Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

So I guess you like the grenade hit markers too? Aggression should never be a result of free information.

You spawn with grenades. If this weapon was an on-map pick up, it wouldn't be "free" in the same sense that grenade hitmarkers are.

Share this post


Link to post

@@xboxdigger 94

 

The "spotlight that sees through walls" feature could be placed on a stationary turret or it could be mapped to one weapon's scope button (activate the spotlight instead of a scope). Which do you think it would work better on?

 

Oh and I really like your idea about it making camo visible. That alone would be huge.

I don't think I'd like it on a scope of a weapon. It could potentially be it's own weapon though, kind of like the flash light in Alan wake. 

 

I think having it on a stationary turret is the safest and best option though. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

You are so right. That disproves all of my points. You win. Where can I send the money to?

I can DM you my PayPal if it's cool?

 

Everyone is forgetting the threads @@CyReN has saved and posted multiple times whenever someone says that TB has no valuable feedback. When I'm on desktop I can find it for you.

Share this post


Link to post

In a world where aggression is rewarded over hiding?

 

This is the same argument that people use for grenade hitmarkers and radar in competitive matches. You can be aggressive and still succumb to the faults of Pro Vision, Grenade Hitmarkers, etc. As TryHard just said, people knowing your location without actually doing anything is not how you reward aggression.

 

Now, with that being said, yeah I was just joking with my comment lol. But as Hard Way just mentioned, if it were like one map/mode and it was theme-based.. Maybe it would be fun. Maybe.

 

I think the only gametype where people knowing your location is slightly fun is in a game like VIP/Juggernaut, but only on multi-team style games where you're battling constant enemies of different factions.

 

Edit: And Oddball. But once again, that kind of ties into the objective of the game. Being able to just see through walls for the sake of seeing through walls is dumb.

Share this post


Link to post

You spawn with grenades. If this weapon was an on-map pick up, it wouldn't be "free" in the same sense that grenade hitmarkers are.

It is still a weapon that diminishes the overall skill of predicting your enemy's location and general map awareness. We may agree to disagree here, but I believe that such a skill should never be compromised, even if it's only a power weapon that can do this.

Share this post


Link to post

Actually I take that back. Put a game mode like that in action sack. Where it's round based and your team has a designated watch person (at random) and they control the "spotlight" or whatever and your team has like a minute to find the other team or something; there can be a hundred different variations of this where your team has snipers and a watch person or something, idk.. Just thinking off the top of my head but you get the gist. 

 

For Action Sack, sure, go all out. Leave that out of actual competitive game modes (competitive meaning social/arena, not HCS).

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Tell that yoyo kid to join my raid map.. If he gets through, we give him the secret krabby patty formula

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I had this idea for a better version of VIP back in H3, mainly for BTB. Let me know what you guys think.

 

-1 VIP per team

-Killing the other VIP ends the round and awards 5 points

-5 rounds with a 4 minute time limit. Most points after 5 rounds wins.

-There are 3 waypoints in various positions across the midline, with only one active at a time.

-If a VIP reaches a waypoint, that team gets 1 point and the waypoint switches to the next one.

-5 points will end the round.

-The VIP's get 2x shields and damage boost, but have a nav on them and may not enter vehicles.

-VIP's can be voted on prior to each round, and you may vote for yourself. Random tiebreaker.

 

 

This version of VIP rewards map control, incentivizes aggressive use of VIPs, and punishes turtling.

 

Do you guys think this could work well in MM? What about the scoring? Is there a better way to do it? Should killing a VIP be worth more points than is attainable through waypoints? Should you be able to cap 4 points, kill the VIP and get 9 points in a round?

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

So I guess you like the grenade hit markers too? Aggression should never be achieved by free information.

In this hypothetical it would be a power weapon I assume so user nothing wrong with that.

Share this post


Link to post

I had this idea for a better version of VIP back in H3, mainly for BTB. Let me know what you guys think.

 

-1 VIP per team

-Killing the other VIP ends the round and awards 5 points

-5 rounds with a 4 minute time limit. Most points after 5 rounds wins.

-There are 3 waypoints in various positions across the midline, with only one active at a time.

-If a VIP reaches a waypoint, that team gets 1 point and the waypoint switches to the next one.

-5 points will end the round.

