Jump to content
Hootspa

What is the consensus on passive play styles?

Recommended Posts

I wonder if Certain Affinity or 343 have a mock up of Lockout or whatever they call it in H2A with bottom green modified with additional exit routes.

 

With two entry points and only one exit point I don't think there is much point in putting a power up there. I would put rockets over a power up since any power up will just get burned and therefore still be slow. At least rockets you can pick up off a dead body which would create the need for movement still if the push fails by either team.

 

I've often wondered how it would play if you blew out the back wall where shotgun spawns and connected it with a new ramp/and elbow out by sword spawn. The other thought was a 2 way portal bottom blue right across from the door to elbow that goes somewhere like BR2 or BR2 bridge to library; possibly even closed elbow.

 

just some thoughts on passive play specifically on Lockout

Goddamm sorry man accidental neg. I was wondering the same thing.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

In answer to the OP's original question:

 

I find passive play can be fun to do because winning by strategy is, for me, just as rewarding as winning by outshooting your opponent.

 

I find it boring to watch, however.

Share this post


Link to post

2gre does it = most people can do it?

 

brb 5x national champs

I didn't, and wouldn't, say that. I said that there are times in CE where the game begins to feel like a collect-a-thon. Vinny then made the argument that the collect-a-thon only happened at low levels of play. I responded by showing video evidence that even at high levels players can very effectively run from one power up/power weapon to the next.

 

Just watching the two first minutes it's impressive how much he did without even having to kill people. I can guarantee most (like solid 90%) people who would have decided to make a CONSCIOUS decision in the clip you see below would have fucked up and died. He had been sitting there no shields for like 10 seconds.

 

c5d684f78782541534d856653478689f.gif

 

...but he somehow lived, secured camo, which allowed him to help Puckett out and get his team two kills, secure rockets and then proceed to establish map control (and "cycle" through power-ups in the process). He also stayed in range of a random spawn not to screw Puckett over if something went wrong (which did end up happening).

Agreed. Very impressive.

 

But at the end of the day, if you think cycling through power-ups is a big deal in the grand scheme of things, then I don't know what to tell you. Camo's not even hard to see anymore. it's just useful to delay your opponents' reaction time while engaging up front and/or to make it harder for your opponents to aim at you because of how the reticle behaves when aiming it at someone invisible.

It's not that I don't think players should be moving to get power ups and power weapons. I absolutely think that items should be placed on the map in locations that force players to move and make decisions. I also think that these items should be powerful enough to have real consequences on the game. If not, why go for them at all? What I am saying is that I think there's a good balance that can be reached here and I think Halo:CE might have been a little too much in regards to the number and frequency of these items. On Derelict rockets and sniper spawn every 30 seconds while camo and OS spawn every minute. That's an average of a new item worth getting every 10 seconds. Whether a player is great, average, or bad doesn't really matter, they should be trying to acquire as many of these items as possible and I don't believe it's a good thing when the game becomes a track meet to the next item. It's even worse when the track meet is affected by previous items acquired. It's fairly easy for Ogre to get the second Invis and snipe once he has acquired the first invis, rockets, and hes on a platform that gives him height advantage over the majority of the map.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think Halo 2 or 3 did this completely right or something, and I certainly don't think this breaks CE. Consider that Wizard had 4 power ups that spawned at each base every minute while Warlock had one power up that spawned in top center every 3 minutes. Personally I would advocate something along the lines of 2 powerups that spawn at yellow and green bases every 1:30-2:00 minutes. The ideal amount and frequency is certainly up for the debate, but hopefully you see my point.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

In answer to the OP's original question:

 

I find passive play can be fun to do because winning by strategy is, for me, just as rewarding as winning by outshooting your opponent.

 

I find it boring to watch, however.

I don't mind setups if the other team is actually making pushes, but when I lock down a part of the map tight enough that they can't push without getting instakilled I just fall asleep. Because they will just stop pushing and the game turns into long range BR battles without getting any kills.

 

I also find staying in the same spot for a long period of time really boring. I much prefer h1 in a competitive sense where there is motivation for movement and there aren't as many dominant strategies.

 

That being said, I don't think that the reason H2 can get standoffish is simply because of the BRs longer kill times compared to the pistol.

