Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

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,

 

 

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.

 

 

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

 

 

 

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.

 

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.

 

 

 

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).

 

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.

Wow man. Where to begin....

 

I guess i need to clarify the where you quoted me. We are talking about randomness as it applies specifically to strongholds, not as it applies to halo 5 movement mechanics. The movement mechanics are present in every gametype and don't adversely effect SH any more than they do every other gametype. You are claming that SHs as a gametype is random (when it isnt), and you are proposing some hypothetical 'fix' to this randomness that is actually broken. You are fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Why don't you understand that you're hypothetical SH variant is useless to this discussion? You belive it would be valuable if the gametype encouraged 2 men to actively babysit strongholds, but that's not desired or desirable. You can't explain why that would be desirable over a to4 working together to hold 2-3 other than you like designated roles. The gamemode is about a team of 4, collectivelly securing a majority of zones... not about spawn trapping, not about 1v1s not about 2v2s. Making it about something it isnt is not a 'fix'.

 

Next you need to stop with this notion that double capping = spawn trapping. It simply does not. Spawn trapping means that your team is positioned such that your enemy will always spawn in a position that makes it extremely difficult to push out onto the map. Standing in zones doesn't give you that positioning. The instant a team aquires a second zone, they have not simultaneously achieved a spawn trap. Most of the time teams are so focused on securing/defending caps, that they are out of position for spawn traps by the time the enemy respawns.

 

If the game played as you suggest it did, then teams wouldnt even go for caps at the outset. They'd just go for slays and map positioning.... but that wouldnt work... because they need the caps to score, which would take them out of position...

 

Actual traps are rare. You'll see teams try to set one up when when they get trip caps, since often the conditions for both of these occur at the same time (3-4 enemies down with teamates blocking spawns.)

 

Here's a great Str8 won over optic. There was one successful spawn trap the whole game

https://t.co/TJESuEYRh7

 

Next there's this notion that Stongholds makes all the decisions for you. Sure their are ideal setups. But how often is a situation 'ideal'? Further more, which gametype doesnt have ideal setups? How is SH unique in this regard?

 

Every good team knows the ideal scenario on EVERY map/gametype. The winner is the always team who executes that plan most effectively OR reacts most efficiently when the ideal scenario is unobtainbable or unsustainable (which is MOST of the time) . This is true on any gametype ever.

 

 

Then theres your other hypothetical "if you remove the objective youd just have slayer"... which is, again, true in any gametype. If there is no objective to play for, there's nothing to do besides kill the opposing team. Thats such a silly argument.

 

For the record, I'm not against koth, and it very well may be superior to SH, but your complaints about this mode are either factually incorrect (all about spawn traps) or arbitrary (3 hills is incompatible with 4v4).

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All I know is they better not drop breakout or warzone. Those have been the best additions to Halo since armor lock!

Lmao quiet you're right my bad

Share this post


Link to post

To weigh in on the strongholds discussion, I made this post a while back on why I like the mode so much (it was in response to someone saying Strongholds should be removed in favour of king and ball hence the comparisons. Note: I'm not arguing that strongholds is better than those modes, I'm arguing why it should still be kept in):

 

 

1. The game won't end due to time running out.

- In other modes playing for time is something you regularly see. It draws the game length out and usually isn't very interesting to watch or play.

2. A team is scoring at all times.

- This keeps tension high and means that one team is almost always being aggressive because points are always at stake.

- In games like King you can have an entire hill go by with no one setting foot in it or in Oddball where the ball is left just sitting there. It can create long sections where nothing is really going on and can create some pretty "stalematey" gameplay.

3. The game is very high action.

- Because one team is always winning points the other is always on the offensive. It creates this interesting dynamic of constantly flipping which team is attacking and defending; there's never a stalemate in Strongholds

4. A point has to be captured for a team to score.

- This helps prevent what I mean by "scrappy time". You immediately start scoring upon entering the hill in King whereas in Strongholds you need a properly coordinated push to control the point until it's captured.

