not like action sack's presence is making the game worse in any way.

 

Also my experience with the custom games browser hasn't been the most positive. Half the time I find the games I join are shit, It's a lot more faff compared to MM. If I've got 10 minutes to mess around on Halo I'd rather click a button and quickly get a match than spend ages finding a decent match which isn't full.

 

 

You think of it like that, I think of it as a playlist space that is being wasted just like having two sniper playlists, Breakout and Super Fiesta.

 

Action Sack was a cool idea when getting custom lobbies together wasn't simple but now it's ez pz.

Is it really wasting any space though? It's not like action sack is pulling people away from playing playlists like Team Arena. 

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see why adding the custom games browser means you should remove action sack. It's not like action sack's presence is making the game worse in any way.

 

Also my experience with the custom games browser hasn't been the most positive. Half the time I find the games I join are shit, It's a lot more faff compared to MM. If I've got 10 minutes to mess around on Halo I'd rather click a button and quickly get a match than spend ages finding a decent match which isn't full.

I'd argue it is, actually. Not only is it wasting a playlist space which the custom games browser is capable of filling, it also takes away 'dev time' to make sure new modes are ready for matchmaking. I can only imagine how long went into playtesting the current Action Sack modes to ensure they're ready for matchmaking and working with the forgers, etc only to release the mode and people either find more exploits or the mode itself is just trash (see: Tank World, Mantis Breakout). 

 

With the customs browser, you can search for what you want, play what you want and not have to wait three months for the hot new thing to be added to Action Sack (if ever) like Extermination. 

 

Fair play for not being able to find matches quickly on it. I'd still be in favour of removing it.

 

Is it really wasting any space though? It's not like action sack is pulling people away from playing playlists like Team Arena.

The last thing Halo 5 needs at this point is this many playlists. We have a total of 15 playlists currently in Arena - 7 ranked and 8 social. 19 playlists total if you include the four Warzone lists (20 if you include Mythic WZFF coming up every weekend). 

 

That would have been great a year ago when we had that many players in all regions but we have a much lower player base these days and a fair few of them just aren't needed such as:

 

  • Breakout
  • Shotty Snipers (Ranked Snipers should be made social, shotty snipers added as a second gametype)
  • Super Fiesta
  • Action Sack
  • Legendary Warzone Firefight

 

Very little people played Breakout initially and I'm willing to bet even less play it now since it changed. Super Fiesta lobbies are always going on the custom browser at any time of the day and Legendary WZFF is just some weird in between that isn't needed either.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

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).

I think Thrust-melees would be a good solution to Spartan Charge... damage would be momentum-based, if you miss you're stuck in your Thruster cool down...

 

It gives Thrusters more of an offensive application, and more risk/reward. Idk, it just seems more "Halo" to implement the mechanic in that fashion...

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt Action Sack is ever going to get removed. Super Fiesta should just go into it though. No reason for it's own permanent playlist. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

That feeling you get when you get neg repped for bashing 343, and you successfully guess who neg repped you before you even check.
At least some people around here are consistent with their love for a sub par developer and shitty Halo games.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt Action Sack is ever going to get removed. Super Fiesta should just go into it though. No reason for it's own permanent playlist. 

A compromise I'd take at least. 

Share this post


Link to post

You think of it like that, I think of it as a playlist space that is being wasted just like having two sniper playlists, Breakout and Super Fiesta.

 

Action Sack was a cool idea when getting custom lobbies together wasn't simple but now it's ez pz.

I think the playlist could be managed better (they all could). But setting up customs isn't necessarily easy. At least, i haven't found it to be. Usually takes forever to get a full lobby in a gametype im interested in.

 

They definately need to consolodate these 343 picked mini games into a single playlist though

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The custom game browser made Action Sack obsolete.

I'd agree with this if you could join people still in the lobby.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

I'd agree with this if you could join people still in the lobby.

Prayers they fix that.

Share this post


Link to post

A compromise I'd take at least. 

I will agree that the playlists that depend on custom content seems to be coming across as a struggle for whoever is in charge of post-launch support. The updates we do see are small like this and the most we get at one time is just an update exclusive to one playlist and nothing close to across the board like with what we got in Reach.  

 

I think the playlist could be managed better (they all could). But setting up customs isn't necessarily easy. At least, i haven't found it to be. Usually takes forever to get a full lobby in a gametype im interested in.

I'd agree with this if you could join people still in the lobby.

 

Would probably help if the browser got rid of full games quicker so it won't bury other lobbies.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

That feeling you get when you get neg repped for bashing 343, and you successfully guess who neg repped you before you even check.

At least some people around here are consistent with their love for a sub par developer and a shitty Halo games.

 

1281.gif

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I doubt Action Sack is ever going to get removed. Super Fiesta should just go into it though. No reason for it's own permanent playlist. 

