Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

Wakes up this morning.  
Checks H5HCS thread.  
See giant red URGENT sign about net neutrality.  
Thinks to self, why is this not in the politics thread.
Makes sarcastic post about the sign being out of place and obnoxious.  
Gets neg repped.

H5HCS thread turns into general politics discussion thread for next 5 pages and counting.  

Comes back to happy place of complaining about H5. 

  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

 I realize I'm a tad bit late to the party but I just read through the Multi vs Boyo stuff AKA Debate of the Century. 


Really not sure why Boyo was so hostile to what I considered to be sound and thorough advice and ironically enough it was coming from someone who has actually built something utilizing the core of Boyo's idea.

Your mistake Boyo is A. your idea for how it would work is just bad ( which is fine that's probably why you asked for advice) but more importantly..

B. Your method of implementing this idea via a "gametype" is where your idea blows up. tying environmental interaction to a specific gamemode that can be played across an entire map selection would be next to impossible because all of those elements, if competently designed around, are critical to the map functioning properly to begin with. Your idea has to be specifically designed around, therefore it's existence within a specific gametype would simply not work because the maps it would be played on would not be built to support it.

However Boyo, that doesn't mean the core of your idea is necessarily bad. At a basic level your idea is " control a power source, to enable certain dynamic elements" This idea is perfectly suited and can be fulfilled via specific map design, not an overarching gametype. Because this has to be specifically built around, you need the map to support it and be balanced around it. In this theoretical map you have a lot of flexibility to achieve your goal. You create the power source ( you suggested a charging station, I would suggest something else), you devise a method of delivering that power so that players can control it and use it, you create certain interactions that that power enables, and you design your map in a way that makes these interactions interesting from a gameplay perspective.

The reason so many people have asked you to check out Multi's map Arcanum is because it is an excellent Example of this. In Multi's map the power source is a marked and easily identifiable pick up called "the key" It is distributed in the same manner any other weapon pick up would be and gives its power to the player who controls it, This power enables you to open certain doorways to strategically maneuver the map, and the map is designed in a way that creates interesting gameplay from this concept. 

Humble yourself a bit, keep an open mind, and think of your idea in this light and I think you can improve it greatly.

 

  • Upvote (+1) 10
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I realize I'm a tad bit late to the party but I just read through the Multi vs Boyo stuff AKA Debate of the Century.

 

 

Really not sure why Boyo was so hostile to what I considered to be sound and thorough advice and ironically enough it was coming from someone who has actually built something utilizing the core of Boyo's idea.

 

Your mistake Boyo is A. your idea for how it would work is just bad ( which is fine that's probably why you asked for advice) but more importantly..

 

B. Your method of implementing this idea via a "gametype" is where your idea blows up. tying environmental interaction to a specific gamemode that can be played across an entire map selection would be next to impossible because all of those elements, if competently designed around, are critical to the map functioning properly to begin with. Your idea has to be specifically designed around, therefore it's existence within a specific gametype would simply not work because the maps it would be played on would not be built to support it.

 

However Boyo, that doesn't mean the core of your idea is necessarily bad. At a basic level your idea is " control a power source, to enable certain dynamic elements" This idea is perfectly suited and can be fulfilled via specific map design, not an overarching gametype. Because this has to be specifically built around, you need the map to support it and be balanced around it. In this theoretical map you have a lot of flexibility to achieve your goal. You create the power source ( you suggested a charging station, I would suggest something else), you devise a method of delivering that power so that players can control it and use it, you create certain interactions that that power enables, and you design your map in a way that makes these interactions interesting from a gameplay perspective.

 

The reason so many people have asked you to check out Multi's map Arcanum is because it is an excellent Example of this. In Multi's map the power source is a marked and easily identifiable pick up called "the key" It is distributed in the same manner any other weapon pick up would be and gives its power to the player who controls it, This power enables you to open certain doorways to strategically maneuver the map, and the map is designed in a way that creates interesting gameplay from this concept.

 

Humble yourself a bit, keep an open mind, and think of your idea in this light and I think you can improve it greatly.

 

 

Negged. Already rebuttled that argument ***. Anyone else?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I'm not so sure that CA had much say in the direction of those games. The worst you can credit them for is that everything they've made has copious auto aim.

Either they did and they totally blow or they didn't and they're completely unproven.

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Favyn

 

B. Your method of implementing this idea via a "gametype" is where your idea blows up. tying environmental interaction to a specific gamemode that can be played across an entire map selection would be next to impossible because all of those elements, if competently designed around, are critical to the map functioning properly to begin with. Your idea has to be specifically designed around, therefore it's existence within a specific gametype would simply not work because the maps it would be played on would not be built to support it.