5. - A player isn't required to be "incapacitated" for a team to be scoring.

- I've never been that keen on the dynamic where one player is forced to lose their weapon, move more slowly or be forced to remain in one location to score. This is largely just a personal preference for when I'm playing but it does have a fairly major impact on my last point.

6. There is a high potential for comebacks.

- Having a large point deficit in King or Ball makes it far more difficult to come back and win than in Strongholds, couple of the previous points link into this:

- No scrappy scoring means if you lose control you can't expect to gain those last few points from scrappy plays such as suicidal pushes.

- Not incapacitating a player means that if the losing team gains control they aren't put at a disadvantage when scoring making it easier for that team to maintain control.

- This can make for some extremely exciting and clutch matches. It's not often you'll see a match of King or Ball where a team comes back from losing 0-99 and wins. That can happen in Strongholds (I've actually seen a number of games have something similar occur and that's in solo matchmaking...).

It's not the best post ever, points 2 and 3 are bpretty much the same and it's not that well written but I can't be bothered to write another post which basically makes the same argument.

 

 

All good points.  

 

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.

 

And the ability to name a lobby separately from the gametype that is searchable.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

So StrongHolds is bad theoretically ???, but plays great in reality.

 

Interesting.

If slayer plays great, then strong holds plays great. It's the law of transitivity. If (A = B) && (B = C) => (A = C)

Strongholds is just slayer with hand-held map movement.

 

Now let me propose my thesis statement:

Slayer sucks ass in Halo 5 because of Sprint and Spartan Abilities and Radar, so using the law above, it all sucks.

 

bring on the red dev

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

To weigh in on the strongholds discussion, I made this post a while back on why I like the mode so much (it was in response to someone saying Strongholds should be removed in favour of king and ball hence the comparisons. Note: I'm not arguing that strongholds is better than those modes, I'm arguing why it should still be kept in):

 

 

1. The game won't end due to time running out.

 

 

- In other modes playing for time is something you regularly see. It draws the game length out and usually isn't very interesting to watch or play.

2. A team is scoring at all times.

 

- This keeps tension high and means that one team is almost always being aggressive because points are always at stake.

- In games like King you can have an entire hill go by with no one setting foot in it or in Oddball where the ball is left just sitting there. It can create long sections where nothing is really going on and can create some pretty "stalematey" gameplay.

3. The game is very high action.

 

- Because one team is always winning points the other is always on the offensive. It creates this interesting dynamic of constantly flipping which team is attacking and defending; there's never a stalemate in Strongholds

4. A point has to be captured for a team to score.

 

- This helps prevent what I mean by "scrappy time". You immediately start scoring upon entering the hill in King whereas in Strongholds you need a properly coordinated push to control the point until it's captured.

5. - A player isn't required to be "incapacitated" for a team to be scoring.

 

- I've never been that keen on the dynamic where one player is forced to lose their weapon, move more slowly or be forced to remain in one location to score. This is largely just a personal preference for when I'm playing but it does have a fairly major impact on my last point.

 

6. There is a high potential for comebacks.

 

- Having a large point deficit in King or Ball makes it far more difficult to come back and win than in Strongholds, couple of the previous points link into this:

- No scrappy scoring means if you lose control you can't expect to gain those last few points from scrappy plays such as suicidal pushes.

- Not incapacitating a player means that if the losing team gains control they aren't put at a disadvantage when scoring making it easier for that team to maintain control.

- This can make for some extremely exciting and clutch matches. It's not often you'll see a match of King or Ball where a team comes back from losing 0-99 and wins. That can happen in Strongholds (I've actually seen a number of games have something similar occur and that's in solo matchmaking...).

It's not the best post ever, points 2 and 3 are bpretty much the same and it's not that well written but I can't be bothered to write another post which basically makes the same argument.

Every single one of those is a result of strongholds scoring system which doesn't have to be unique to strongholds.

Share this post


Link to post

Wow man. Where to begin....

