Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

That's honestly really hard to agree with in general. There's way more to it than just controlling the entire map as best you can which is just what you'd call the end game objective in any mode in Halo. When to drop and give up map control to capture points and when not to etc is way more nuanced than simply calling it map control and often very different than what you would've done in a slayer.

 

It opens a lot of decisions revolving around slaying or objective that, imo, allows the better team/players more opportunities to extend their advantage or come back compared to slayer.

Oh gosh I really don't want to respark the great strongholds debate.

 

Here's my short thoughts about strongholds.

 

1: As Kell put it, it's fucking ******** on symmetrical maps. Yet here we are with Empire and Overgrowth (symmetrical enough in function). Theres no point of that.

 

2: If the map is asymmetrical the most primitive fundamental breakdown of any strongholds match is going to be "control a majority of the map". This happens in slayer all the same, only controlling the map isn't a prerequisite in slayer like it is in strongholds. It's just ideal, which mean it still comes down to the actual act of outgunning the other team. It also means that you can be in a spot of the map that is not ideal and still outplay the other team and see a direct reward because of it. That makes slayer matches a little more flexible, open to interpretation, open for creative strategies. How creative can you be between 3 stronghold points? Mathematically, not very.

 

3: I don't think it's a good use of the 4v4 player count. For the record I think 4s is stupid and 2s should be the premiere count for Halo but if you're going to force 4s then make use of it. Some of the most interesting matches I've ever seen in Halo are in singular objective matches like Oddball and Hill, because you've got the entirety of one team defending and the entirety of the other team attacking. It's a very cohesive experience that I think stresses teamwork in the way 4s "excels" at. It's the same reason flag standoffs are so awkward. You've got one guy from each team just sitting there in the base with the flag waiting for the reco, maybe one guy guarding him, and then the remaining two struggling to kill the other flag carrier because he's buried deep in the base. Everything becomes really spread thin. I've always thought neutral assault is better for this reason, the entire game is focused on that one point. 4 people attacking, 4 people disarming.

 

Obviously the Destiny community isn't the smartest but after the reveal the other day one of the top comments on r/Destinythegame was "Does Bungie realize how stupid Control will play with 4v4 instead of 6v6?" And I firmly believe that too. I think Halo players defend strongholds because it's all they know and it's the first fundamentally simple and fair gametype introduced in a long time.

 

4: Even if I didn't have an issue with anything I've mentioned thus far it's still the most generic rehashed gametype in the history of the video game industry.

 

There's nothing strongholds accomplishes that Slayer or Hill wouldn't do better. It would take a phenomenal purpose built map to make it any sort of interesting but we're not getting that from 343 so I'd rather it be dropped and pros play Hill instead.

Share this post


Link to post

1. REQs are now permanent unlocks tied to the progression system on top of the random drops.

 

2. REQ cards are assigned a point value. You can now build a deck of REQs with a limited point value cap. Ex: 20 point deck point limit. A sniper rifle card is worth say 5 points. More powerful cards cost more points. ( I'm thinking of maybe allowing you a weapon, vehicle and powerup deck with each having a respective point total, but having a single deck is fine to.)

 

3. Cards now have limited numbered uses on a game to game basis (ex: sniper has a maximum of 3 uses) before being permanently disabled for the rest of the respective match, but is completely replenished for the next match/round. 

 

4. More powerful cards would have fewer uses (ex: Nornfang can only be used once, while a suppressor can be used 5 times etc.)

 

 

This is the best proposed system thus far. They should have copied Yu-Gi-Oh instead of Titanfall's broken burn card system. Rare cards should give an advantage, but even with the basics someone could build a deck and have a chance instead of what we have now.

 

REQ power should just increase linerarly throughout the match instead of going to the winning team and leading to further snowballing. Static weapons on map and giving the bosses a health bar for each team instead of "the last shot takes it all" bullshit would also improve WZ tenfold.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This is the best proposed system thus far. They should have copied Yu-Gi-Oh instead of Titanfall's broken burn card system. Rare cards should give an advantage, but even with the basics someone could build a deck and have a chance instead of what we have now.

 

REQ power should just increase linerarly throughout the match instead of going to the winning team and leading to further snowballing. Static weapons on map and giving the bosses a health bar for each team instead of "the last shot takes it all" bullshit would also improve WZ tenfold.