 

At a basic level your idea is " control a power source, to enable certain dynamic elements" This idea is perfectly suited and can be fulfilled via specific map design, not an overarching gametype. Because this has to be specifically built around, you need the map to support it and be balanced around it. In this theoretical map you have a lot of flexibility to achieve your goal.

 

Halo 4's Dominion game type gave players the ability to spawn shield doors and auto turrets but outside of that specific game type, these assets were invisible. Even in Dominion, these assets did not appear until a player activated them. The map could still play other game types and these invisible assets would just remain invisible with no way to make them appear.

 

You're right and I agree that the best maps would be designed around the placement of Interactive Map Elements but I also think classic maps could be retrofitted with these elements without completely redesigning them.

 

Sanctuary for example, could have:

 

-a teleporter from the back of Snipe Hut to Car Hole (the little hiding spot behind carbine ramp)

 

-a shield door under Car Bridge (like the Snowbound doors)

 

-an auto turret Ring 3 (facing down over the courtyard)

 

As I said earlier, none of these invisible assets need to appear for the map to function. The Charging Station is basically just a hill zone, another invisible asset. So while you are correct that a map would ideally be designed around the placement of Interactive Map Elements, it is not strictly required.

 

While you are correct that Conduit isn't a game type so much as a game mode, meaning all other game types like flag, bomb, ball could be played within the confines of the Conduit game mode. I just thought that explaining it as a game type was the easiest way for people to understand the basics of it.

 

You create the power source ( you suggested a charging station, I would suggest something else), you devise a method of delivering that power so that players can control it and use it, you create certain interactions that that power enables, and you design your map in a way that makes these interactions interesting from a gameplay perspective.

The reason I chose a Charging Station and not something like a "key" is two fold. By making the player himself the key, he still retains all his movement and attack capabilities. He doesn't have to pick up a key and carry it in his hands; he IS the key (plus he could get a cool armor effect like Reach's Inclement Weather to signify he is charged).

 

The reason for the time penalty in the Charging Station is to offset the fact that the player's movement is not slowed and his attack capabilities are not reduced, like they are while carrying a flag or ball. The time penalty could easily be removed without fundamentally changing the game type but I thought the the reward of getting to activate an IME is offset by the risk of your team playing one man down for a short period.

 

And as I said earlier, I am aware that the specific choice of Interactive Map Elements and their placement on Sanctuary isn't ideal, and a good Conduit map would have a synergy between its physical geometry and the placement of its IMEs but my point was to show you the flexibility of this game mode. Because all the assets necessary to play it are invisible, even maps not specifically designed for it could still play it.

 

Thank for your taking the time to read and respond to me. I appreciate your input and would be open to hearing any possible improvements you think it may need.

  • Upvote (+1) 2
  • Downvote (-1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

@@Favyn

 

Halo 4's Dominion game type gave players the ability to spawn shield doors and auto turrets but outside of that specific game type, these assets were invisible. Even in Dominion, these assets did not appear until a player activated them. The map could still play other game types and these invisible assets would just remain invisible with no way to make them appear.

 

You're right and I agree that the best maps would be designed around the placement of Interactive Map Elements but I also think classic maps could be retrofitted with these elements without completely redesigning them.

 

Sanctuary for example, could have:

 

-a teleporter from the back of Snipe Hut to Car Hole (the little hiding spot behind carbine ramp)

 

-a shield door under Car Bridge (like the Snowbound doors)

 

-an auto turret Ring 3 (facing down over the courtyard)

 

As I said earlier, none of these invisible assets need to appear for the map to function. The Charging Station is basically just a hill zone, another invisible asset. So while you are correct that a map would ideally be designed around the placement of Interactive Map Elements, it is not strictly required.

 

While you are correct that Conduit isn't a game type so much as a game mode, meaning all other game types like flag, bomb, ball could be played within the confines of the Conduit game mode. I just thought that explaining it as a game type was the easiest way for people to understand the basics of it.

 

The reason I chose a Charging Station and not something like a "key" is two fold. By making the player himself the key, he still retains all his movement and attack capabilities. He doesn't have to pick up a key and carry it in his hands; he IS the key (plus he could get a cool armor effect like Reach's Inclement Weather to signify he is charged).