 

I guess i need to clarify the where you quoted me. We are talking about randomness as it applies specifically to strongholds, not as it applies to halo 5 movement mechanics. The movement mechanics are present in every gametype and don't adversely effect SH any more than they do every other gametype. You are claming that SHs as a gametype is random (when it isnt), and you are proposing some hypothetical 'fix' to this randomness that is actually broken. You are fixing a problem that doesn't exist.

 

Why don't you understand that you're hypothetical SH variant is useless to this discussion? You belive it would be valuable if the gametype encouraged 2 men to actively babysit strongholds, but that's not desired or desirable. You can't explain why that would be desirable over a to4 working together to hold 2-3 other than you like designated roles. The gamemode is about a team of 4, collectivelly securing a majority of zones... not about spawn trapping, not about 1v1s not about 2v2s. Making it about something it isnt is not a 'fix'.

 

Next you need to stop with this notion that double capping = spawn trapping. It simply does not. Spawn trapping means that your team is positioned such that your enemy will always spawn in a position that makes it extremely difficult to push out onto the map. Standing in zones doesn't give you that positioning. The instant a team aquires a second zone, they have not simultaneously achieved a spawn trap. Most of the time teams are so focused on securing/defending caps, that they are out of position for spawn traps by the time the enemy respawns.

 

If the game played as you suggest it did, then teams wouldnt even go for caps at the outset. They'd just go for slays and map positioning.... but that wouldnt work... because they need the caps to score, which would take them out of position...

 

Actual traps are rare. You'll see teams try to set one up when when they get trip caps, since often the conditions for both of these occur at the same time (3-4 enemies down with teamates blocking spawns.)

 

Here's a great Str8 won over optic. There was one successful spawn trap the whole game

https://t.co/TJESuEYRh7

 

Next there's this notion that Stongholds makes all the decisions for you. Sure their are ideal setups. But how often is a situation 'ideal'? Further more, which gametype doesnt have ideal setups? How is SH unique in this regard?

 

Every good team knows the ideal scenario on EVERY map/gametype. The winner is the always team who executes that plan most effectively OR reacts most efficiently when the ideal scenario is unobtainbable or unsustainable (which is MOST of the time) . This is true on any gametype ever.

 

 

Then theres your other hypothetical "if you remove the objective youd just have slayer"... which is, again, true in any gametype. If there is no objective to play for, there's nothing to do besides kill the opposing team. Thats such a silly argument.

 

For the record, I'm not against koth, and it very well may be superior to SH, but your complaints about this mode are either factually incorrect (all about spawn traps) or arbitrary (3 hills is incompatible with 4v4).

There's nothing random that's specific to strongholds. There's something random about spawning when your team encompasses the whole map, and the Halo 5 movement in general is unpredictable. Less objectives is just a nice bonus to fight against those things.

 

You're asking questions that I've already provided answers to and frankly you should just scroll up and reread because it looks like most of it is going over your head.

 

I keep hearing "yeah but these hypothetical that's not how it actually is blah blah" but that's not the point. If the game mode is breakable in any way then it's not sound. Same goes for any map, I've always said that if a map plays tremendous every game until the highest level pro match and it comes to a halt, then that map is broken. Same goes for strongholds. We've all seen teams sit on a double cap the entire match and not move because going for a triple is wrong, and we've all seen triple caps turn to shit because no one knows where anyone is. Pros don't actively abuse the gametype because that's not even in their best interest.

 

I don't even hate strongholds is just average as fuck and I don't think it shows pro skill or decision making the way any other gametype would. It's just redundant.

Share this post


Link to post

So StrongHolds is bad theoretically ???, but plays great in reality.

 

Interesting.

Or maybe you're not smart enough to see how poor it plays???

 

Interesting.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Or maybe you're not smart enough to see how poor it plays???

 

Interesting.

I actually play the game and I do it pretty competently. Literally 0 players are complaining about SH.

 

But maybe you are right I should go to some of those University to teach me why I shouldn't enjoy a gametype.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

So StrongHolds is bad theoretically ???, but plays great in reality.