Share this post


Link to post

I didn't, and wouldn't, say that. I said that there are times in CE where the game begins to feel like a collect-a-thon. Vinny then made the argument that the collect-a-thon only happened at low levels of play. I responded by showing video evidence that even at high levels players can very effectively run from one power up/power weapon to the next.

 

Agreed. Very impressive.

 

It's not that I don't think players should be moving to get power ups and power weapons. I absolutely think that items should be placed on the map in locations that force players to move and make decisions. I also think that these items should be powerful enough to have real consequences on the game. If not, why go for them at all? What I am saying is that I think there's a good balance that can be reached here and I think Halo:CE might have been a little too much in regards to the number and frequency of these items. On Derelict rockets and sniper spawn every 30 seconds while camo and OS spawn every minute. That's an average of a new item worth getting every 10 seconds. Whether a player is great, average, or bad doesn't really matter, they should be trying to acquire as many of these items as possible and I don't believe it's a good thing when the game becomes a track meet to the next item. It's even worse when the track meet is affected by previous items acquired. It's fairly easy for Ogre to get the second Invis and snipe once he has acquired the first invis, rockets, and hes on a platform that gives him height advantage over the majority of the map.

 

Don't get me wrong, it's not that I think Halo 2 or 3 did this completely right or something, and I certainly don't think this breaks CE. Consider that Wizard had 4 power ups that spawned at each base every minute while Warlock had one power up that spawned in top center every 3 minutes. Personally I would advocate something along the lines of 2 powerups that spawn at yellow and green bases every 1:30-2:00 minutes. The ideal amount and frequency is certainly up for the debate, but hopefully you see my point.

 

In no way is this meant to say what you have said here is something i cant agree with but can you go into more detail as to what makes having constant powerups drive gameplay in a negative direction? I mean isnt movement with purpose the best kind and wouldn't you agree powerups are an effective tool to promote meaningful movement?

Share this post


Link to post

 

On Derelict rockets and sniper spawn every 30 seconds while camo and OS spawn every minute.

 

Derelict is a mess, not a good example. Everyone agrees that not only do rocks spawn too often, but that camo or sniper should be bottom middle.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Derelict is a mess, not a good example. Everyone agrees that not only do rocks spawn too often, but that camo or sniper should be bottom middle.

 

No not everyone agrees that opinion, otherwise the adjusted derelict would be present in both 1.5 and final.

Share this post


Link to post

No not everyone agrees that opinion, otherwise the adjusted derelict would be present in both 1.5 and final.

 

There's no accounting for crazy.

Share this post


Link to post

In no way is this meant to say what you have said here is something i cant agree with but can you go into more detail as to what makes having constant powerups drive gameplay in a negative direction? I mean isnt movement with purpose the best kind and wouldn't you agree powerups are an effective tool to promote meaningful movement?

 

Absolutely agree that powerups are a great tool to promote meaningful movement. I think there is a lot of preference that comes into play when talking about this. I'm sure different players will have different ideas about pacing when it comes to creating ideal gameplay. Which essentially, that's what this thread is all about right?

 

I'm sure that most everyone here can agree that having no power weapons or power ups on the map gives players very little reason to move. As a community we've come to the obvious consensus that a viable strategy should not be sitting still the entire game. Theoretically though, (even though this hasn't historically been an issue with Halo) there is another end to that spectrum. At the opposite end, there's a point where more items don't promote more movement and where power ups would ultimately flood the game. We could make it where every map has 10 overshields that spawn every 30 second seconds but the issues with this are as obvious as they are numerous. At a certain point there would be diminishing returns when it comes to promoting map movement and at a further point player speed and damage taken would effectively max out the usefulness of the overshields.

 

So the question is, what balance can we reach where the number of power ups/ power weapons and the frequency of them creates ideal pacing and advantages?

 

Pacing is something that can be a little more opinionated. I personally think there is a time for slowing the game down, a time for speeding it up, etc. Like any good sport you should be able to try and dictate how your opponent plays. Generally though, nobody starts to stall in the 3rd quarter; If they did that, they'd quit scoring and quit putting pressure on their opponent. By the same token, only an idiot would throw the football when they could just kneel and end the game. You can apply this same thought process to most good sports. If power weapons are timed so close that a player is literally getting one and then starting towards the next then that doesn't leave much room to dictate the pace of the match. It also tends to make the movements somewhat scripted. You're getting OS, then camo, then straight to rockets, then reposition for the next OS, and so on. 