 

 

Or they could remove both of them and use their niche nature to offer limited time experiences with valuable rewards like every other developer on the face of the earth.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I will agree that the playlists that depend on custom content seems to be coming across as a struggle for whoever is in charge of post-launch support. The updates we do see are small like this and the most we get at one time is just an update exclusive to one playlist and nothing close to across the board like with what we got in Reach.

 

 

Would probably help if the browser got rid of full games quicker so it won't bury other lobbies.

Yeah that would help.

 

But my main issue with the browser boils down to how flexible forge is. It's a gift and a curse.

 

For every awesome gametype, there's a million garbage tier ones. Nothing is more disappointing than finally finding a good lobby, only to find out the host fucked up the settings.

 

That's where dev picked playlists come in handy. Too bad 343 is terrible at playlist management.

 

I think they should keep Acton sack, but constantly rotate mini games in and out. There is no reason we should still be playing Tank World

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Or they could remove both of them and use their niche nature to offer limited time experiences with valuable rewards like every other developer on the face of the earth.

 

I'm not going to disagree with you but they haven't done it yet so until they do  :lxthul:

 

Would be nice to see a group at 343 take up in-game events if there's no one doing anything. Schedule and work with developers to produce double exp playlists, maybe make "community goal" events like "X amount of kills in Y time", develop rewards for "special" in game events.

 

Like for Christmas and New Years you could have had something that ran through Dec 20th - Jan 3rd with a Winter Holiday playlist with gametypes like snowball fight, grab bag on maps like Stasis and maybe some sort of Santa's workshop map maybe. Make it double exp. Add commendations for it and have stuff like "5 wins for a themed emblem", "10 wins for a Santa hat armor effect", "15 wins for armor piece with candy cane stripes".

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah that would help.

 

But my main issue with the browser boils down to how flexible forge is. It's a gift and a curse.

 

For every awesome gametype, there's a million garbage tier ones. Nothing is more disappointing than finally finding a good lobby, only to find out the host fucked up the settings.

 

That's where dev picked playlists come in handy. Too bad 343 is terrible at playlist management

 

 

That's why they should be putting more resources into the Custom Game browser, rather than the clowns who currently handle matchmaking.

 

Ability to see game/map settings before you join, ability to see the Host's gamertag (so you could join familiar Custom Game "veterans" and community figures), etc.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

That's why they should be putting more resources into the Custom Game browser, rather than the clowns who currently handle matchmaking.

 

Ability to see game/map settings before you join, ability to see the Host's gamertag (so you could join familiar Custom Game "veterans" and community figures), etc.

Yeah thats a good long term goal, but I'm not sure why playlist management should hog resources from developing the content browser. Talking out stale gametypes and adding ones the community is excited about seems like something an intern could do.

 

 

I'd say Action Sack would truly be obsolete if we had server rentals where 'hosts' could curate playlists. The server would automatically shuffle everyone in it between games being run, so over crowding wouldn't be an issue.

 

343 would have to put on their big boy pants for that one.

Share this post


Link to post

That's why they should be putting more resources into the Custom Game browser, rather than the clowns who currently handle matchmaking.

 

Ability to see game/map settings before you join, ability to see the Host's gamertag (so you could join familiar Custom Game "veterans" and community figures), etc.

At the very least, let me hide Infection as a mode so I don't have to sift through all of the Duck Hunt variants.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry I've been at work, I figured I'd leave a comprehensive post so people don't have to backtrack through pages since it seems like following a logic train is too hard for some. I'm going to boil this down in the most structured, and simplified way possible to get my point across. 

 

First of all, there are two precedents that we need to all agree upon (and we should agree upon).

 

1: Randomness in a competitive environment is bad game design (ie. bloom, spread, rng, unpredictable movement)

2: Handicaps in a competitive environment are bad, meaning if a team has the skill to absolutely crush another team the game should allow them to do so without interfering. 

 

Strongholds poses too many objectives to create actual structured gameplay we like to promote in competitive Halo. When I say structured I mean it's both random, and not conducive to the 4v4 player count competitive Halo is built around. 

A triple cap breaks strongholds in every developer map we've seen in Halo 5. A majority of the time most pro teams won't attempt triple caps on the 'better' stronghold maps like Plaza and Rig.  That's because the second you capture all zones the remaining team can spawn relatively anywhere instead of being allocated to the corner 1/3rd of the map.  The best strategy MOST of the time is to give the enemy team a single zone in the corner and spawn trap them until the timer runs out.  This is no different than Slayer and completely diminishes the purpose of even having an objective.  Like I've already mentioned earlier-

 

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,

 

 

Apoll0, on 03 Jan 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

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

 

Incredible.  I've never seen someone completely deflect a question that ridiculously.  Allow me to rephrase so you actually have to answer this time.