 

Interesting.

Enjoying how it plays is ultimately subjective, but Multi said specifically that it was okay at best, not straight up bad. Every reply you give is either 1 or 2 sentences of one liner attempts that deflect any points he makes. Congrats, you avoid any form of actual discussion.

 

Furthermore, he said that it was balanced, functional and fair, he did not say it theoretically does not work, only that is is not optimised well for 4v4 player count in comparison to over game modes. He also said that the game mode is essentially dumbed down slayer.

 

Bringing back my comaprison of Team Deathmatch, Control and Zone Control from Destiny, TDM being TDM, Control being 3 plot where kills earm score while holding objectives to influence spawning, zone control beng a traditional 3 plot mode, like strongholds.

 

These 3 modes are the common modes for Iron Banner in Destiny, Iron Banner being one of the destiny equivalents of "competitive" modes

 

Control and Zone Control have literally the EXACT same strategies and gameplay. The zones are in the same place, the spawns are influenced the same way. The only difference is scoring based on kills vs time holding objectives. Gameplay wise, a match of Control and Zone Control play EXACTLY the same. In both gamemodes the team that wins is the one who locks the opposing team in one area of the map and prevents them pushing out to other objectives.

 

Why is this relevant? Because it proves Multi's point. 3 Plot Gamemodes are about spawn trapping, the objectives exist ONLY to be captured to influence where you and your opponents spawn. When a 3 plot mode is uses scoring based on Kills, like Control in Destiny, it does not play any differently from one that scores based on holding the objectives, like Zone Control in Destiny. This proves his inital statement: 3 plots is about spawn trapping. To refute this further is to deny facts.

 

Why is the compariaon to TDM relevant? Because to win TDM, you want to hold your opponents in a spawn trap as often as possible. JUST LIKE 3 PLOTS. The only difference, as Multi also already pointed out, is that in Slayer/TDM, you get more choice over where you spawn trap your enemy. When you play Rusted Lands in Destiny, you attempt to force your enemies onto the Beach spawn at Bravo, in TDM, Control AND Zone Control, but in TDM because you have more control over spawning, with no objectives to influence them on your behalf, it is in the hands of player to devise how, where and when to spawn trap the opponents, it is not pre determined by 3 objctives, in this vein, it is much more dynamic. The flip side is that 3 plot is arguably more predictable because you can cap the objective and worry less about your individual positioning influencing it.

 

The reason you want to push an objective in 3 Plot is to break the spawn trap. But in slayer, you would want to break out the spawn trap, objective or no objective.

 

Destiny has all the relevent game modes in a real world example to prove the whole of the statement Multi made. 3 Plot Modes are won using fundamentally the EXACT same strategies as slayer, using objectives, as opposed to a each individual team members positoning, to influence spawning to spawn trap the opposing team for as long as possible. The major difference, is that Slayer has teams devise their own set ups, due to no capture and leave objectives existing, as a result it is potentially more dynamic, while 3 Plot modes have pre determined ones, and this is arguably dumbed down, or arguably more predictable outside of a triple cap causing the opposing team to spawn randomly.

 

Now, what I will add, is that 3 Plot modes, on the right map, can add an incentive to move in a way slayer doesn't. If the Hills are placed in areas with little power, as they should be, you can force movement to areas of the map a slayer game just simply would not acheive.

 

However, as Multi also points out, KOTH and Oddball acheive the similar effect, but allowing for more player control and creativity in how to do so, and are game modes that do not share such a fundamentally similar playstyle to Slayer.

 

His point, is not that a 3 Plot modes is bad, broken or even unsuitable for 4v4 Halo, merely that it is an inferior choice for 4v4 Halo due to how similar it is to Slayer, and how little creativity it allows for in comparison to modes like KOTH or Oddball.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Every single one of those is a result of strongholds scoring system which doesn't have to be unique to strongholds.

Partially, the scoring system is one of the main reasons why strongholds is great. However, the process of capturing a point and not requiring a player to be in the point to score is also important.