 

When it comes to advantages I think there is a point where they can begin to pile on in an unreasonable way. CoD is terrible about this. If you've played CoD then you know that a few kills will earn you a predator missle. A predator missle will get you to a chopper. A chopper will get you to some sort of unstoppable beast weapon. It's like SMG spawns in Halo 2, there's a point where you just don't have much of a chance against a player with a snipe and BR. The point I'm making here is that I don't think that the advantages should be so frequent that they begin to pile on and especially when they begin to help further those advantages even farther (of course the pistol was always a great equalizer here).

 

My personal opinion is that, at times, Halo CE too many and too frequent power items and after Halo CE the games didn't have enough power items, the power items were often too weak, the frequency of the power items was too low, and the lack of static timers was killer. In most instances I'd opt for timing and frequency somewhere in the middle of CE and Halo 2.

  • Upvote (+1) 4

Share this post


Link to post

The ideal amount and frequency is certainly up for the debate, but hopefully you see my point.

I do see your point, and admittedly, I hadn't read the entire thing, just stumbled upon it while reading recent posts. I agree for sure that some CE maps overdo the rate at which power-ups should spawn, though once again, a very minimal amount of people are able to cycle through them effectively. I just feel like watching 2gre do it is unfair to make a point, in the sense that he has it down to a science and executed it in a way that was near flawless -- from my point of view at least, I'm sure better CE players could point one or two things that could have been done differently.

 

Should it be reduced anyway? In later games I think it's needed. In CE, it's perfect for how powerful the pistol is and having multiple points with power items on the map allows to reverse the tide of a match without relying on one specific setup and pure spawn killing (E.G. in H2, H3, Reach, H2A: Holding neutral/opponent snipe on Sanc/Pit).

 

Despite the fact that CE has a few maps with power items that spawn faster than you can use them, some others are perfect examples of how map design should be done. Good examples that come to mind are Damnation or Chill Out with somewhat heavy setup oriented styles despite having a constant natural flow to them. Power items are placed in a way that forces you to quit an optimal setup, without just being handed to either team. With proper technique and timing, a lot of them can be obtained from weaker positions in the map, allowing for disadvantaged players to come back, but once again, this stuff is learned through practice and adds to the meta in a significant amount. 

 

What if on H3 Pit, you didn't have to walk all the way down to under sword and out to get overshield? What if you could nade OS from your courtyard or training? It would have changed the dynamics of matches tenfold, without keeping it predictable and forcing stalemates until the next real power item spawns instead of the death trap that most power items resulted into. That's another reason why the rates of power items on CE is appropriate for it, they're a lot more dynamic and not as pointless to go for.

 

Anyhow, I think a respectable average for later games would be about 1 min per power-up on static timers, with camo and OS alternating every minute on maps that support both. Rockets shouldn't be over 2 mins (even if that means reducing the ammo you get per pick-up), and for snipers, it ultimately depends on how much better they are than the utility weapon. In Halo 3, you could have gotten away with a sniper every minute with 4 or 8 shots in it (depends on the map and whether it's neutral or not). In Halo 2 or 4, it would have been an absolute shit fest. 

 

IMO, you want something like this. I'm thinking of Halo 3 Pit for the example, pretend it has both camo placed in long hall or under sword and OS in either position:

0:00 all power weapons are up, 1 of 2 power-ups on the map

1:00 alternate power-up spawns, team-based weapons spawn as well

1:30 neutral power weapons respawn

2:00 original power-up respawns, team-based weapons respawn

3:00 all power weapons respawn, alternate power-up respawns 

 

...and so on.

 

Of course, it's not applicable to all maps within H3 and definitely not each individual game, but I feel like it'd be a rate that provides an interesting flow without having the entire team converge on one specific point at any given time. If I designed maps, I'd do it with a similar model in mind.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

 

Na, Ogre definitely isn't running from power up to power up.

 

 

I'm not 100% sure. I would remember if it was an event I was at. I remember the match on Gemini pretty well because I was there. It was Nashville 05. I remember watching videos of the matches but all the videos and streams start to bleed together. I'll look and hopefully I can find them. If not, that first video of Walshy is a pretty close comparison.