-The VIP's get 2x shields and damage boost, but have a nav on them and may not enter vehicles.

-VIP's can be voted on prior to each round, and you may vote for yourself. Random tiebreaker.

 

 

This version of VIP rewards map control, incentivizes aggressive use of VIPs, and punishes turtling.

 

Do you guys think this could work well in MM? What about the scoring? Is there a better way to do it? Should killing a VIP be worth more points than is attainable through waypoints? Should you be able to cap 4 points, kill the VIP and get 9 points in a round?

Not the worst thing I've ever heard.

 

My issue is that the maps would either have to be pretty big or designed for the gamemode.

 

Would it be on something like Sandtrap or on a custom made map?

Share this post


Link to post

So we were talking about the veto system a while ago and how it is infinately better than voting in all situations, because it ensures map variety which at first I agreed with, and still do to some extent.

 

But playing Reach firefight recently showed me that there is infact a third, potentially better option here.

 

So 3 option voting system returns. All three options display the same map with different game mode options. None of the above acts as a "veto map" option while you can still vote for the gametype you want (potentially disabled in ranked as to pull any map and gamemode so no one can vote tactically).

 

This is a best of both situation. Every map will see play just like the veto system, but players are still allowed control over the game mode. If a map plays any mode in a subpar way, players can vote not to play it.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I still say using the CSGO system is the best solution.  Let people queue for the map and gametype combinations they want to play.  That way you're not stepping on the toes of people who didn't want to play what you wanted to play, nor are you stuck in maps or modes that you yourself despise.

 

I'm not saying it's a flawless solution (there is no flawless solution here).  Some maps will take longer to queue for than others due to popularity diffrences, and some will see no play at all (probably because they're shit like Snowbound so basically a non-issue anyways).  I still prefer it to the alternatives though.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Not the worst thing I've ever heard.

 

My issue is that the maps would either have to be pretty big or designed for the gamemode.

 

Would it be on something like Sandtrap or on a custom made map?

The only time I ever got a chance to play it, it was on Avalanche and it was pretty fun.

Share this post


Link to post

Boys, I'm at a 3 week Army NCO school and my entertainment options are limited. Gonna need you fellas to step it up. Lol

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

What do you guys think about different types of terrain having different properties?

 

For example, grenades don’t bounce in Snow.  Explosives produce a large dust cloud in Sand.  Vehicles don’t handle well in Mud.  Spartans make more noise moving on Gravel.  Shields gradually drain while moving through Acid puddles.

 

How else could the ground you walk on affect gameplay?

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

What do you guys think about different types of terrain having different properties?

 

For example, grenades don’t bounce in Snow. Explosives produce a large dust cloud in Sand. Vehicles don’t handle well in Mud. Spartans make more noise moving on Gravel. Shields gradually drain while moving through Acid puddles.

 

How else could the ground you walk on affect gameplay?

Ugh

 

I hate that kind of stuff. It falls in line with LOOK AT THIS COOL BLINDING SUN IT'S SO COOl

 

Did nades bounce normally on snowbound and avalanche?

Share this post


Link to post

Ugh

 

I hate that kind of stuff. It falls in line with LOOK AT THIS COOL BLINDING SUN IT'S SO COOl

 

Did nades bounce normally on snowbound and avalanche?

No. This sort of thing has been around since CE. I think it's fine if the map is purposely designed around it. It I don't like huge sections of snow/grass that make the whole map perform differently. Certain places with it like chikepoints near powerups or something where it's obviously purposely placed is fine though. Part of he reason a lot of people hat Battle Creek is that nades don't bounce right because it's almost the whole map.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Did nades bounce normally on snowbound and avalanche?

 

No. Grenade physics were more realistic in H2, H3 and Reach; Grass, sand and snow made frags slow down or altogether stop when they made contact. 4 and 5 made Frags bouncy regardless of terrain.

Share this post


Link to post

Holding a map's middle ground is usually better than being pushed back into your base. What if there was a gametype that rewarded players for retreating back to their base and giving up mid control?

 

Similar to Neutral Flag, there is an objective located in the middle of the map that you capture by bringing it back to your base. Instead of scoring points though, players are rewarded with upgraded base traits for capturing the objective. Any players within a certain radius of the capture point when a capture occurs receive a "perk". One cap gives a faster reload, two caps gives increased explosive damage resistance, three caps gives "insert beneficial trait here".