 

If I can remove all objectives within an objective match and turn it into slayer from that point and absolutely nothing changes, why are the objectives there?

 

 

They have no value.  If I'm spawn trapping a team in the base on Eden, or in Garden on Plaza, or in BR tower on The Rig, I'm going to keep doing so whether or not the objectives move.  There's no value, the goal of that match is to control the other team so that they don't control you, NOT to control the strongholds.  Strongholds is functionally slayer in every sense if not MORE shallow. At least in Slayer teams have the ability to choose which way they want to rotate and trap the enemy team.  In strongholds there's 3 designated areas, the game says "Here, pick 2 and stare at the 3rd for the remainder of the game while they spawn".  And what's worse is that you don't even really get to choose which 2 strongholds you want to hold, because on just about every map there's a "correct" choice of pairs. 

 

When's the last time a pro team voluntarily held BR tower on Rig? Fucking never, so there's no thought going on.  It's not about what team is outplaying the other team or which team can make quick witted decisions on the fly, it's which team can perform the same exact fucking strategy better - no different than holding  Snipe Tower on Lockout every single game.  You people claim to value decision making that CE maps enforce and the flexibility in strategy they allow to actually let players make choices; yet here you are enforcing an OBJECTIVE gametype that somehow dumbs things down even more than Slayer does. Which is incredible because I didn't even think that was possible.

 

 

Now no matter what, because the nature of strongholds it is ALWAYS going to be more ideal to control only 2 of the 3 zones for the sake of controlling spawns.  This is because the zones are so separated and encompass an entire map with their spawn influence.  Controlling 3 zones leads to random spawns every time, and randomness is bad game design. This fails BOTH precedents I begun with as it's not even ideal for a skilled and knowledgeable team to capture 3 points, because why would they? They're going to give the other team random spawns and break the trap, it's literally a handicap to prevent triple cap.

As long as Strongholds are close enough together to players can interact between them, Strongholds will ALWAYS devolve into spawn-trapping/Slayer and nothing more. This plays into what I was saying about the stronghold themselves being completely irrelevant, the just represent general zones in the map that you need to "control" but it's truly just about slaying the other team. Once you cap them you leave, and start a spawn trap and that's it; there's no interaction from that point, no need to sit in them or pick them up or hold anything or move anywhere.  Just trap the other team like you would in Slayer.  The ONLY way this isn't true is

 

 

 

1: You could create more unpredictable spawns by not tying spawns to stronghold influence and eliminating map control.  Teams would now be able to  triple cap maps and reap the rewards because spawning is already randomized and there is no longer any further downsides to triple capping.  This is a bad solution because of precedent #1.

 

2: You could have the strongholds positioned in a way to not encompass the entire map. So instead of dividing the map into 3 zones it would be sections closer together off-center. This would allow them to contest one another more easily and not influence spawning. This solves the issue of spawning in a different method.  We see this on Empire and it's completely.  Fucking.  ********.  The zones being that close together makes everything impossible to control or keep track of, half the map is ignored for the entirety of the match, and it's a senseless cluster fuck that takes every aspect we value about important decision making and throws it out the window.

 

Or the best solution,

 

3: You could have the strongholds remain separated so much so that they don't influence one another. This keeps spawning in tact WITHOUT randomizing it, and actually places value on controlling the stronghold zones themselves and not controlling the enemy team's spawns. Meaning if you pushed enemy team far back into BR tower on Rig, they'd simply spawn elsewhere despite the fact that you have nest and basement both capped. This requires that maps are large enough to support these deadzone spawning (which they don't). The negative effect of strongholds that aren't able to interact with one another is that you can no longer play middle man between 2 zones. You actually have to actively defend a zone and make a choice. While this solves the spawning issue, you now have divided your 4 man squad between 3 zones which is what I was getting at earlier.

 

 

 

In this theoretical strongholds map if you wanted to control 3 zones you're designating 1 man per zone with 1 roamer left over.  This means that zone control and who wins the game would come down to a series of 1v1 (or at best 2v2) battles that have absolutely nothing to do with one another and act independently.

I don't literally think that every stronghold match devolves into 1v1 battles and I was very careful to word my posts to include "in theory" or "hypothetically" every time.  Some of you like Devaneaux have reading comprehension issues so take note of that.  But this is what it would come down to if Strongholds were to play proper and actually focus on the zones.