Even Titanfalls card system would be better lmao you could only bring 3 cards with you into the game and that was it. Sounds like an improvement on warzone to me. Quite literally anything would be an improvement.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

All these ideas about Warzone are great, but why not just get rid of it all together and do BTB proper. They can still do their microtransaction packs with cosmetics, and the packs could even have wonky guns and vehicles but that shit should be for firefight only. Bring back really good Big Team Battle and I'd be a happy camper.  Well at least a happier camper.   

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Oh gosh I really don't want to respark the great strongholds debate.

 

Here's my short thoughts about strongholds.

 

1: As Kell put it, it's fucking ******** on symmetrical maps. Yet here we are with Empire and Overgrowth (symmetrical enough in function). Theres no point of that.

 

2: If the map is asymmetrical the most primitive fundamental breakdown of any strongholds match is going to be "control a majority of the map". This happens in slayer all the same, only controlling the map isn't a prerequisite in slayer like it is in strongholds. It's just ideal, which mean it still comes down to the actual act of outgunning the other team. It also means that you can be in a spot of the map that is not ideal and still outplay the other team and see a direct reward because of it. That makes slayer matches a little more flexible, open to interpretation, open for creative strategies. How creative can you be between 3 stronghold points? Mathematically, not very.

 

3: I don't think it's a good use of the 4v4 player count. For the record I think 4s is stupid and 2s should be the premiere count for Halo but if you're going to force 4s then make use of it. Some of the most interesting matches I've ever seen in Halo are in singular objective matches like Oddball and Hill, because you've got the entirety of one team defending and the entirety of the other team attacking. It's a very cohesive experience that I think stresses teamwork in the way 4s "excels" at. It's the same reason flag standoffs are so awkward. You've got one guy from each team just sitting there in the base with the flag waiting for the reco, maybe one guy guarding him, and then the remaining two struggling to kill the other flag carrier because he's buried deep in the base. Everything becomes really spread thin. I've always thought neutral assault is better for this reason, the entire game is focused on that one point. 4 people attacking, 4 people disarming.

 

Obviously the Destiny community isn't the smartest but after the reveal the other day one of the top comments on r/Destinythegame was "Does Bungie realize how stupid Control will play with 4v4 instead of 6v6?" And I firmly believe that too. I think Halo players defend strongholds because it's all they know and it's the first fundamentally simple and fair gametype introduced in a long time.

 

4: Even if I didn't have an issue with anything I've mentioned thus far it's still the most generic rehashed gametype in the history of the video game industry.

 

There's nothing strongholds accomplishes that Slayer or Hill wouldn't do better. It would take a phenomenal purpose built map to make it any sort of interesting but we're not getting that from 343 so I'd rather it be dropped and pros play Hill instead.

You used two maps that are irreversibly terrible in any 4v4 game mode including slayer barring geometry changes as some sort of reasoning for strongholds being bad? You, at some point, have to outgun the other team in any game mode in Halo so having to have hands isn't specific to slayer. It being generic is totally irrelevant to its merit as a competitive game mode. Really I feel like your only point is that you think the action/plays are spread too thinly without actually giving a strongholds example. Honestly you seem to be ignoring the entire scenario where you either try to maintain map control or push for it, move to defend something with your team by pushing back, recognize a rotation that you'll be too slow to stop and instead choose to flip strongholds with the other team (like flipping basement and BR base on the rig) etc. Its like you think slayer has infinite depth and strongholds is brain dead and it just doesn't work that way. All of your options from slayer are present however there are other things to worry about besides simply not dying and shooting at others.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Even Titanfalls card system would be better lmao you could only bring 3 cards with you into the game and that was it. Sounds like an improvement on warzone to me. Quite literally anything would be an improvement.

 

Haha, I still have nightmares from people calling in Titans three seconds into the game and having constant map hacks. Why developers insist on showing RNG down our throats in multiplayer is beyond me.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

All these ideas about Warzone are great, but why not just get rid of it all together and do BTB proper. They can still do their microtransaction packs with cosmetics, and the packs could even have wonky guns and vehicles but that shit should be for firefight only. Bring back really good Big Team Battle and I'd be a happy camper. Well at least a happier camper.

A noble idea, but they aren't going to toss Warzone after it brought in a shit ton of whale money.

 

If they were smart, they would do BTB proper AND have Warzone.

