Jump to content
CyReN

Halo 5: Guardians Discussion

Recommended Posts

 

 

_____________________

 

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.

 

To be fair, in the grand scheme of how competitive chess is, this is the equivalent of taking grenade jumping out of H1. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, in the grand scheme of how competitive chess is, this is the equivalent of taking grenade jumping out of H1. 

Say what?

Share this post


Link to post

Josh...Please.

 

I'm begging you.

 

 

 

 

Terrain editing & weather in forge..

 

 

 

Plz.

 

Do you see my tears.

  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

You can easily 5-0 a team in Breakout with the right teamwork and individual gunplay, and you can also come back from a 0-4 deficit.

 

 

 

I there are a few reasons behind this. One way 343 may justify this decision is the 'speeding up' of gameplay. Gunfights will end quicker and the pace of the match will behave differently than other gamemodes.

 

Due to the ignorant lack of objective (where is SnD?!), these quick kill times sort of are needed in order to incentivize map movement. A well placed grenade, or a good team push will put one team in a 4-3 situation. From there, they can attempt to collapse on the other team and close out the round (which can be thwarted if the other team has the right positioning).

 

I'm not going to lie, it is disappointing that the maps and mode (lack of objective) were designed in this way, but if we did have full shields I imagine the gametype would become much more defensive and filled with stalemates.

 

 

(Imagine Halo Search and Destroy, full shields, on the disc maps – Empire, Eden, Pegasus... it would be heavenly.

It doesn't suit the core mechanics of what makes Halo Halo. Rapid-fire instakill nades and CoD-fast SMG kills does not make a good Halo game.

What makes one-life gametypes work is a round-based asymmetrical game of attack and defend.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

@@Maximus IL

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.

 

It depends on how you would define the word "competitive." If we're talking about the skill gap, we can show that defensive options which forgive players for making mistakes (thruster, sprint, long kill times, etc...) objectively reduces the skill gap.

 

The logical design fallacies I was referring to had more to do with things like wanting to increase the teamwork in halo 5 by gimping individuals and forcing teamshooting as the only viable team strategy and not allowing the meta to evolve. Or wanting to increase the pace of the game by giving players sprint and prolonging gun fight encounters as a result.

 

These design choices are illogical given what they were meant to accomplish.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

I'll admit, Breakout does take less skill than other objective gametypes, but it still puts incredible emphasis on individual gunfights as well as team communication. If anyone on your team makes the wrong move it's game over.

 

Comparatively, Strongholds is extremely setup oriented. There is nothing wrong with this, but you have to take into account that we already have gamemodes that are extremely reliant on spawn trapping, setups, and map control (Oddball, Extraction, KoTH). When you add in the fact that there are technically 3 focal points (bad for spectators and commentating), it makes it look inferior to the other Asymmetrical gamemodes that I listed above.

 

Breakout offers a change of pace. It's different. I think of it like a new version of Slayer. We've always had a great mix of Slayer and Objective modes. Each game, we introduced and threw new/different objective modes into the rotation (Extraction, Ricochet, etc.) The reason I'm advocating Breakout so much is because we already have an incredible standard for Halo's objective modes. (CTF/Assault for Symmetrical, Oddball/KoTH/Extraction for asymmetrical). We've always criticized Slayer for being the slowest paced gametype that requires the least team knowledge and communication. Now we have something that is new, refreshing, great for commentators, great for spectators, and will most likely be enjoyed by casual players picking up the game for the first time.

 

Breakout is love. Breakout is life.

 

Man, your current opinion of Breakout remind me of 343. Adding things in for the sake of change. I appreciate your opinion, but Breakout as a competitive gamemode is garbage. It's fun casually, but compared to Stronghold's it's just not viable. 

 

I guess CE is bad because Slayer is slow paced and boring though, am I rite?

Share this post


Link to post

It doesn't suit the core mechanics of what makes Halo Halo. Rapid-fire instakill nades and CoD-fast SMG kills does not make a good Halo game.

What makes one-life gametypes work is a round-based asymmetrical game of attack and defend.

CoD takes 2-4 bullets to kill with an automatic... Breakout takes half a clip of an SMG...

Share this post


Link to post

CoD takes 2-4 bullets to kill with an automatic... Breakout takes half a clip of an SMG...

You can understand what he means though, surely?