 

 

Does that sound like ideal use of a 4v4 player count? KOTH matches in every prior Halo had infinitely more depth than anything strongholds present.  KOTH flips maps on their head and forces teams to play in ways that they would never traditionally play, like sitting on the open Balcony of Construct, it actually provided new experiences. Flag and Bomb forces teams to play infinitely more aggressive than they ever would in Slayer.  Ball is the fundamental OPPOSITE of Slayer where teams lock themselves in small rooms and play defense, as opposed to locking the other team in the small room.  When is sitting shotgun hall ever an appropriate strategy on Lockout outside of Oddball? All these gametypes play fundamentally different, Strongholds doesn't, and it never will given the entire precedent of the game mode is to control 2/3rds of any map.  KOTH is all the zone control of strongholds, but you actually utilize your entire team to create interesting and dynamic setups for each location instead of spreading out and handling things [more] individually. 

 

 

Replacing all Stronghold locations on The Rig with Hill locations, you actually give value to useless areas like BR base.  All of a sudden it's a necessity to go there, not a crutch to avoid - because it's the sole objective that the entire game focuses around. Now you have interesting setups that actually utilize the 4v4 player count that don't just revolve around a spawn trap but has pushing and pulling that your entire team can play around.  Not dilute themselves as they single-handedly run to separate strongholds or solo/duel cap it. Every single map that has Strongholds on it now would play better with King Hills in their same exact locations - every single one.  Because there's no such thing as a Koth hill that you avoid, they're all equally important.  That's not true of strongholds.

 

 

Simplified:

 

Strongholds in its current iteration is a brainless version of Slayer that focuses more around spawn trapping the other team than it does holding the zones.

Strongholds in an iteration with an inabuseable spawn system (creating a focus on zone control) either becomes

    1: random due to the unpredictable spawns, or

    2: poorly tuned for 4v4 gameplay due to either

                A: strongholds too close together creating controllable/random chaos(Empire syndrome)

                B: strongholds isolated and far apart (1v1/2v2 encounters deciding the fate of a 4v4 match, very little team cohesion)

 

This is what I mean when I say that no matter what you do with Strongholds it will never work properly for 4v4 gameplay.  The simplest solution would be a player bump to 6v6 to at least designate 2 players per stronghold in a fixed spawning version but obviously that's not a solution that's on the table.  The easiest REASONABLE solution would be to reduce Stronghold count to provide focus and shift the priority from controlling the map, to controlling the objective. 2 strongholds doesn't work for obvious reasons of it being an even number, and going up in number is off the table.  Which leaves us with 1 stronghold, which is essentially Hill.  It kills ridiculous spawn trap and map control by giving value to any part of the map it's in, allows for great use of the 4 player team size, and can move to all the same locations that strongholds would.  The best aspect of Strongholds is the all or nothing scoring which allows great comebacks, but that principle could literally be applied to any gametype.  Halt the in game timer when a player is standing in the hill to remove the possibility of impossible comebacks, and give stacking seconds per player in the Hill.  All problems solved.

 

I'm glad we're having this discussion because Beyond is generally a pretty well minded and reasoned forum.  I don't mind different opinions but a lot of what I've been seeing is flat out ignorance and unwillingness to discuss.  I know I can be short tempered so I apologize for any blunt language or insults I dished out, I'm not sorry if I called you or your reasoning stupid however.

 

 

Igs cubanex, on 03 Jan 2017 - 10:39 AM, said:

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.

 

 

This is the face of willing ignorance and stupidity. Don't be this.

 

 

 

Apoll0, on 03 Jan 2017 - 10:56 AM, said:

1.  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.

 

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

 

1: If that was a blow at the quality of my maps, then you have hurt me greatly.  Keep handing out that neg rep buddy, I've got plenty of green built up.

2: Please quote me where I said that.

 

 

Igs cubanex, on 03 Jan 2017 - 10:59 AM, said:

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.

 

You think the gametype plays fine because it's fundamentally simple, and fair.  That's fine I agree.  I don't hate strongholds nor do I hate its presence in Halo 5.  But if you were to ask me to describe it I would say anywhere from "...it's meh" (Eden) to "It's the stupidest fucking thing I have ever seen" (Empire).

 

The real crime is it taking the place of actual fundamentally different gametypes that change the way people play, LIKE KING.  If anyone on this forum actually values competitive gameplay that forces teams to use their head different and make decisions and work together and think, then I don't know why Strongholds is in the circuit.  It's all the simplicity of spawn trapping like in Slayer but the zones are spelled out for you, Team Slayer at least gives teams the freedom to choose which area to trap the enemy in.  KOTH would allow players to interact with their teammates MUCH more and in a more meaningful way that's fundamentally different than Flag and Slayer.

 

You defend it because it's one of the 3 gametypes that launched with the game and it's all you know but if Hill had taken its place at the start we probably wouldn't be having this conversation.  It's worth nothing that I also find Strongholds to be one of the most boring viewing experiences of any Halo.  CTF and Assault are tense, Oddball can get crazy unique with setups, KOTH is exciting, Slayer can be tense with last second kills, Stronghold just chugs on for me. I admit this is highly subjective though.