 

I'm interested to know how you'd transfer these systems to a different game mode.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

There's nothing random that's specific to strongholds. There's something random about spawning when your team encompasses the whole map, and the Halo 5 movement in general is unpredictable. Less objectives is just a nice bonus to fight against those things.

 

You're asking questions that I've already provided answers to and frankly you should just scroll up and reread because it looks like most of it is going over your head.

 

I keep hearing "yeah but these hypothetical that's not how it actually is blah blah" but that's not the point. If the game mode is breakable in any way then it's not sound. Same goes for any map, I've always said that if a map plays tremendous every game until the highest level pro match and it comes to a halt, then that map is broken. Same goes for strongholds. We've all seen teams sit on a double cap the entire match and not move because going for a triple is wrong, and we've all seen triple caps turn to shit because no one knows where anyone is. Pros don't actively abuse the gametype because that's not even in their best interest.

 

I don't even hate strongholds is just average as fuck and I don't think it shows pro skill or decision making the way any other gametype would. It's just redundant.

THE SPAWNS ARENT RANDOM THOUGH. you're entire argument revolves around a 1) a demonstrably false premise and 2) hypothetical tweaks designed to correct the false premise. Spawns are determined by your positioning. I even provided a video that showed a team get trip cap on plaza while the enemy reliably blue because the 3 cap team was positioned properly (ie not standing in SH zones)

 

You haven't answered anything with facts, you're just pushed arbitrary and counter productive notions like: 1) the number of objectives should encourage dedicated roles and 2) a scenario that awards DOUBLE POINTS, shouldn't be difficult and risky. this is a concept that had been accepted in competive ANYTHING since FOREVER... but to help your argument you confuse the word risk with punishment.

 

There is no punishment for getting a trip cap, there is a punishment for making bad plays. There is a punishment for getting out played. You see teams get 'punished' while attempting trip caps, because it's difficult...as it should be.

 

You've (rarely) seen teams sit on a two cap because their opponent was not good enough to force them to adjust there strategy. You've also seen games where teams used 3caps to cruise to victory, or to comeback from huge deficits. Over the course of the year we've seen hundreds of games playout in many different ways. How does the fact that it CAN play out in basic fashion mean it's broken? The same can be said for EVERY SINGLE GAMETYPE EVER

 

There's as much decision making in a game of Strongholds, as any other. Do we commit to defending the set up or do we rotate? Do we commit 4 to this ideal zone or do we try to stop their rotation as well? do we help or go for the reset? Do we cap with two players or do we secure weapons?do we trip cap? do we give up the trip? There are constant decisions being made due, in part, to the need to multitask the objectives. Your attempts to distill the gametype into " get 2 cap, spawn trap) isnt based in reality.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Let's play how many condescending backhanded comments can MultiLockOn make!

 

Am I hearing correctly that it would be ideal if strongholds required a player in the zone to score? And in a perfect situation you would have one player in each zone scoring and one "roaming"? Maps should be even bigger and strongholds separated? This just sounds bad. This sounds like a hypothetical situation where players have high individual power and can be isolated and successful.

 

Halo 5 is more about collapsing on spawns regardless of the gametype. Yes, Strongholds and Slayer have incredibly similar mindsets behind their strategies but I find that pushes and fights take place a bit differently between the two. I almost never spend as much time fighting bottom mid on plaza on slayer as I do on strongholds. I do think that strongholds would play better in its current form than whatever fixes were proposed for it so far.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

THE SPAWNS ARENT RANDOM THOUGH. you're entire argument revolves around a 1) a demonstrably false premise and 2) hypothetical tweaks designed to correct the false premise.

 

You haven't answered anything with facts, you're just pushed arbitrary and counter productive notions like: 1) the number of objectives should encourage dedicated roles and 2) a scenario that awards DOUBLE POINTS, shouldn't be difficult and risky. this is a concept that had been accepted in competive ANYTHING since FOREVER... but to help your argument you confuse the word risk with punishment.