 

Breakout's lethality and shield settings isn't what Halo is and it would be weird to jump from a TS Truth game to a Breakout Crossfire game. I've hardly kept up with this topic but I'm assuming this is the general issue with it.

Share this post


Link to post

@@Sal1ent and others: I really appreciate you guys are posting here and awnser questions so I have one too.

What is/are the reason/s for changing a lot of the designs from previous Halo games?

For example the Sniper or Rocketlauncher? Or why does H5 have a complete new sounddesign (lots of beeping, overall a lot more sounds)? The medals and announcer were completely redone already in Halo 4. 

Do you just think it is/was time for something new and if so - why? In my opinion the classic sounds and designs are nowhere outdated or bad looking. General tuning of course but why is there a complete change?
If there are other reasons it would be nice if you could give more insight on that. Like someone mentioned earlier, I have not seen a single person saying the new sniper looks good or even better than the old. More the opposite tbh.


Also I am still not really at the point where I understand the implementation of Smart Link. I saw the post from @@Shekkles and your awnsers to that 

 

 

1. Why add smart-link?

 

A number of reasons. We wanted to make weapon function more consistent across all weapons and create better viability for all base tier weapons (BR, AR, magnum, etc) so that there wasn't a single dominant weapon or one clear choice that made the others feel redundant. With the re-introduction of descope, we wanted to create a less jarring experience when kicked out of zoom and having the holo-projection connected to the weapon provided better awareness for players and offset some of that disorientation (we test this stuff constantly w/ Halo players from outside the studio in Microsoft's user research labs). It was also an aesthetic decision. We wanted to do a better job of visualizing the link between the Spartan's HUD and his weapons and take advantage of the power of the Xbox One to deliver a more polished look.

 

We're continuing to tweak the transitions in and out of zoom to make them feel more snappy. The sniper rifle in particular is one that didn't feel good in beta. It has since been adjusted and feels much better, less clumsy.

 

2. Visibility

 

We're constantly balancing spatial awareness of the scope w/ visibility. The DMR in beta was an example of a scope that was positioned poorly and has since been adjusted. In some cases we may use visibility as an input into weapon tuning. There is definitely an adjustment from past Halo games.

The bolded - here is something I have said/asked a few pages back:

 

What was the exact intension of Smart Link again? It links the weapon to the helmet/hud right? But wasnt it always like that? Ive always thought that was the reason for the zoom we had in Halo untill H5. And now I see the ironsights or the weapon itself (Pistol) while zooming. So to me it looks like the exact opposite now.

I somehow get the other points but I still believe we would not need "ADS" to achieve them.

Anyhow - thank you for awnsering (if you do :P)



PS: Sorry for any English mistakes :(
  • Upvote (+1) 3

Share this post


Link to post

Come on man, Breakout is nothing like SWAT.

 

But they are both very different. Removing/reducing shields drastically changes the pace and style of gamplay. It adds variety, but I would rather watch (and play) core Halo. 

Share this post


Link to post

It depends on how you would define the word "competitive." If we're talking about the skill gap, we can show that defensive options which forgive players for making mistakes (thruster, sprint, long kill times, etc...) objectively reduces the skill gap.

 

The logical design fallacies I was referring to had more to do with things like wanting to increase the teamwork in halo 5 by gimping individuals and forcing teamshooting as the only viable team strategy and not allowing the meta to evolve. Or wanting to increase the pace of the game by giving players sprint and prolonging gun fight encounters as a result.

 

These design choices are illogical given what they were meant to accomplish.

 

The fact that everything has to revolve around multiple people shooting the same person just baffles me. I know teamwork is important, but no one uses mics anymore. Unless you have a team of player to play with consistently, you aren't going to have fun. Casual players don't have full teams. They have 1-2 people max they play with whenever. So making the game so the casual players have fun, but then making them do things that aren't fun for them, like social interaction and coordination... I just don't get it. The more I hear and try to piece together, the less and less I really understand behind the mindset for the creation of this game.

 

I get that the whole sprint is a mobility option and they wanted to expand on mobility.... fine, whatever. I feel that's a bad decision, but I understand it.

I get that putting little holographic things on the sights of the gun are supposed to be on the Spartan Hud and it's "Lore".... again, I disagree with it, but I understand...