 

The reason for the time penalty in the Charging Station is to offset the fact that the player's movement is not slowed and his attack capabilities are not reduced, like they are while carrying a flag or ball. The time penalty could easily be removed without fundamentally changing the game type but I thought the the reward of getting to activate an IME is offset by the risk of your team playing one man down for a short period.

 

And as I said earlier, I am aware that the specific choice of Interactive Map Elements and their placement on Sanctuary isn't ideal, and a good Conduit map would have a synergy between its physical geometry and the placement of its IMEs but my point was to show you the flexibility of this game mode. Because all the assets necessary to play it are invisible, even maps not specifically designed for it could still play it.

 

Thank for your taking the time to read and respond to me. I appreciate your input and would be open to hearing any possible improvements you think it may need.

 

Well lets look at it from the standpoint of what a gametype is. A gametype is really just an objective. In CTF the objective is to capture a flag. In assault it is to detonate a bomb in the enemy base.

 

So consider what the "objective" is of Conduit. It's still killing people, the exact same objective as slayer. Which imo negates the necessity of conduit being its own mode. 

 

You bring up an interesting example of Dominion, but those maps were in a way already constructed for this mode and they didn't necessarilly impact "map design" more so they just reinforced the existing bases present on the map. 

 

Keep in mind that the key present on Arcanum does not take up a weapon slot. It instead acts as a power up similar to how you described you wanted it to function. You maintain all offensive and movement capabilities. I still highly encourage you to check out the map as I think it will greatly benefit you as you explore your idea further. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Did I just read a post that said

 

Add shield doors to sanctuary

 

Oh sweet baby jesus

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Did I just read a post that said

Add shield doors to sanctuary

Oh sweet baby jesus

It was just an example off the top of my head. It could be a laser tripwire that tags enemies who move through with a waypoint. It could be an ooze puddle that slows movement speed for players moving through it. It could be curtain that obstructs vision but doesn't prevent bullets or players from moving through.

 

What type of Interactive Map Element would you find interesting and where would you put it?

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

It was just an example off the top of my head. It could be a laser tripwire that tags enemies who move through with a waypoint. It could be an ooze puddle that slows movement speed for players moving through it. It could be curtain that obstructs vision but doesn't prevent bullets or players from moving through.

 

What type of Interactive Map Element would you find interesting and where would you put it?

None nowhere.
  • Upvote (+1) 6

Share this post


Link to post

It was just an example off the top of my head. It could be a laser tripwire that tags enemies who move through with a waypoint. It could be an ooze puddle that slows movement speed for players moving through it. It could be curtain that obstructs vision but doesn't prevent bullets or players from moving through.

 

What type of Interactive Map Element would you find interesting and where would you put it?

Quinn, is that you?

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

None nowhere.

Has there every been an interactive part of a map that you liked. Zanzi bridge? Relic teleporter? Turf beams? Midship platform? High ground gate? Elongation conveyor belts? Waterworks stalagtites? Gemini automatic doors? Containment ramps? Ivory Tower elevator? Sand trap auto turrets? High Ground tunnels? Longshore extendable bridge? Anything, anything at all?

Share this post


Link to post

Has there every been an interactive part of a map that you liked. Zanzi bridge? Relic teleporter? Turf beams? Midship platform? High ground gate? Elongation conveyor belts? Waterworks stalagtites? Gemini automatic doors? Containment ramps? Ivory Tower elevator? Sand trap auto turrets? High Ground tunnels? Longshore extendable bridge? Anything, anything at all?

Nope.
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Nope.

I think the Relic teleporter was good for gameplay because:

 

-it gave teams a secondary objective to fight over

-it increased decision making (should I attack/guard the switch?)

-it allowed the map to evolve over the course of the match by unlocking a new path via a risk/reward system. This in turn caused the gameplay strategies to evolve as well.

 

Why do you think the Relic teleporter was bad for gameplay?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think the Relic teleporter was good for gameplay because:

 

-it gave teams a secondary objective to fight over

-it increased decision making (should I attack/guard the switch?)

-it allowed the map to evolve over the course of the match by unlocking a new path via a risk/reward system. This in turn caused the gameplay strategies to evolve as well.

 

Why do you think the Relic teleporter was bad for gameplay?

I prefer static maps. I'd rather every route be open at all times

Share this post


Link to post

Whatever you guys think, I got called Professor and proceeded to continue to ruin bad ideas. Thanks @@Boyo

Share this post


Link to post

I was randomly banned here for like an hour for God knows what reason but it seems like it fixed itself. Weird.

 

Well I wasn't banned so you weren't.

Share this post


Link to post

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

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