 

 

Mhunterjr, on 03 Jan 2017 - 11:09 AM, said:

 

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.

 

 

Everyone on this forum has agreed near unanimously for the past year that Halo 5's movement is too random and uncontrollable.  From any part on the Rig a player can jump to so many different spots it makes my head spin.  That is random.  If you fundamentally disagree with this that's fine and I find your opinion completely fucking stupid and uninformed, but that still doesn't change any of the merits of having Hill over Strongholds.  Added control and structure to a match is just a nice bonus in a game as uncontrollable as Halo (in my fucking opinion).

 

 

Oriiii, on 03 Jan 2017 - 10:55 AM, said:

How so

 

You stated that more objectives in Halo 5 plays better with alternate movement speeds, then cited the difference between Multi Flag and Neutral Bomb.  In that example you are absolutely correct, Assault plays like piss with the discrepancy between the ball carrier's walking speed and sprinting speed of a spartan in pursuit.  That's a huge factor.  However that doens't imply that flag plays better because there's more objectives, you just don't notice it as much because in Flag your attention is still split between two different objectives, one to capture and one to defend.  The problem is just as prevalent, it's just masked more.

That being said, none of that has any effect on stagnant objectives like Strongholds and Hills because there isn't any discrepancy.  There's no ball or flag carrier being chased down, just a zone everyone has to get to and everyone moves at "Halo 5 speed".  If anything, the worst parts about Hill in previous Halo's was the downtime after a 4 man wipe giving too much time to the team in the hill and overrewarding them.  With sprint and this other nonsense in Halo 5 it'd be much easier to negate that downtime and force constant pressure on KOTH games, which I would really like to see.  Sprint and thrust don't matter in KOTH games because it's not about getting to the objective like it is in Flag and Bomb, it's about TAKING the objective.  That's the hard part.  I actually think KOTH would be Halo 5's strongest gametype.

  • Upvote (+1) 10
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sorry I've been at work, I figured I'd leave a comprehensive post so people don't have to backtrack through pages since it seems like following a logic train is too hard for some. I'm going to boil this down in the most structured, and simplified way possible to get my point across. 

 

First of all, there are two precedents that we need to all agree upon (and we should agree upon).

 

1: Randomness in a competitive environment is bad game design (ie. bloom, spread, rng, unpredictable movement) I can tell immediately I'm going to enjoy this post.

2: Handicaps in a competitive environment are bad, meaning if a team has the skill to absolutely crush another team the game should allow them to do so without interfering. 

 

Strongholds poses too many objectives to create actual structured gameplay we like to promote in competitive Halo. When I say structured I mean it's both random, and not conducive to the 4v4 player count competitive Halo is built around. 

A triple cap breaks strongholds in every developer map we've seen in Halo 5. A majority of the time most pro teams won't attempt triple caps on the 'better' stronghold maps like Plaza and Rig.  That's because the second you capture all zones the remaining team can spawn relatively anywhere instead of being allocated to the corner 1/3rd of the map.  The best strategy MOST of the time is to give the enemy team a single zone in the corner and spawn trap them until the timer runs out.  This is no different than Slayer and completely diminishes the purpose of even having an objective.  Like I've already mentioned earlier- This demonstrates a pretty glaring lack of understanding of both spawns in this game and of the way Strongholds plays. The reason for not pushing a trip cap is simply risk-aversion. You don't push for trip cap because 1. you might lose numbers pushing a hill you don't need 2. you push away from spawns that are important to block (this is an important distinction, as Stronghold state has very little if any effect on spawning).

 

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,

 

 

Incredible.  I've never seen someone completely deflect a question that ridiculously.  Allow me to rephrase so you actually have to answer this time.

 

If I can remove all objectives within an objective match and turn it into slayer from that point and absolutely nothing changes, why are the objectives there?

 

 

They have no value.  If I'm spawn trapping a team in the base on Eden, or in Garden on Plaza, or in BR tower on The Rig, I'm going to keep doing so whether or not the objectives move.  There's no value, the goal of that match is to control the other team so that they don't control you, NOT to control the strongholds.  Strongholds is functionally slayer in every sense if not MORE shallow. At least in Slayer teams have the ability to choose which way they want to rotate and trap the enemy team.  In strongholds there's 3 designated areas, the game says "Here, pick 2 and stare at the 3rd for the remainder of the game while they spawn".  And what's worse is that you don't even really get to choose which 2 strongholds you want to hold, because on just about every map there's a "correct" choice of pairs. Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the game-mode plays. There may be a pair of hills that are ideal, but timely rotations and knowing when to give up certain hills vs defend them is more important than holding a strict set-up like it's Lockout TS.