 

Capping the objective is most beneficial when all teammates collapse back to the base to gain the reward together. Unlike Neutral Flag, where one teammate can run the flag home while everyone else stays in position, this gametype would require all teammates to return to their base with the objective carrier if they want to receive their perk.

 

The trade off is giving up mid control in exchange for stronger base traits. Maybe the enemy team takes mid back and turns the game around after your team abondons it. It is a slayer gametype so scoring is strictly kill based. The game could end without anyone ever touching the objective. Does this idea have any merit?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Holding a map's middle ground is usually better than being pushed back into your base. What if there was a gametype that rewarded players for retreating back to their base and giving up mid control?

 

Similar to Neutral Flag, there is an objective located in the middle of the map that you capture by bringing it back to your base. Instead of scoring points though, players are rewarded with upgraded base traits for capturing the objective. Any players within a certain radius of the capture point when a capture occurs receive a "perk". One cap gives a faster reload, two caps gives increased explosive damage resistance, three caps gives "insert beneficial trait here".

 

Capping the objective is most beneficial when all teammates collapse back to the base to gain the reward together. Unlike Neutral Flag, where one teammate can run the flag home while everyone else stays in position, this gametype would require all teammates to return to their base with the objective carrier if they want to receive their perk.

 

The trade off is giving up mid control in exchange for stronger base traits. Maybe the enemy team takes mid back and turns the game around after your team abondons it. It is a slayer gametype so scoring is strictly kill based. The game could end without anyone ever touching the objective. Does this idea have any merit?

If the perk is known ahead of time and it isn't ridiculous I think it'd be okay. I doubt you'd ever pull everyone back on purpose for the perk though. I imagine a 4-way sharing of the perk only happening by happenstance after a 4 down when you were about to punch it in (I'm imagining it being played on Sanctuary).

Share this post


Link to post

Quake 4 had this mode called Arena CTF, where there were "runes" in your base that you could pick up and assume a certain role for your team until you died and it respawned. There was Guard where you have much higher health and it regenerates but you move slower, Doubler where you deal double damage but have lower health, Scout where you have faster speed with lower health, and I forget the name of the last one but you basically had infinite ammo. I feel like something like this would make for a really fun action sack gametype.

 

Guard and Scout could remain unchanged, but Doubler should increase RoF instead of damage and the ammo one should give you a bottomless clip (this would depend on the power weapons though...may need to disable weapon pickup).

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Holding a map's middle ground is usually better than being pushed back into your base. What if there was a gametype that rewarded players for retreating back to their base and giving up mid control?

 

Similar to Neutral Flag, there is an objective located in the middle of the map that you capture by bringing it back to your base. Instead of scoring points though, players are rewarded with upgraded base traits for capturing the objective. Any players within a certain radius of the capture point when a capture occurs receive a "perk". One cap gives a faster reload, two caps gives increased explosive damage resistance, three caps gives "insert beneficial trait here".

 

Capping the objective is most beneficial when all teammates collapse back to the base to gain the reward together. Unlike Neutral Flag, where one teammate can run the flag home while everyone else stays in position, this gametype would require all teammates to return to their base with the objective carrier if they want to receive their perk.

 

The trade off is giving up mid control in exchange for stronger base traits. Maybe the enemy team takes mid back and turns the game around after your team abondons it. It is a slayer gametype so scoring is strictly kill based. The game could end without anyone ever touching the objective. Does this idea have any merit?

Typically giving the winning team advantages tends to just extend the lead unless you make them so bad they aren't game changing. Once you do that they'll just disregard trying to get the advantage and the game will mostly play out as if it doesn't exist. In this example I imagine you'd just wait to cap until all of the people on your team respawned who had died getting you there or cap as soon as you can if you know you're going to die. Nobody would be willing to give up map control unless the traits were insane. Balancing to the point that its a real decision would be extremely difficult because players tend to figure out the "right" way to play and the traits would have to be right on the cusp of being broken but not so broken that taking back map control was more likely than not. It would probably never work out the way it was intended to especially if it was a slayer gametype and scoring the objective didn't reward points.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Create an account or sign in to comment

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

Create an account

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

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×

Important Information

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