Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

They can be objectively shown not to result in the gameplay you want. The desireability of the gameplay you want (no sprint, faster ttk, more emphasis on the individual) is a subjective opinion that others might not share.

 

When it comes to competitiveness, there are some objective conclusions that can be drawn. Metrics for competitiveness can be defined. For example, define "competitiveness" as the degree to which individual playing ability (and/or teamwork) determine the outcome of a match. Then the evaluation metric is simple: Game settings where the same players (and/or teams) regularly win regardless of game conditions are objectively more competitive than games where the outcome is more uncertain. PoD in Halo 4 leads to more uncertain outcomes than without PoD, so we could objectively conclude that the PoD feature makes the game less competitive. Whether a game is offensively or defensively oriented or whether it is biased toward team or individual performance makes no statement on the competitiveness of the game, although all of us certainly have our preferences.

 

To take this a step further, I personally share your desire for no sprint. I can (like you and others) show that including sprint objectively affects certain aspects of the game. We might be able to show that it makes the game more defense-oriented (but perhaps not, as sprinting has many offensive uses as well - such as positioning). But neither you nor I can show that it objectively makes the game "less competitive". To do that, we would have to demonstrate that including sprint means the top players win less frequently than without it (and with no other changes to the game or settings). I am unaware of any such data. This is further complicated by the fact that the top players in a sprint-enabled game may be different than the top players in a no-sprint game because the inclusion of sprint may alter the ideal skillset required for top performance. Simply because Player A is ranked #1 in a no-sprint game and is ranked #143 in a sprint game does not necessarily mean that the sprint game is less competitive. If Player B is ranked #1 in a sprint game with a higher winning percentage than Player A in the no-sprint game, then we have one piece of evidence indicating the opposite. An objective conclusion about sprint's effect on competitiveness would require a statistical study, preferably with sprint as the only variable.

 

The data we have at our disposal only allows us to draw one objective conclusion: gameplay changes when sprint is included, and we can define how it changes. That is an objective fact. Everything beyond that is subjective.

 

_____________________

 

P.S. In chess (which originated c. 280 - 550 AD), the queen was originally restricted to be able to move only one square diagonally and bishops were able to move three squares diagonally (not more, not less). This restriction in movement led to chess games taking days to complete due to the careful planning required to capture pieces or mate an opponent. Sometime in the middle of the 15th century, a variant of the game appeared in which queens could move any number of spaces in any direction, while bishops could move any number of spaces diagonally. This variant was derogatorily termed "madwoman's chess" or "mad queen's chess". Games that used to take days of planning could now be completed in hours.

 

Did this change reduce the "competitiveness" of the game? I'm sure some - if not most - argued as much. After all, it removed a whole layer of planning and careful execution that had been previously required. On the other hand, it introduced a whole new set of tactics associated with having an extremely powerful piece. Gradually, the "mad queen's chess" became "queen's chess" and finally "chess", as its popularity vastly overtook that of the old version.

 

Did the rule change fundamentally change the way the game was played? Absolutely - and far more fundamentally than sprint in FPSs. But did it make the game objectively less competitive? Given that higher ranked players almost never lose to lower-ranked players with an ELO rating difference of 300 or more (win rate of ~95%), one might say that chess is objectively highly competitive. It is difficult to imagine the old version being more so.

That was probably one of the most interesting reads on this forum. I had no idea that chess was changed tht dramatically. You learn something new every day!

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Wait people STILL trying to defend sprint and think of reason why Halo 5 won't be a total disaster with it?

 

I thought y'all would of realized any chance of Halo 5 being a good competitive shooter no wait a good game with longevity period is out the window. It's ok to give up and move on guys. You can still be a Halo fan without continuously believing and eating 343 shit. It's over guys.

 

Witcher and FF15 coming soon :)

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Wait people STILL trying to defend sprint and think of reason why Halo 5 won't be a total disaster with it?

 

I thought y'all would of realized any chance of Halo 5 being a good competitive shooter no wait a good game with longevity period is out the window. It's ok to give up and move on guys. You can still be a Halo fan without continuously believing and eating 343 shit. It's over guys.

 

Witcher and FF15 coming soon :)

 

Witcher 3 is going to be EPIC!

Share this post


Link to post

And its apparent that 343 aren't being listened to either. What's not to understand about this:

 

 

 

 

 

 That's what I'm afraid of, that's why I'm posting. The best way to convince someone to change their stance on something is to acknowledge their point of view, because if you don't listen to them, why would they listen to you?

 

No I did not say that. I said I am tired of the ignorant sprint hate, and by that I meant that we never acknowledge the actual changes to the skill gap sprint causes, and that the overall impression our community gives is "New shit sucks, CE for life"

 

And it is no secret that we have written essays upon essays of completely accurate, reasonable and legitimate feedback to 343 and that a lot of it has been ignored, but that doesn't mean that giving up will make things better.