 

When's the last time a pro team voluntarily held BR tower on Rig? Fucking never, so there's no thought going on.  It's not about what team is outplaying the other team or which team can make quick witted decisions on the fly, it's which team can perform the same exact fucking strategy better - no different than holding  Snipe Tower on Lockout every single game.  You people claim to value decision making that CE maps enforce and the flexibility in strategy they allow to actually let players make choices; yet here you are enforcing an OBJECTIVE gametype that somehow dumbs things down even more than Slayer does. Which is incredible because I didn't even think that was possible. Leading off with a blatant untruth, right on. Pro teams won't hesitate to trip-cap on any map if given the opportunity, and they also won't hesitate to give up one of the "correct" hills and take BR/Yard/Blue Bend if they don't think they will be able to successfully defend it.

 

 

Now no matter what, because the nature of strongholds it is ALWAYS going to be more ideal to control only 2 of the 3 zones for the sake of controlling spawns.  This is because the zones are so separated and encompass an entire map with their spawn influence.  Controlling 3 zones leads to random spawns every time, and randomness is bad game design. This fails BOTH precedents I begun with as it's not even ideal for a skilled and knowledgeable team to capture 3 points, because why would they? They're going to give the other team random spawns and break the trap, it's literally a handicap to prevent triple cap. WHICH STRONGHOLDS YOU HAVE DOESN'T DETERMINE WHERE THE OTHER TEAM SPAWNS STOP SPREADING THIS

As long as Strongholds are close enough together to players can interact between them, Strongholds will ALWAYS devolve into spawn-trapping/Slayer and nothing more. This plays into what I was saying about the stronghold themselves being completely irrelevant, the just represent general zones in the map that you need to "control" but it's truly just about slaying the other team. Once you cap them you leave, and start a spawn trap and that's it; there's no interaction from that point, no need to sit in them or pick them up or hold anything or move anywhere.  Just trap the other team like you would in Slayer.  The ONLY way this isn't true is

 

 

 

1: You could create more unpredictable spawns by not tying spawns to stronghold influence and eliminating map control.  Teams would now be able to  triple cap maps and reap the rewards because spawning is already randomized and there is no longer any further downsides to triple capping.  This is a bad solution because of precedent #1. Lol

 

2: You could have the strongholds positioned in a way to not encompass the entire map. So instead of dividing the map into 3 zones it would be sections closer together off-center. This would allow them to contest one another more easily and not influence spawning. This solves the issue of spawning in a different method.  We see this on Empire and it's completely.  Fucking.  ********.  The zones being that close together makes everything impossible to control or keep track of, half the map is ignored for the entirety of the match, and it's a senseless cluster fuck that takes every aspect we value about important decision making and throws it out the window. Refer to the all caps. Trip-capping doesn't create random spawns, and you're solving a non-existent problem.

 

Or the best solution,

 

3: You could have the strongholds remain separated so much so that they don't influence one another. This keeps spawning in tact WITHOUT randomizing it, and actually places value on controlling the stronghold zones themselves and not controlling the enemy team's spawns. Meaning if you pushed enemy team far back into BR tower on Rig, they'd simply spawn elsewhere despite the fact that you have nest and basement both capped. This requires that maps are large enough to support these deadzone spawning (which they don't). The negative effect of strongholds that aren't able to interact with one another is that you can no longer play middle man between 2 zones. You actually have to actively defend a zone and make a choice. While this solves the spawning issue, you now have divided your 4 man squad between 3 zones which is what I was getting at earlier. This literally already happens. Pretty much every high level Rig game I've ever played.

 

 

 

In this theoretical strongholds map if you wanted to control 3 zones you're designating 1 man per zone with 1 roamer left over.  This means that zone control and who wins the game would come down to a series of 1v1 (or at best 2v2) battles that have absolutely nothing to do with one another and act independently.

I don't literally think that every stronghold match devolves into 1v1 battles and I was very careful to word my posts to include "in theory" or "hypothetically" every time.  Some of you like Devaneaux have reading comprehension issues so take note of that.  But this is what it would come down to if Strongholds were to play proper and actually focus on the zones.

 

Say what you will about his reading comprehension, but I don't think I've ever seen him post this many wrong assumptions about how this game functions and how it influences high level play.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

At the very least, let me hide Infection as a mode so I don't have to sift through all of the Duck Hunt variants.

 

 

Gametype filters alongside a realistic tag system. Our tags are way too intricate and oversaturated to be even remotely practical.

 

  • Competitive
  • Big Team
  • Mini Game
  • Race
  • Infection
  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

lol people think Strongholds doesn't promote holding a set up like a Slayer.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

 

Sorry I've been at work, I figured I'd leave a comprehensive post so people don't have to backtrack through pages since it seems like following a logic train is too hard for some. I'm going to boil this down in the most structured, and simplified way possible to get my point across. 