 

There is no punishment for getting a trip cap, there is a punishment for making bad plays. There is a punishment for getting out played. You see teams get 'punished' while attempting trip caps, because it's difficult...as it should be.

 

You've (rarely) seen teams sit on a two cap because their opponent was not good enough to force them to adjust there strategy. You've also seen games where teams used 3caps to cruise to victory, or to comeback from huge deficits. Over the course of the year we've seen hundreds of games playout in many different ways. How does the fact that it CAN play out in basic fashion mean it's broken? The same can be said for EVERY SINGLE GAMETYPE EVER

 

There's as much decision making in a game of Strongholds, as any other. Do we commit to defending the set up or do we rotate? Do we commit 4 to this ideal zone or do we try to stop their rotation as well m do we help or go for the reset? Do we cap with two players or do we secure weapons?do we trip cap? do we give up the trip? There are constant decisions being made due, in part to the need to multitask the objectives. Your attempts to distill the gametype into " get 2 cap, spawn trap) isnt based in reality.

No I like the concept of a triple cap. I just don't like the way it causes most spawn traps to break and causes that team to spawn elsewhere. Triple cap should be difficult on the merit of difficulty, not randomness.

 

Have 1 player stand in each stronghold on The Rig and have a 4th stand on the catwalk. Now tell me where the other team will spawn.

 

"But why would you have players actually stand in the strongholds no one does that."

 

 

Yes I'm aware. So have them move out of the stronghold, then the other team will spawn in that area and you have a spawn trap again. Wow so crazy.

 

Let's play how many condescending backhanded comments can MultiLockOn make!

 

Am I hearing correctly that it would be ideal if strongholds required a player in the zone to score? And in a perfect situation you would have one player in each zone scoring and one "roaming"? Maps should be even bigger and strongholds separated? This just sounds bad. This sounds like a hypothetical situation where players have high individual power and can be isolated and successful.

 

Halo 5 is more about collapsing on spawns regardless of the gametype. Yes, Strongholds and Slayer have incredibly similar mindsets behind their strategies but I find that pushes and fights take place a bit differently between the two. I almost never spend as much time fighting bottom mid on plaza on slayer as I do on strongholds. I do think that strongholds would play better in its current form than whatever fixes were proposed for it so far.

Hey let's misinterpret my post even more. That situation you're describing was one way to address spawning AND the problem of focusing on the zones themselves. And I agreed it sounded awful which is why I said no matter what you do strongholds will always fundamentally not excel. I make these remarks because people come in and say something so completely off basis (like you just did) and then follow up with some other snarky comment (like you just did)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

The only change I MIGHT want for strongholds is if you have a hill with the enemy 98+ and are capping a second hill, OT should happen. Though it should end if the hill is stopped.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Strongholds being inferior to King and Oddball is backed by the fact that 3 plots has existed in Halo as a gametype for over a decade, but only became relevant as a competitive game type once King, Assault and Oddball got removed (thanks again 343). Yeah the scoring was different in 3 plots and it was just a Territories variant, but the point stands.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Strongholds being inferior to King and Oddball is backed by the fact that 3 plots has existed in Halo as a gametype for over a decade, but only became relevant as a competitive game type once King, Assault and Oddball got removed (thanks again 343). Yeah the scoring was different in 3 plots and it was just a Territories variant, but the point stands.

I guarantee you the reason Control in Destiny was made a 3 Plot Slayer Hybrid in the first place was because Bungie realised what 3 Plots was actually about spawn trapping and killing, and they also understand seeing your individual kills increase the score is more gratifying and rewards both indivual skill AND team work.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

No I like the concept of a triple cap. I just don't like the way it causes most spawn traps to break and causes that team to spawn elsewhere. Triple cap should be difficult on the merit of difficulty, not randomness.

 

Have 1 player stand in each stronghold on The Rig and have a 4th stand on the catwalk. Now tell me where the other team will spawn.

 

"But why would you have players actually stand in the strongholds no one does that."

