Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

[Zdann]

I need to ask

 

What exactly do people want out of a weapon on spawn? A utility weapon that's viable at every range or a weapon that's good from close to medium range but limited at long range or something else entirely? I'm getting mixed messages here. A utility weapon is useful at all ranges, having the weapon not being viable at longer ranges doesn't make it a utility weapon.

[TTUVAPOR]

The idea is you can defend yourself with the pistol dealing damage over all ranges, it's just harder with the reduced RRR and it doesn't provide the sustained pressure of the BR/DMR/LR.

hmm...

if its not ar/br start, i just think itll be a race to get rifles abd the team with rifles doms till opposite team get luck spawns near rifles.

[OG Nick]

So... Master Chief is on the right... does that mean he is right in the whole #HuntTheTruth thing?

I think it means Locke left the rules behind

[Vetoed]

hmm...

if its not ar/br start, i just think itll be a race to get rifles abd the team with rifles doms till opposite team get luck spawns near rifles.

Yes, a race to controlling weapons, that's what an arena shooter is right?

 

It's supposed to be harder to defend yourself if you opt to ignore weapon spawns on the map. It's far from impossible, but it's harder.

 

We're not talking H2 SMGs hard either...

 

EDIT: I want to further clarify that a reliance on random spawns is not how it should work. You can very well challenge a BR with a pistol, but buffing to 4sk would be a nicer balance.

[TTUVAPOR]

Yes, a race to controlling weapons, that's what an arena shooter is right?

 

It's supposed to be harder to defend yourself if you opt to ignore weapon spawns on the map. It's far from impossible, but it's harder.

 

We're not talking H2 SMGs hard either...

 

EDIT: I want to further clarify that a reliance on random spawns is not how it should work. You can very well challenge a BR with a pistol, but buffing to 4sk would be a nicer balance.

in quake, the starting machine gun, can hit across map, it's a weak gun but it defends you off each spawn from all distance

[ICBMHeadshot]

@@Sal1ent - How much faster is the new base movement speed? I guess you could give percentages or a ballpark range.

 

Same question for the new strafe - how much faster is the strafe would you say?

 

These are the two biggest/best changes to H5 imo and I would love to hear more about them!

I think it would be nice to get a video showing the changes that can be shown in that form. Comparing the beta to the post beta changes.

[TiberiusAudley]

I think most people in this thread don't realize how few "long" range sight lines there are in Arena maps. Health->Hut on Shrine is an example. You're asking for a weapon that can reliably hit shots at that range with aim assist off spawn.

 

I want a weapon that can shoot flag>carbine with aim assist, bit discourage engaging farther (while BR/DMR pick up the slack and those longer ranges, when available.)

[Maximus IL]

I think it means Locke left the rules behind

 

Maybe MC is a Republican.

[KurtiZ]

Lets take a brief look at the history of the BR:

• Halo 2 came out and it was BR or SMG starts, a no brainer.
• Halo 3 came out and we had BRs or ARs, and coupled with the fact that the BR was pretty limited at range again it was a no brainer.
• Reach's was a single shot rifle or ARs. With Bloom the DMR was limited at range, and without bloom it was the most skill requiring rifle we have ever had.
• Halo 4 had the most options we have had, but the decision was made to forgo the DMR due to the ease of use at range, and to use the BR over the more skill requiring Carbine or Lightrifle due to aesthetics/nostalgia - much to many intellectual-competitive player's disappointment.
• Halo 2A had the BR or AR, and once again it was a no brainer due to the AR being useless at range.

So looking at that, we see the BR being awesome choices in games that have no other option. We see single rifles being the epitome of competitive starting weaponry (Reach ZB DMR & CE Magnum). And we see that you need a weapon that is accurate and extends further than close range for competitive to work, otherwise we would have been using default settings all along.

 

With this information, we can look at Halo 5 and base our choice off of a few simple questions:

Q: Is the BR the only option? A: No

Q: Is there a capable single shot weapon to use? A: Yes

Q: Is there an option that is capable at medium range but not overpowered at long range? A:Yes

Q: Are we mature enough to select something objectively instead of nostalgically? A: ?

[Sitri]

Q: Are we mature enough to select something objectively instead of nostalgically? A: ?

We'll see in October, but I'm expecting BR starts to be the norm once again.

[Computer]

The Halo 5 pistol was the most fun and rewarding weapon to get kills with. 

[TeeJaY]

I want the ability to crossmap off spawn because I want to kill players in bad positions. The issue with H2A is that the BR kills too slow and is too easy too use just making the game campy because of this. I'd only be for pistol starts if 343 made it feel less shitty. The smart scope, the sound, the recoil all of it made the weapon feel unsatisfying to use and I hated it.

 

I'm not even sure what bad positions mean in your case. All I can think of is you want to clean up a kill from across the map without having to move around much. More positions around the map become more/less vulnerable depending on the effective range of your starting weapon (and the map design, of course).