 

I actually find Warzone Firefight to be more offensive than regular Warzone- because they took a gamemode that used to be about being resourceful and turned it into a game about calling in what you need, when you need it. Atleast Warzone is an addition to the MP suite- Warzone Firefight is a bastardization of a preexisting and much beloved gamemode.

  • Upvote (+1) 7

Share this post


Link to post

All these ideas about Warzone are great, but why not just get rid of it all together and do BTB proper. They can still do their microtransaction packs with cosmetics, and the packs could even have wonky guns and vehicles but that shit should be for firefight only. Bring back really good Big Team Battle and I'd be a happy camper.  Well at least a happier camper.   

 

I was thinking about economy systems in games and ended up on how Warzone is horrendously designed across the board, which is why I mentioned it, but yeah, the ideal solution would be to excise that abomination from the Halo franchise immediately.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

If it's symmetrical, its shit for strongholds.

 

The whole premise of Strongholds should be to bring gameplay to areas of maps that are otherwise less viable.

 

With a symmetrical map, two of those areas will be identical.

 

I didnt know overgrowth was symmetrical

 

I didn't realize the "not that bad" was our standard for AAA console sellers now.

 

But I get your point.

 

what a pointless response lol, but I get that you get my point.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I didnt know overgrowth was symmetrical

 

 

what a pointless response lol, but I get that you get my point.

The strongholds are symmetrical in function. The actual asymmetries of the map are basically irrelevant

Share this post


Link to post

Haha, I still have nightmares from people calling in Titans three seconds into the game and having constant map hacks. Why developers insist on showing RNG down our throats in multiplayer is beyond me.

At least they fixed it in the second one.

Share this post


Link to post

The strongholds are symmetrical in function. The actual asymmetries of the map are basically irrelevant

um.. im pretty sure he thought I was talking about torque.....

Share this post


Link to post

Warzone is the type of addition to Halo 343 should've done instead of sprint and loadouts and ordinance and "enhanced movement"

Share this post


Link to post

Warzone is the type of addition to Halo 343 should've done instead of sprint and loadouts and ordinance and "enhanced movement"

W H Y N O T B O T H ?
  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Warzone is the type of addition to Halo 343 should've done instead of sprint and loadouts and ordinance and "enhanced movement"

 

But Warzone is literally built around all of those things? I don't understand what you mean at all.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

But Warzone is literally built around all of those things? I don't understand what you mean at all.

 

I think he means the upped playercount, larger maps and adding the full sandbox + AI into one gamemode. It's definitely more innovative than anything else they have brough to the table.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

I think he means the upped playercount, larger maps and adding the full sandbox + AI into one gamemode. It's definitely more innovative than anything else they have brough to the table.

This. Warzone is what I've always wanted to play in a Halo game.

Tbh, i really enjoyed Warzone, and would love to see it carry forward into future titles, with some tweaks.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

This. Warzone is what I've always wanted to play in a Halo game.

Tbh, i really enjoyed Warzone, and would love to see it carry forward into future titles, with some tweaks.

 

I don't get the appeal, but I also like balanced games where I use my brain and skill to win, while the Halo community at large was hyped for massive, idiotic clusterfucks like Warzone Turbo and Super Fiesta. Warzone proper is basically BTB but worse in every way (aside from those H5 forge maps problems). People like running around mindlessly jamming on the right trigger with moronically overpowered bullshit weapons/vehicles and feeling like Real Spartans, so I can see why it would be popular.

  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get the appeal, but I also like balanced games where I use my brain and skill to win, while the Halo community at large was hyped for massive, idiotic clusterfucks like Warzone Turbo and Super Fiesta. Warzone proper is basically BTB but worse in every way (aside from those H5 forge maps problems). People like running around mindlessly jamming on the right trigger with moronically overpowered bullshit weapons/vehicles and feeling like Real Spartans, so I can see why it would be popular.

Right now the halo community is fucked.

If 343 the next day were to add triple wielding and warzone to the HCS bracket, you'll have people defending to the point they'll attack anyone that has a different viewpoint.

Share this post


Link to post

I don't get the appeal, but I also like balanced games where I use my brain and skill to win, while the Halo community at large was hyped for massive, idiotic clusterfucks like Warzone Turbo and Super Fiesta. Warzone proper is basically BTB but worse in every way (aside from those H5 forge maps problems). People like running around mindlessly jamming on the right trigger with moronically overpowered bullshit weapons/vehicles and feeling like Real Spartans, so I can see why it would be popular.