 

 

Yes I'm aware. So have them move out of the stronghold, then the other team will spawn in that area and you have a spawn trap again. Wow so crazy.

 

 

Hey let's misinterpret my post even more. That situation you're describing was one way to address spawning AND the problem of focusing on the zones themselves. And I agreed it sounded awful which is why I said no matter what you do strongholds will always fundamentally not excel. I make these remarks because people come in and say something so completely off basis (like you just did) and then follow up with some other snarky comment (like you just did)

 

Yes man you are always the victim, only insulting people when provoked.. lol why do you get defensive so often here?

 

So I essentially agreed saying that those changes you proposed under "the best solution" didn't sound good but yeah somehow it's off basis.

Share this post


Link to post

This is tiresome so this is my last post on this before i move on with my life.

 

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?

 

I wasn't deflecting anything. Your point was stupid because the gametype DOES NOT PLAY THE SAME AS SLAYER.  If it was slayer, the "trapped" team would have a whole different set of decisions to make, as does the team in control.  This is the foundation of your whole argument, which is false.  Anybody who has played a significant number of strongholds and slayer games knows that they don't play the same.

 

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.

 

But.. but... but that's just not true...  Teams push properly for trip caps all the time, and good teams can control spawns while doing so. The teams that have better timing and execution for pushing trip caps are the better teams...  Its a risk/reward decision that teams have to make that they dont have to make in slayer.  When you actually play and watch strongholds, it doesn't feel or look like a slayer game.

 

 

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. Which is what we are arguing with.  Your "hypotheticals" about how strongholds plays... dont actually hold up... when people are actually playing strongholds.  There is no point to bring up the theoretical example since no teams of reasonable skill do this. Some of you like Devaneaux have reading comprehension issues so take note of that.  OHHHH !!!! Good argument  :wutface: But this is what it would come down to if Strongholds were to play proper and actually focus on the zones. You win the game by controlling zones which give a team points constantly forcing both teams to push. Teams are not actually forced to do anything in slayer.  They can sit back on their asses and wait for weapons/PUs which you can't afford to do in strongholds.  Thereby changing the entire dynamic of the game.  Its possible (and happens regularly) to win a strongholds match while getting outslayed, just like all objective games.  If it were really just a dumbed down slayer, it would be impossible for this to be true.

 

 

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. I agree with a lot of this actually.  King could be an interesting gametype.  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. Pushing and pulling exists in strongholds too... It feels like 100% of your experience with the gametype has been purely as a thought experiment, not actually playing the game. Not dilute themselves as they single-handedly run to separate strongholds or solo/duel cap it. What team above Gold has every teammate running off in different directions to try to cap separate strongholds? Thats dumb unless you get 4 down.  even then its an interesting decisions you have to make with respawns being only 8 seconds.  The other team is 4 down, do we take 2 at once (if you need 2), methodically take one, push for a trip cap, defend what we have? 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. You cannot say this since you have not played King a bunch on all the maps with the hills rotating through the same spots. This is not a fact, its a theoretical thought experiment opinion masquerading as fact... again.

 

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.   You saying this does not make it true.  Why are we saying that camping 2 people per objective is the right way to play.  is "Objectives X 2" the "theoretical" rule about how many players are right for an objective game that we just follow blindly without actually playing the game?

 

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. Right back at you. Sincerely, not dickishly.

 

 

 

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.

 

Sincerely Sorry, not a blow to the quality of your maps. I honestly did not intend that as i have no experience with your maps. As heated as this is getting I only want to attack the arguments and hostility,  not any of your creations especially since i don't have any experience with them and consider that kind of stuff more "personal" than "philosophical" and i dont want to stoop that low!    Any neg rep handed out has been for hostility and your insistence on sticking to theoretical arguments when we have tons of actual experience that demonstrate how you are wrong. See bunnies posts, he is more articulate at explaining those details than me.

 

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.

 

I would like to see teams win rates of strongholds vs slayers per map.  If what you are saying is true, those win and loss rates should be the same.  Anybody got this data?

 

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.