 

He's actually not. He's taking his time even during the first 4 minutes where you could argue he was collecting everything in sight. Every movement he made was calculated to give his teammate support and to random his teammate. He goes to top blue because his opponents are up there as well. Then decides to go for top powerup since he's up there and because his teammate needed a random. The last 9 minutes he's not even making a huge effort to get powerups. And players don't always go for powerups because they act as bait in the game especially at higher level; you saw cloak guy getting wasted almost every time near the end.

 

As for your Derelict comment, yeah Derelict was a mistake. Hardy accidentally set it to 30 second respawns. Everyone knows the rocket spawn in that map is broken.

 

How about focus on the flow of the popular maps like Chill Out, Prisoner, and Damnation. Damnation is very powerup focused yet is easily the slowest map and not collecty. Prisoner your powerups usually get wasted quickly and don't even matter for at least 30 seconds from spawn to spawn. Most maps are designed in a way that each team is going to get one powerup, so there's no "collecting" going on... you get the powerup and move to use it to your advantage for the next minute. Even Chill Out there's no guarantee that having rockets and camo (the best combo) will get your the overshield powerup in 60 seconds. Thus most maps (and by extension Halo 1) does not have the collecting and stacking that you're talking about. Hang Em High does because it's wide open and the top powerup is harder to get without being cloaked, but most people do not think Hang Em High is as good competitively as the big 3. I'd also admit that Rat Race and Wizard are a bit of a collectathon but again, those maps are not played very often.

 

Here's a real collectathon game, and really it is not worse for it.

Share this post


Link to post

Have to agree with vinny dere and wizard are the two most talked about maps for ce in this thread and they are the 2 most imbalanced. I love dere and dont ever wanna skip it in series but its pretty low on the competitive scale. I have played people better then me lost everygame in the series then won the dere countless times. I mean all you have to do is keeping getting rockets/camo/os and not do anything risky and its really hard to lose control (it does help that my 2v2 partner is a great sniper and usually is covering me up top in these wins). Wizard was removed from 2v2 mlg ts because of how hard getting control back was and the 30 kill swings that it was producing too much. The best 4 maps to compare for the purpose of this thread are chill out, pris, hangem, and dammy. They are really fair and have a great weapon sandbox. Finally to answer ops question I think halo ce was perfect in the ammount of pushing for control. The only one of the 4 maps that can get boring is dammy cuz some people like to not take risks and play it really campy.

Share this post


Link to post

I actually respect people with passive playstyles because I never have the patience for it. I like to be stuck in the thick of it and don't really enjoy hanging back. 

 

I respect it because it's so hard to do for me, and when people do it to me and destroy a reckless charge I made, I usually calm down and start using my brain. I've never been a passive person, but I can respect it as a valid tactic.

 

Hiding from your opponents however, now that is displeasing to me.

Share this post


Link to post

I'm torn between two ideas. On one hand, this map has been absolute chaos going back to 2001, and I have half a mind to put two OS's on the map to actually encourage slowing it down a little bit by dividing responsibility and giving the one item that is more defensive than anything else. On the other hand, I don't think there's going to be any controlling it, so I'm also tempted to just put a sniper on yellow flag and rockets on green. A sniper is great for all the open space, and rockets are self-explanatory. 

You're right, OS probably wouldn't be controlled in any position; now that I think of it, putting one at green would be even worse because it could be very easily accessed from shotty jump, the ramp, or green flag--not really encouraging control. Even Camo isn't controlled very much on Warlord, at least not with presence... the main control is knowing what time camo was picked up (often burned), which only requires an eye on top mid.

 

I saw the sniper idea before and sort of dismissed it, but now I'm seeing a bit more potential. It naturally slows things down and allows for more control; it also cannot be burned. Purely for the spectator experience it would be a good addition. Just imagine the potential noscopes in nades and needles. One downside could be that it would nerf the bomb arm technique just outside the flag, on the mid side of that divider, but you could argue that a sniper would make this decision more tactical and add an extra reward for the team holding it.

 

Rockets would slow things down, add more emphasis on top control, and give an overall purpose to the action, but it might not be the best fit for such a claustrophobic map with narrow choke points everywhere. I'm imagining some pretty lame kills/clean-ups, but who knows, it might be worth it. Maybe two rockets with no spare clip.