 

First of all, there are two precedents that we need to all agree upon (and we should agree upon).

 

1: Randomness in a competitive environment is bad game design (ie. bloom, spread, rng, unpredictable movement) I can tell immediately I'm going to enjoy this post.

2: Handicaps in a competitive environment are bad, meaning if a team has the skill to absolutely crush another team the game should allow them to do so without interfering. 

 

Strongholds poses too many objectives to create actual structured gameplay we like to promote in competitive Halo. When I say structured I mean it's both random, and not conducive to the 4v4 player count competitive Halo is built around. 

A triple cap breaks strongholds in every developer map we've seen in Halo 5. A majority of the time most pro teams won't attempt triple caps on the 'better' stronghold maps like Plaza and Rig.  That's because the second you capture all zones the remaining team can spawn relatively anywhere instead of being allocated to the corner 1/3rd of the map.  The best strategy MOST of the time is to give the enemy team a single zone in the corner and spawn trap them until the timer runs out.  This is no different than Slayer and completely diminishes the purpose of even having an objective.  Like I've already mentioned earlier- This demonstrates a pretty glaring lack of understanding of both spawns in this game and of the way Strongholds plays. The reason for not pushing a trip cap is simply risk-aversion. You don't push for trip cap because 1. you might lose numbers pushing a hill you don't need 2. you push away from spawns that are important to block (this is an important distinction, as Stronghold state has very little if any effect on spawning).

 

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,

 

 

Incredible.  I've never seen someone completely deflect a question that ridiculously.  Allow me to rephrase so you actually have to answer this time.

 

If I can remove all objectives within an objective match and turn it into slayer from that point and absolutely nothing changes, why are the objectives there?

 

 

They have no value.  If I'm spawn trapping a team in the base on Eden, or in Garden on Plaza, or in BR tower on The Rig, I'm going to keep doing so whether or not the objectives move.  There's no value, the goal of that match is to control the other team so that they don't control you, NOT to control the strongholds.  Strongholds is functionally slayer in every sense if not MORE shallow. At least in Slayer teams have the ability to choose which way they want to rotate and trap the enemy team.  In strongholds there's 3 designated areas, the game says "Here, pick 2 and stare at the 3rd for the remainder of the game while they spawn".  And what's worse is that you don't even really get to choose which 2 strongholds you want to hold, because on just about every map there's a "correct" choice of pairs. Again, this demonstrates a lack of understanding of how the game-mode plays. There may be a pair of hills that are ideal, but timely rotations and knowing when to give up certain hills vs defend them is more important than holding a strict set-up like it's Lockout TS.

 

When's the last time a pro team voluntarily held BR tower on Rig? Fucking never, so there's no thought going on.  It's not about what team is outplaying the other team or which team can make quick witted decisions on the fly, it's which team can perform the same exact fucking strategy better - no different than holding  Snipe Tower on Lockout every single game.  You people claim to value decision making that CE maps enforce and the flexibility in strategy they allow to actually let players make choices; yet here you are enforcing an OBJECTIVE gametype that somehow dumbs things down even more than Slayer does. Which is incredible because I didn't even think that was possible. Leading off with a blatant untruth, right on. Pro teams won't hesitate to trip-cap on any map if given the opportunity, and they also won't hesitate to give up one of the "correct" hills and take BR/Yard/Blue Bend if they don't think they will be able to successfully defend it.

 

 

Now no matter what, because the nature of strongholds it is ALWAYS going to be more ideal to control only 2 of the 3 zones for the sake of controlling spawns.  This is because the zones are so separated and encompass an entire map with their spawn influence.  Controlling 3 zones leads to random spawns every time, and randomness is bad game design. This fails BOTH precedents I begun with as it's not even ideal for a skilled and knowledgeable team to capture 3 points, because why would they? They're going to give the other team random spawns and break the trap, it's literally a handicap to prevent triple cap. WHICH STRONGHOLDS YOU HAVE DOESN'T DETERMINE WHERE THE OTHER TEAM SPAWNS STOP SPREADING THIS

As long as Strongholds are close enough together to players can interact between them, Strongholds will ALWAYS devolve into spawn-trapping/Slayer and nothing more. This plays into what I was saying about the stronghold themselves being completely irrelevant, the just represent general zones in the map that you need to "control" but it's truly just about slaying the other team. Once you cap them you leave, and start a spawn trap and that's it; there's no interaction from that point, no need to sit in them or pick them up or hold anything or move anywhere.  Just trap the other team like you would in Slayer.  The ONLY way this isn't true is

 

 

 

1: You could create more unpredictable spawns by not tying spawns to stronghold influence and eliminating map control.  Teams would now be able to  triple cap maps and reap the rewards because spawning is already randomized and there is no longer any further downsides to triple capping.  This is a bad solution because of precedent #1. Lol

 

2: You could have the strongholds positioned in a way to not encompass the entire map. So instead of dividing the map into 3 zones it would be sections closer together off-center. This would allow them to contest one another more easily and not influence spawning. This solves the issue of spawning in a different method.  We see this on Empire and it's completely.  Fucking.  ********.  The zones being that close together makes everything impossible to control or keep track of, half the map is ignored for the entirety of the match, and it's a senseless cluster fuck that takes every aspect we value about important decision making and throws it out the window. Refer to the all caps. Trip-capping doesn't create random spawns, and you're solving a non-existent problem.