 

Yes this is definitely the most subjective.  I find slayer to be an absolute snooze.  If it were ripped from the gametypes entirely i would not be opposed at all.  the 2 tense minutes at the end of 1/4 of slayer games just doesn't make up for the other 95%.

 

 

 

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).

 

I think we have all agreed that the speed thats been artificially crammed into the game has been a detriment, but that speed is not random and its only as unpredictable as your opponent is creative. Complexity =/= randomness.  Randomness is the spread of the AR.  Randomness is what has been happening to spawns since they updated the maps (ghost said they didn't touch spawns, but most pros have been vocal that something weird and random has been happening to them since the map updates).  Having lots of options that a player can take advantage of might make it more complex and harder to track, but it does not make it random.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yes man you are always the victim, only insulting people when provoked.. lol why do you get defensive so often here?

 

So I essentially agreed saying that those changes you proposed under "the best solution" didn't sound good but yeah somehow it's off basis.

No. You're off basis because you're implying that I actually wanted to move forward with the individualized strongholds experience. At least that's how I interpreted your post.

Share this post


Link to post

Strongholds being inferior to King and Oddball is backed by the fact that 3 plots has existed in Halo as a gametype for over a decade, but only became relevant as a competitive game type once King, Assault and Oddball got removed (thanks again 343). Yeah the scoring was different in 3 plots and it was just a Territories variant, but the point stands.

Fucking T H I S

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

No I like the concept of a triple cap. I just don't like the way it causes most spawn traps to break and causes that team to spawn elsewhere. Triple cap should be difficult on the merit of difficulty, not randomness.

 

Have 1 player stand in each stronghold on The Rig and have a 4th stand on the catwalk. Now tell me where the other team will spawn.

 

"But why would you have players actually stand in the strongholds no one does that."

 

 

Yes I'm aware. So have them move out of the stronghold, then the other team will spawn in that area and you have a spawn trap again. Wow so crazy.

 

 

Hey let's misinterpret my post even more. That situation you're describing was one way to address spawning AND the problem of focusing on the zones themselves. And I agreed it sounded awful which is why I said no matter what you do strongholds will always fundamentally not excel. I make these remarks because people come in and say something so completely off basis (like you just did) and then follow up with some other snarky comment (like you just did)

This is just wrong though.

 

Triple capping doesnt cause spawn traps to break. The "break" you see is the result of NOT blocking spawn between capping the third zone and the enemy team respawing.

 

And here comes your circular reasoning. You claim strongholds is bad because the spawns are random (they aren't), but then when teams intentionally influence spawns, maxing out their predicatability you say that's bad too.

 

The scenario you speak of, is wrong and confusing. You can influence a teams spaws without standing in strongholds and without risk of them spawning at a stronghold you vacate. You just have to position yourself properly, just like when influencing spawns in ctf or slayer, or any other gametype.

 

As i mentioned i posted a video of a team doing EXACTLY that on Plaza.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually play the game and I do it pretty competently. Literally 0 players are complaining about SH.

 

But maybe you are right I should go to some of those University to teach me why I shouldn't enjoy a gametype.

 

...And you're still not contributing anything at all to this discussion. Fascinating. Do you think you're making a coherent argument that actually addresses anything being said?

Share this post


Link to post

If slayer plays great, then strong holds plays great. It's the law of transitivity. If (A = B) && (B = C) => (A = C)

Strongholds is just slayer with hand-held map movement.

 

Now let me propose my thesis statement:

Slayer sucks ass in Halo 5 because of Sprint and Spartan Abilities and Radar, so using the law above, it all sucks.

 

bring on the red dev

 

Slayer has sucked ass since CE tbh. It's one of the most forced comp gametypes out there and for no good reason other than "just because."

 

A redesign of a slayer-esque gametype would be a much better effort spent on behalf superfluous-ego lad MultiLockOn than whatever the hell he's going on about currently.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Fucking T H I S

Yeah but people never actually gave a chance to those game types. The only time you played them were with radar and AR starts and vanilla settings.

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.