Maybe if you want to be constructive you can link to some of these posts that relate to make them more accessible to 343, instead of complaining about it? I don't know, I guess I just like to stay constructive rather than be bitter about things that have been and gone.

 

P.S. I'm on your side guys :prayers: 

 

 

 

 

I guess after seeing essay #100 about why sprint is objectively bad for Halo's gameplay, I just want to see someone from 343 stand up and tell me why it's good for gameplay.

  • Upvote (+1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

I guess after seeing essay #100 about why sprint is objectively bad for Halo's gameplay, I just want to see someone from 343 stand up and tell me why it's good for gameplay.

 

#Immersion  #Just343Things

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Sprint, contrary to popular belief on this forum, is not an issue of balance or skill. It ruins Halo because it's different, not because sprinting means good teams lose to bad teams.

 

Before another strawman gets built, no I am not 'defending' sprint, just pointing out missassumptions.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Sprint, contrary to popular belief on this forum, is not an issue of balance or skill. It ruins Halo because it's different, not because sprinting means good teams lose to bad teams.

 

Before another strawman gets built, no I am not 'defending' sprint, just pointing out missassumptions.

 

giphy.gif

 

On what planet do you live where you think the issue with sprint is because it's different and not because of balance? Going from the Pistol in H1 to the BR in H2 was different, but it was balanced with the sandbox so after the initial "where's the pistol bro" moments wore off ppl enjoyed the game...because the gun was balanced. Going from Halo 2 and 3's rank systems to the Arena rank system in Reach was terrible in a lot of players opinion, not because it was different but because of how it worked (before updates changed it from individual performance to W/L being the only thing that mattered), it wasn't balanced properly in terms of how it functioned at first (performance >>> winning).

 

Again, who is against sprint because it's different and not because of balance? Have you read any of the threads on here regarding the mechanic? There are also threads and discussions on reddit and waypoint. No one hates sprint because it's different, we hate it because of how it affects the game of Halo.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Ah the ole "I don't have a response so I'll just post gif"

 

I was typing my response, with the gif as an appropriate placeholder reaction towards a post that is completely far off from ppl's opinion on sprint. Good try tho...next time wait a while before you get all in ya feelings n shit

Share this post


Link to post

I was typing my response, with the gif as an appropriate placeholder towards a post that is completely far off from ppl's opinion on sprint. Good try tho...next time wait a while before you get all in ya feelings n shit

sure you were 

Share this post


Link to post

sure you were 

 

So I typed all of what is under the gif in less than a minute after seeing your dumb ass post? cool...

 

:lol:

 

you're as dumb as drunk mcnulty

Share this post


Link to post

Again, who is against sprint because it's different and not because of balance? Have you read any of the threads on here regarding the mechanic? 

 

 Uh everyone. Waypointers like to use the argument that we "dislike change". Well in the case of sprint, we sure do. Sprint makes gameplay slow, maps stretched and encounters prolonged (among other things).But none of that is unbalanced, it's just different from the old-school style of Halo we've come to expect. It's like Rolf said; there's nothing about the chess minigame in Reach that was un-competitive... but if that was made the new Slayer, then yeah we'd "hate it because it's different", and rightfully so. 

you're as dumb as drunk mcnulty

TyL3OJC.gif

 

You do realize  you don't have to reserve your spot to post on Beyond right? Go ahead and just type out your whole response before clicking submit, otherwise I'm gonna respond to what you posted because my psychic abilities aren't on point today so I wont be able to predict you adding to your post in the future. 

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post
P.S. In chess (which originated c. 280 - 550 AD), the queen was originally restricted to be able to move only one square diagonally and bishops were able to move three squaresdiagonally (not more, not less). This restriction in movement led to chess games taking days to complete due to the careful planning required to capture pieces or mate an opponent. Sometime in the middle of the 15th century, a variant of the game appeared in which queens could move any number of spaces in any direction, while bishops could move any number of spaces diagonally. This variant was derogatorily termed "madwoman's chess" or "mad queen's chess". Games that used to take days of planning could now be completed in hours. 

 

Did this change reduce the "competitiveness" of the game? I'm sure some - if not most - argued as much. After all, it removed a whole layer of planning and careful execution that had been previously required. On the other hand, it introduced a whole new set of tactics associated with having an extremely powerful piece. Gradually, the "mad queen's chess" became "queen's chess" and finally "chess", as its popularity vastly overtook that of the old version.

 

Did the rule change fundamentally change the way the game was played? Absolutely - and far more fundamentally than sprint in FPSs. But did it make the game objectively less competitive? Given that higher ranked players almost never lose to lower-ranked players with an ELO rating difference of 300 or more (win rate of ~95%), one might say that chess is objectively highly competitive. It is difficult to imagine the old version being more so.

 

 

Except if 343 made Chess, they would allow the Queen to jetpack straight onto the enemy's King if you were about to lose the game. Pawns would be able to drop bubble-shields and bishops would spontaneously set on fire. Queens would drop on any random spot on the board at any time. If you took out 3 pieces in a row, you would be able to call in an orbital Rook strike that would deliver acne ordinance upon your foes.