 

Adding sprint and ADS, also for the sake of making it easier for the casual player to transition from other games, but then make the game highly competitive and require that to do your best, you have to play with and communicate with other players? I don't understand that. The majority of the XBL population doesn't even use the mic that comes with their system from what I've experienced. Most players play alone and are out for themselves, so now they are being taken out of their comfort zone, even though you've added things to put them in their comfort zone, which in the end won't work out that well..... And all this at the expense of pissing off the hardcore population that has been around since day 1.... That I don't understand. Maybe I'm reaching/misunderstanding something, but it's just... confusing.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

You can understand what he means though, surely?

 

Breakout's lethality and shield settings isn't what Halo is and it would be weird to jump from a TS Truth game to a Breakout Crossfire game. I've hardly kept up with this topic but I'm assuming this is the general issue with it.

Yeah I won't argue that. I wish the gametype would work with normal shields, but Im afraid it most likely won't (and that is why 343 opted with low shields)

Share this post


Link to post

It depends on how you would define the word "competitive." If we're talking about the skill gap, we can show that defensive options which forgive players for making mistakes (thruster, sprint, long kill times, etc...) objectively reduces the skill gap.

 

The logical design fallacies I was referring to had more to do with things like wanting to increase the teamwork in halo 5 by gimping individuals and forcing teamshooting as the only viable team strategy and not allowing the meta to evolve. Or wanting to increase the pace of the game by giving players sprint and prolonging gun fight encounters as a result.

 

These design choices are illogical given what they were meant to accomplish.

Skill gap:  It's not as simple as that.  You can objectively show that in certain situations, those functions increase the defensive options available.  Increasing the defensive options available does not necessarily mean the skill gap has been decreased.

 

Skill gap is measured by the difference in performance between players of differing skills.  To determine if the skill gap has decreased, you need to look at the spread of player performance over time.  A game with zero skill gap has everyone (on average) performing the same, regardless of what they do . . . such flipping coins or dice.  As the skill gap increases, the difference in performance between players increases.  To say that thruster, etc., has reduced the skill gap you must show that including those features results in more players performing at the median.  In other words, you must show that there is less differentiation between the top players and bottom players.  My personal [unproven] opinion is that the inclusion of those abilities actually increases the differentiation between the top and bottom players, because there is a lot of creativity that can be applied to movement mechanics.

 

For teamwork, if you increase the individual ability of the players, you decrease their reliance on other players.  This will result in less teamwork for the vast majority of the player base.  The higher-level team meta of which you speak is understood and practiced by a small fraction of the player base.  So if Josh's goal is to increase the need for teamwork among the highest level players, then you have a valid point.  If Josh's goal is to increase the need for teamwork among the majority of the player base, then what he proposes is, indeed, a logical approach.

 

I agree with you on one aspect, though.  I prefer empowering the individual.  I think it is more fun.  That is a preference.

 

For increasing the pace of the game, sprint is not the only factor involved.  There are other reasons he has stated for including sprint.  He has decided that those reasons for the specific mechanic of sprint are more important than increasing the pace of the game.  To accomplish the goal of increasing the pace of the game, other mechanics were adjusted - like weapon RoF.  While increasing the pace of the game was one of his stated goals, it was not the only goal.  It is not a valid argument to take just one goal, ignore other stated goals, and maintain that every mechanic must be adjusted in a manner that helps achieve that single goal you selected.

 

I agree with you on one aspect here, as well.  I would prefer that sprint not be included.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Yeah I won't argue that. I wish the gametype would work with normal shields, but Im afraid it most likely won't (and that is why 343 opted with low shields)

 

Couldn't you eliminate shields, but increase Health that doesnt regenerate or regenerates very very slowly? Basically make it enough that a BR is a 5 shot. This way one grenade wont kill, neither will a single melee at full health. But a player can't just hide, get shields back, and turn it into long drawn out game of backing off and hiding.

Share this post


Link to post

Couldn't you eliminate shields, but increase Health that doesnt regenerate or regenerates very very slowly? Basically make it enough that a BR is a 5 shot. This way one grenade wont kill, neither will a single melee at full health. But a player can't just hide, get shields back, and turn it into long drawn out game of backing off and hiding.