 

Think of H2C Ascension. I'm on Big Tower while the enemy team is at Small Tower (no sniper). I'm at a fairly safe position because the H2C BR cannot possibly cross-map me. I can confidently move up to Shotgun or Banshee and think of ways to flank my opponent. Now let's talk about that same scenario in H2A, where the BR has the range of a damn sniper. I wouldn't even be able to leave Big Tower because I'm having cross-map BR battles with the guys at Small Tower. There's no incentive to move anywhere else on the map. The issue with H2A is the BR's range, and the fact that strafing is extremely ineffective.

[shadowblind]

I made a mockup of the Halo 5: Guardians boxart

 

 

I . . . I don't know about this. This ends a decade-and-a-half tradition of Halo's boxart tradition featuring only a slowly rotating Chief. 

 

Tradition aside, DAT FORERUNNER BOSS IN THE BACKGROUND. PLEASE don't make that (or any boss fights) a QTE.

[mierder]

Yes, a race to controlling weapons, that's what an arena shooter is right?

 

It's supposed to be harder to defend yourself if you opt to ignore weapon spawns on the map. It's far from impossible, but it's harder.

 

We're not talking H2 SMGs hard either...

 

 

 

A race to control Power Weapons a Powerups of course, but a race to control rifles? Fuck that, i want to play, not be looking for a better rifle all the time.

 

In Halo CE the pistol worked great because we started with it and it was the only "Rifle" weapon available on maps, it was hard to master and effective at all ranges.

 

This is my one of problem with Halo 5, if there will be 4 "rifles" available on maps all the time then whats the point of having Equal starts if most of the times Player Vs Player encounters will be Different Weapon vs Different Weapon.

 

Yes i want variety in the sandbox, but not with rifles. If they saturate maps with different rifles that will be really annoying, but far less than having only AR starts.

[Rolf]

Halo 1 had a Marine on its cover.

[MultiLockOn]

Maybe MC is a Republican.

"I need a weapon"

 

- The Master Chief

 

 

Master Chief confirmed conservative, supporter of gun laws, and avid Ronald Reagan fan.

[MrGreenWithAGun]

A race to control Power Weapons a Powerups of course, but a race to control rifles? Fuck that, i want to play, not be looking for a better rifle all the time.

 

In Halo CE the pistol worked great because we started with it and it was the only "Rifle" weapon available on maps, it was hard to master and effective at all ranges.

 

This is my one of problem with Halo 5, if there will be 4 "rifles" available on maps all the time then whats the point of having Equal starts if most of the times Player Vs Player encounters will be Different Weapon vs Different Weapon.

 

Yes i want variety in the sandbox, but not with rifles. If they saturate maps with different rifles that will be really annoying, but far less than having only AR starts.

I wouldn't argue your point unless the start weapon is so effective that an organized team simply doesn't care about rockets and snipes. Then it is clearly too powerful for start. And I have seen this on reach with DMR starts more than once.

[Redddshift]

I wouldn't argue your point unless the start weapon is so effective that an organized team simply doesn't care about rockets and snipes. Then it is clearly too powerful for start. And I have seen this on reach with DMR starts more than once.

That was not a very good team of players lol. Unless they made a challenge to beat you guys without power weapons...

[Vetoed]

A race to control Power Weapons a Powerups of course, but a race to control rifles? Fuck that, i want to play, not be looking for a better rifle all the time.

This is a problem with your idea of what you consider a "power item". 343 has made it clear that the sandbox uses a 3-tiered weapon system, and that Tier 2 weapons (BR, DMR, LR, SMG, and a few others) are designed to be map pick-ups.

 

You're asking for the game to cater to your preconceived idea of power items and upgrades in firepower based on Halo's history, rather than how the actual game was designed. This is a mistake and will cause significant balance issues.

 

 

In Halo CE the pistol worked great because we started with it and it was the only "Rifle" weapon available on maps, it was hard to master and effective at all ranges.

In Halo 5, the BR is not hard to master compared to the pistol, which is a problem when you hand it for free to people. It weakens the skill gap across the board for no reason at all, and demotivates people from pushing because just about anyone will 4 or 5 shot despite the distance. Once again, no reason for competitive players to ask for a change which would weaken the skill gap across the board.

[Nj Pro]

I'm curious- with sprint disabled, how would a player "slide" ? 

[TeeJaY]

Didn't someone say that The Sprint series will continue? When will that be?

[Moa]

Didn't someone say that The Sprint series will continue? When will that be?

They are recording new episodes, or at least they were a few weeks ago. Probably just before or after Octobter.

[Spartan0S36]

Maybe MC is a Republican.

 

Got a problem with that? If you truly loved MOTHER EARTH you'll die defending this GOD BLESS-ED ROCK.

[OG Nick]

Maybe MC is a Republican.