 

Also Novices would be playing Grand Masters, but the Novices would flip the table before the end of each game and quit and go play other, more casual-friendly games like Checkers. 343 would never punish board-flippers either. 

 

Checkers would then become ultra popular and 343 would make their chess boards red and black instead of black and white. Then they'd release a version of chess where you must jump over pieces to take them. Then chess lovers would stop buying 343's checkers/chess hybrid and they'd feel pressured to release an old-school chess throwback board. Except the throwback chess would have it's squares colored in the wrong pattern and some pieces would be missing or chipped/shitty.

 

AKA, chess would die.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

On what planet do you live where you think the issue with sprint is because it's different and not because of balance? Going from the Pistol in H1 to the BR in H2 was different, but it was balanced with the sandbox so after the initial "where's the pistol bro" moments wore off ppl enjoyed the game...because the gun was balanced. Going from Halo 2 and 3's rank systems to the Arena rank system in Reach was terrible in a lot of players opinion, not because it was different but because of how it worked (before updates changed it from individual performance to W/L being the only thing that mattered), it wasn't balanced properly in terms of how it functioned at first (performance >>> winning).

 

Again, who is against sprint because it's different and not because of balance? Have you read any of the threads on here regarding the mechanic? There are also threads and discussions on reddit and waypoint. No one hates sprint because it's different, we hate it because of how it affects the game of Halo.

During the H1 era, Halo barely had a multiplayer identity. Therefore, the fanbase couldn't care less how different the BR was to the H1 pistol, and you'd be reaching to say that the BR would change Halo as fundamentally as Sprint. As for Reach's Arena, firstly that's not a gameplay mechanic, and secondly a lot of players did hate it because it was different.

 

I'm actually against sprint purely because it's different. Hating sprinting because it's different is not mutually exclusive with hating it because of how it affects the game (in fact it's pretty much the same).

 

What's your definition of balance? I need to know in order to make a counter-argument to your latter paragraph.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

Breakout with default player traits, objective, non-recharging health (but no health packs) can be the future of competitive Halo, imo. Reintroducing the health system should eliminate the need for lower shields and/or increased damage.

Share this post


Link to post

So the argument went from should sprint be in the game, which everyone here says no, to how bad the sprint mechanic actually is or is not.

Share this post


Link to post

So the argument went from should sprint be in the game, which everyone here says no, to how bad the sprint mechanic actually is or is not.

 

Because it's in the game and they are not taking it out.

Share this post


Link to post

Ah . . . many more replies to respond to.  :)  This will take some time to summarize without needing to write a novel that no one will read.

 

In the meantime, I will address just one item:  The implication that I am an apologist for 343i.  This is odd, as I have (not once!) defended 343i's continued inclusion of sprint, nor have I rationalized their decision.  Not once.  Yet - because I have chosen not to agree with the hardest possible line to take against sprint, some take that as meaning I secretly harbor an impure, dirty love of sprint.  Insert choice of overblown political metaphor here.

 

I know I did not post on here much until recently, so most of you have no knowledge about what I normally post.  I will provide a sample.  I . am . not . a . 343i . apologist.  On the other hand, I am not a hypercritic, either.  The reason is that apologists just piss off the critics, and the hypercritics just piss off the apologists.  Being neither allows me to piss off everyone . . . which is far more entertaining.

  • Upvote (+1) 4
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I hate sprint for making the game radically different and less competitive. Am I being an extremist now?

Share this post


Link to post

Because it's in the game and they are not taking it out.

That's not what I was saying. People are no longer pissed at people because of sprint. Everyone thinks sprint should not be in the game. People are now pissed because people don't agree with the level of terrible that sprint is according to them. It's no longer about if sprint is bad or not, its about the level of bad.

Share this post


Link to post

All this talk about sprint and with the way it was designed, it wouldn't be a problem in Halo 5 if it wasn't for thruster. Obviously it effects gameplay on a larger scale when it comes to map design and size, but escapability would absolutely NOT be a problem on Halo 5 if there was no thrust. You literally cannot sprint when getting shot. We all knew there was going to be sprint in the game, let's be realistic here. But 343 balanced it BRILLIANTLY. The only thing that it truly ruins are the maps, which is still a big deal obviously. I'm against sprint in Halo, but thruster frustrated me WAYYYYYY more in the beta.

 

With that said, thruster was incredibly fun to use in the beta during battles for me. Sure, shooting while thrustig would be nice, but the delay was so minimal I was still able to come from behind in gunfights and win due to thrusting. It's just everyone thrusting behind cover that made it a bitch.

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

Hey look, new screenshot. Looks like Locke has an eject button on the back of his helmet.

Halo-5-Campaign-Locke.png

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

People saying anyone here is hating sprint just because it's different, need to shut up and go back to Waypoint or /r/halo.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 5

Share this post


Link to post

Looks like Locke has an eject button on the back of his helmet.

 

How can I possibly believe you without red circles?

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.