Shields are still present in Breakout

Share this post


Link to post

Shields are still present in Breakout

 

I didn't say there weren't. I guess I'll just stop trying to constructively critique the gametype. I mean you're talking about the lethality of the gametype, but don't want to have default shield settings because of how it would affect the game. I'm offering a solution that would decrease the lethality without slowing the game down dramatically.

Share this post


Link to post

I'd consider Breakout if it had default traits and an objective (alternating sides with an objective near the spawn point, invisible to opponent unless carrier is killed, can't be returned, needs to be planted at 1 of 2 potential points on a neutral area of the map). Right now it's looking a lot like the mode @@Frankie had in mind when he said he wanted to make SWAT a default mode.

 

Strongholds is the definite objective mode to go. It promotes controlling areas, rotating around the map while keeping track of weapons, making coordinated pushes to various areas rather than holding neutral and spawn killing. I think of it as similar to how you hold down areas and make pushes on Lockout TS but isn't as slow paced as Lockout TS would be.

 

It's constant pushing rather than waiting for a weapon or for the time to run out as the clock is always ticking in favor of whoever is in control, and the more the losing team waits, the harder it makes it to come back. It would allow to use most asymmetric maps too, as long as the 3 control zones are placed at about the same distance from both teams' starting point and power weapons don't spawn at the start of the game. Overall it would be similar to Oddball, but without having one person less fighting and ball resets.

Strongholds practically fixed the only issue Territories had to begin with; players can actually make a comeback in Strongholds. This can make for some really exciting games to both watch and play.

 

 

Yeah I won't argue that. I wish the gametype would work with normal shields, but Im afraid it most likely won't (and that is why 343 opted with low shields)

I've experimented with it in the past, a one-life gametype won't work in Halo unless something is done to weapon damage, shield regeneration, or both. Being unable to evade losing battles so easily is what makes CS's Defuse, and CoD's Search work. You die in nearly in instant for both of those games, while Halo kills take considerably longer. Players can get away and be back at square 1 in just a couple of seconds. Objective aside, the way 343 has handled Breakout so far is likely the best it will ever be. But at the end of the day, you're still bastardizing Halo to try something new while creating jarring transitions between modes for normal players.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post
-snip-

I agree.  This is the one area where I think that 343's design choices do actually run counter to what they seem to want to achieve.

Share this post


Link to post

I've experimented with it in the past, a one-life gametype won't work in Halo unless something is done to weapon damage, shield regeneration, or both. Being unable to evade losing battles so easily is what makes CS's Defuse, and CoD's Search work. You die in nearly in instant for both of those games, while Halo kills take considerably longer. Players can get away and be back at square 1 in just a couple of seconds. Objective aside, the way 343 has handled Breakout so far is likely the best it will ever be. But at the end of the day, you're still bastardizing Halo to try something new while creating jarring transitions between modes for normal players.

This is probably the best way you can put it.

Share this post


Link to post

Personally, the issues I have with Breakout are these:

- Default traits aren't consistent with other modes (even within an official competitive set, Breakout would still be different than the rest to "work")

- Grenades can kill in one hit

- Stalemates that require to capitalize on opponents mistakes (make it as boring and frustrating as possible to make people push)
- Weak map pick-ups in comparison to your initial default loadout

 

The worst part is that I'm sure 343 had Halo CE in mind when making Breakout, and on paper, it was a lot like it. But all of a sudden, you have a shit ton more movement options, escape tools, both melees and grenades are a lot more dangerous than usual... but the reason Breakout is so unlike CE is because it doesn't have the constant stream of power items CE has, uses plain and open maps rather than complex angles / sightlines and just doesn't have respawns.

Not sure if the open maps are 343's attempt at balancing the added movement options, but overall it just makes people want to sit on the edge of the map. Unless some specific maps were made for it, settings adjusted and an objective added, I have trouble seeing competitive Breakout happening.

Share this post


Link to post

I guess CE is bad because Slayer is slow paced and boring though, am I rite?

What does this even mean?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

To be fair, in the grand scheme of how competitive chess is, this is the equivalent of taking grenade jumping out of H1. 

No, the queen and bishop being allowed to move any number of spaces in chess would be the equivalent of adding permanent jet packs to CE. I can think of like 5 places on the competitive CE maps where grenade jumping is done consistently while the two queens and four bishops in chess are considered in the majority of plays made.  

  • Upvote (+1) 1
  • Downvote (-1) 1

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.