 

Or the best solution,

 

3: You could have the strongholds remain separated so much so that they don't influence one another. This keeps spawning in tact WITHOUT randomizing it, and actually places value on controlling the stronghold zones themselves and not controlling the enemy team's spawns. Meaning if you pushed enemy team far back into BR tower on Rig, they'd simply spawn elsewhere despite the fact that you have nest and basement both capped. This requires that maps are large enough to support these deadzone spawning (which they don't). The negative effect of strongholds that aren't able to interact with one another is that you can no longer play middle man between 2 zones. You actually have to actively defend a zone and make a choice. While this solves the spawning issue, you now have divided your 4 man squad between 3 zones which is what I was getting at earlier. This literally already happens. Pretty much every high level Rig game I've ever played.

 

 

 

In this theoretical strongholds map if you wanted to control 3 zones you're designating 1 man per zone with 1 roamer left over.  This means that zone control and who wins the game would come down to a series of 1v1 (or at best 2v2) battles that have absolutely nothing to do with one another and act independently.

I don't literally think that every stronghold match devolves into 1v1 battles and I was very careful to word my posts to include "in theory" or "hypothetically" every time.  Some of you like Devaneaux have reading comprehension issues so take note of that.  But this is what it would come down to if Strongholds were to play proper and actually focus on the zones.

 

Say what you will about his reading comprehension, but I don't think I've ever seen him post this many wrong assumptions about how this game functions and how it influences high level play.

 

 

Nearly every correction you made revolves around the idea that strongholds don't determine spawning, rather the location of players.  Tell me how you're going to capture a stronghold without a player standing in it. And if you have a player standing in every stronghold, you start to have spawning problems. The two go hand in hand, you're trying to find holes where there are none.

 

 

 

 

 This demonstrates a pretty glaring lack of understanding of both spawns in this game and of the way Strongholds plays. The reason for not pushing a trip cap is simply risk-aversion. You don't push for trip cap because 1. you might lose numbers pushing a hill you don't need 2. you push away from spawns that are important to block (this is an important distinction, as Stronghold state has very little if any effect on spawning).

Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

 

Leading off with a blatant untruth, right on. Pro teams won't hesitate to trip-cap on any map if given the opportunity, and they also won't hesitate to give up one of the "correct" hills and take BR/Yard/Blue Bend if they don't think they will be able to successfully defend it.

 

 

So you're agreeing with that there's a 'correct' setup. The fact that team's give it up means nothing outside of the fact that they made a poor decision to triple cap and are being punished with a less ideal setup.

 

Regardless that has no merit on the whole idea that 2 out of 3 strongholds devolves into something completely independent of objective focus. You've literally said nothing on it.

 

 

 

This literally already happens. Pretty much every high level Rig game I've ever played.

 

Okay? Rig's strongholds still interact too much to solve the overlying issue.  Otherwise every team in the world wouldn't go for nest and basement. You've said absolutely nothing in this post outside of "You don't understand anything" and then go onto pretty much unintentionally agree. I don't need to be champion whatever to understand how a 3 plot gametype works.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nearly every correction you made revolves around the idea that strongholds don't determine spawning, rather the location of players.  Tell me how you're going to capture a stronghold without a player standing in it. And if you have a player standing in every stronghold, you start to have spawning problems. The two go hand in hand, you're trying to find holes where there are none.

 

 

Thank you for proving my point.

 

 

 

So you're agreeing with that there's a 'correct' setup. The fact that team's give it up means nothing outside of the fact that they made a poor decision to triple cap and are being punished with a less ideal setup.

 

Regardless that has no merit on the whole idea that 2 out of 3 strongholds devolves into something completely independent of objective focus. You've literally said nothing on it.

 

 

Okay? Rig's strongholds still interact too much to solve the overlying issue.  Otherwise every team in the world wouldn't go for nest and basement. You've said absolutely nothing in this post outside of "You don't understand anything" and then go onto pretty much unintentionally agree. I don't need to be champion whatever to understand how a 3 plot gametype works.

Excuse you, but have you played as many HIGH LEVEL  3 plot games as him? I didn't think so stupid noob.  :kappa:

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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