Chief can't be republican...Otherwise he'd be associated with George W. Bush

[Maximus IL]

@Sal1ent

 

This is probably way too late in the game, but I thought I'd throw it out there anyway.  I originally made several posts about this on Waypoint during the first year of H4 . . . but Waypoint is a black hole.

 

Both H4 and the MCC do something with the matchmaking process that - not only is suboptimal in my opinion - is provably suboptimal via numerical simulation  Both titles reserve players in partial lobbies during the matchmaking process.  This removes these players from the pool, and results in suboptimal matching and longer wait times.  I would hope that H5 would refrain from this.

 

Consider a simple example with a 2v2 list and some reasonable assumptions about how the skill criteria change with queue time:

 

Let's say that there are 8 players not in a game with ranks 4, 2, 40, 44, 30, 29, 13, and 10.  These are the only players available to the pool.  The matchmaking system forms the following partial lobbies that meet the matching criteria (skill, location, time-in-queue, etc.):

 

4, 2  <--newest group by time-in-queue

13, 10

30, 29

44, 40  <--oldest group by time-in-queue

 

While waiting in the partial lobby, a game ends.  That game had ranks of 27, 21, 19, and 15.  During this time, the (44, 40) lobby reached a time limit that expanded the lower end of the skill search to rank 20.  This results in:

 

4, 2 <--  still waiting

13, 10, 15 <-- still waiting

30, 29, 19  <-- still waiting

44, 40, 27, 21 <-- matched, in game

 

Another game ends, with ranks 1, 18, 4, 1.  The (30, 29, 19) reached a time limit that expanded the search to rank 18.  Then:

 

1 <-- waiting in pool

13, 10, 15 <-- still waiting

4, 2, 1, 4 <-- matched, in game

30, 29, 19, 18 <-- matched, in game

44, 40, 27, 21 <-- matched, in game

 

Note that the matches are not all that great, except for the low end.

 

 

________________________

If instead of forming partial lobbies, the system only formed complete lobbies and reserved no players until a complete lobby could be formed, you would have had:

 

4, 2, 40, 44, 30, 29, 13, 10 <--  waiting in pool; insufficient queue time for a complete match for any players

 

Prior to game #1 ending, the 40, 44 would have had sufficient queue time to drop the lower skill limit to near 20 (since, per the above example, it was at 20 when game #1 ended).  Then:

 

4, 2, 13, 10 <--  waiting in pool; insufficient queue time for a complete match for any players

40, 44, 30, 29 <-- matched, in-game

 

Game #1 ends with ranks of 27, 21, 19, and 15:

 

4, 2, 13, 10, 27, 21, 19, 15 <--  waiting in pool; insufficient queue time for a complete match for any players

40, 44, 30, 29 <-- matched, in-game

 

Game #2 ends with ranks 1, 18, 4, 1.  Using the same expansion of skill search criteria as the first example, you would have:

 

4, 27, 21, 19 <--  waiting in pool; insufficient queue time for a complete match for any players

1, 4, 1, 2 <-- matched, in-game

13, 10, 15, 18 <-- matched, in-game

40, 44, 30, 29 <-- matched, in-game

 

Note the difference in match quality:

 

H4/MCC:

 

4, 2, 1, 4 <-- skill range of 3

30, 29, 19, 18 <-- skill range of 12

44, 40, 27, 21 <-- skill range of 23

 

Full Lobbies Only

 

1, 4, 1, 2 <-- skill range of 3

13, 10, 15, 18 <-- skill range of 8

40, 44, 30, 29 <-- skill range of 15

 

Note also that the high-skill lobby actually formed faster using only full lobbies, the others formed at identical times, and two demonstrated a significant decrease in skill spread.  Also note that with the full lobby method, you end up with the newest players in queue still waiting, rather than the partial lobby method, where three of the oldest players (13, 10, 15) were still waiting, as newer players were chosen ahead of them.

 

Just so you don't assume this is simply a crappy toy example where I chose numbers to deliberately prove my point, the improvement in both quality of matches and time-in-pool can be simulated (I know because I've done simulators for queue matching in the past for a manufacturing problem at my work).  If I get some time, I might even do up a simulator in R for this kind of matching that can be expanded to whatever complexity of playlist organization / match criteria we want to test.

 

For queue matching where matching criteria become looser with age, reserving players in partial lobbies will nearly always result in overall greater search times and poorer matches.  With very few exceptions, the optimal method to reduce both overall queue time and increase match strength is:

 

1.  Form the best possible match using the oldest player in the pool as the anchor.

2.  Determine if that match meets the criteria for an acceptable match.

3.  If yes, make the match.

4.  If not, wait until the match criteria are met (either by more players entering the queue or by reducing the match stringency with time).

5.  Make the match.

6.  Move to the next oldest player in the pool and repeat.

 

Forming partial queues (and failing to use the oldest player in the pool as the anchor) requires a larger pool of players for strong matches in a short time.

 

Anyway, food for thought.