I share your preferences, but this is all subjective. If there is a market for mindless halo with OP weapons and vehicles - they should cater to it, just not at the expense of halo player who do want that stuff.

 

If Halo 4 built on the Halo3 foundation, but added Warzone as a new gamemode, I think the game would've been huge.

Share this post


Link to post

I share your preferences, but this is all subjective. If there is a market for mindless halo with OP weapons and vehicles - they should cater to it, just not at the expense of halo player who do want that stuff.

 

If Halo 4 built on the Halo3 foundation, but added Warzone as a new gamemode, I think the game would've been huge.

 

Oh, I'm well aware of the market. It's not like big budget games are mostly kiddy toy boxes filled to the brim with shallow, braindead "variety" by sheer coincidence. Your average gamer doesn't want to think or work at something. They would rather play a "shooter" with 20 characters, most of which don't even require basic aiming skill. They want to press a button and have something exciting happen while the Cheetos orange drool leaks from their mouth. They want maps designed to lead them by the hand straight to the next guaranteed endorphin rush. They want endless reward systems that make them feel a sense of accomplishment for doing nothing at all.

 

I would probably be more interested in accommodating that mentality if not for the fact that it's infesting basically everything at the point. Halo 5 is no exception.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Oh, I'm well aware of the market. It's not like big budget games are mostly kiddy toy boxes filled to the brim with shallow, braindead "variety" by sheer coincidence. Your average gamer doesn't want to think or work at something. They would rather play a "shooter" with 20 characters, most of which don't even require basic aiming skill. They want to press a button and have something exciting happen while the Cheetos orange drool leaks from their mouth. They want maps designed to lead them by the hand straight to the next guaranteed endorphin rush. They want endless reward systems that make them feel a sense of accomplishment for doing nothing at all.

 

I would probably be more interested in accommodating that mentality if not for the fact that it's infesting basically everything at the point. Halo 5 is no exception.

The thing is, halo's sandbox is such that it can be all things a once. One of the reasons I love the franchise is because I could go between playing sweat 4v4s one minute, to playing some dumbass forge custom game type the next.

 

I don't see any sense in holding contempt for players who don't want to "think and work" all the time. Games ARE primarily entertainment, afterall.

 

Hold contempt for the the devs/publishers/marketers who forget about the part of the market that want something deeper.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I don't see any sense in holding contempt for players who don't want to "think and work" all the time. Games ARE primarily entertainment, afterall.

 

Hold contempt for the the devs/publishers/marketers who forget about the part of the market that want something deeper.

 

I have more respect for videogames as medium than that. Why would I exclusively blame developers and publishers for catering to the majority of their market? What that audience wants is shallow, easy, transparently manipulative skinner boxes with super awesome, next gen 24fps graphics. They need constant change and perpetual randomness to appeal to their incredibly short attention spans. Why Halo's competitive community seems to be so interested in compromising with these people, I have no idea.

 

Again, I would be less disgusted if it wasn't infesting nearly everything at this point, including the "competitive" experiences. For fuck's sake, the latest Quake game is a HERO SHOOTER. It's ridiculous.

  • Upvote (+1) 3
  • Downvote (-1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

I have more respect for videogames as medium than that. Why would I exclusively blame developers and publishers for catering to the majority of their market? What that audience wants is shallow, easy, transparently manipulative skinner boxes with super awesome, next gen 24fps graphics. They need constant change and perpetual randomness to appeal to their incredibly short attention spans. Why Halo's competitive community seems to be so interested in compromising with these people, I have no idea.

 

Again, I would be less disgusted if it wasn't infesting nearly everything at this point, including the "competitive" experiences. For fuck's sake, the latest Quake game is a HERO SHOOTER. It's ridiculous.

 

Because we aren't complete cunts and realise that Halo was so universally popular because of its options. Halo 3 wasn't the most popular game because it was a super hyper competitive title, it was incredibly popular because you could play it so many different ways. Its why Forge exists in the fucking first place, to further add to that variety. Halo 3 is proof that a Halo title can be a solid competitive game, as well as a wacky casual game. if Halo 3 could have wacky gametypes, and a massive MLG scene, why can't Halo 6? its not because of Warzone, its because 343 are unable to find that balance.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

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.