 

Of course, it's too late to make changes for season 2, it's doubtful if H2A will get a third season, and even if it did and we could, there probably wouldn't be enough  of a push for it. But I could be wrong. People might love the idea of a sniper and changing up what is commonly considered a stale lineup.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I think balance is the key. As a H1 and H2 diehard the rest not as much (HR NBNS was okay too). H1 has IMO the best balance for itself taking into account utility weapon, spawns, etc. I have to admit that I also love Midship FFA's where 2 seconds of waiting can make the difference between a double kill or just a death. It's fun to watch a back and forth faced played game but it's also cool to see passiveness play a part in winning because of strategy and teamwork. For me both styles CAN be fun to watch but sometimes either can get boring ( too much stuff happening no sense of purpose vs nobody doing anything for extended periods of time). I think that the best pace for the best halo game that could be created lives somewhere in between CE and H2. Probably closer to the CE side though.

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I do see your point, and admittedly, I hadn't read the entire thing, just stumbled upon it while reading recent posts. I agree for sure that some CE maps overdo the rate at which power-ups should spawn, though once again, a very minimal amount of people are able to cycle through them effectively. I just feel like watching 2gre do it is unfair to make a point, in the sense that he has it down to a science and executed it in a way that was near flawless -- from my point of view at least, I'm sure better CE players could point one or two things that could have been done differently.

 

Should it be reduced anyway? In later games I think it's needed. In CE, it's perfect for how powerful the pistol is and having multiple points with power items on the map allows to reverse the tide of a match without relying on one specific setup and pure spawn killing (E.G. in H2, H3, Reach, H2A: Holding neutral/opponent snipe on Sanc/Pit).

Yeah I agree. The fact that Ogre can do it doesn't really help the rest of us. It's not exactly easy to collect a string of powerups. I've had success doing it at times but I've played mostly good to average competition. Only occasionally have I played exceptional CE players.

 

Actually cycling through all these weapons and powerups and dominating the game is a secondary point that I'm making though. Primarily, my point is on the feeling that there is constantly another item to gather (whether I get it or not). To me the difficulty in attaining the items is secondary to the fact that the item is there. Even if an opposing player is controlling everything against me, I am still trying to get to the next power item. This is definitely personal preference, but sometimes I just want the focus to be on shooting or positioning myself with my team-mate rather than when the next item will be up. I want the game focus to be on predicting and moving with your team-mates and opponents and not on constant power items.

 

For example, I'm okay with a player sitting at snipe tower with a sword for a minute or two. That's his attempt to dictate the pace of the game and draw other players into a situation where he has the advantage and that's fine to me. In my opinion, that type of gameplay becomes less and less viable as you add powerful items to the map. On Lockout, if we frequently spawned a powerful OS, rockets, sniper, and Invis it would basically never be viable to sit at snipe and see how dumb or impatient your opponent is. In my opinion, It's okay for the game to come to a stalemate at times, but it shouldn't be stuck there indefinitely. I don't mind having time to stop and consider what's next? Maybe I run at him and he swords me a few times and his strategy works. Maybe I slow down, throw a few grenades and get a kill. Maybe I grab a shotgun and try my luck. Maybe I wait 30 seconds for an OS to spawn before I begin my attack. Maybe I'm winning and I'll just let him chill over there as long as he wants.

 

 

Despite the fact that CE has a few maps with power items that spawn faster than you can use them, some others are perfect examples of how map design should be done. Good examples that come to mind are Damnation or Chill Out with somewhat heavy setup oriented styles despite having a constant natural flow to them. Power items are placed in a way that forces you to quit an optimal setup, without just being handed to either team. With proper technique and timing, a lot of them can be obtained from weaker positions in the map, allowing for disadvantaged players to come back, but once again, this stuff is learned through practice and adds to the meta in a significant amount.

 

Yeah, it's definitely map and gametype specific. I agree with both Damnation and Chill Out. You can absolutely get control and use it to your advantage in both maps without feeling insanely rushed. That said you also can't hold up indefinitely. I think what helps those specific maps though is how efficiently they can be navigated. Efficient vertical navigation on Damnation, the ability to grenade power items, and efficient use of teleporters makes moving around those maps much less of a trek.

 

 

What if on H3 Pit, you didn't have to walk all the way down to under sword and out to get overshield? What if you could nade OS from your courtyard or training? It would have changed the dynamics of matches tenfold, without keeping it predictable and forcing stalemates until the next real power item spawns instead of the death trap that most power items resulted into. That's another reason why the rates of power items on CE is appropriate for it, they're a lot more dynamic and not as pointless to go for.

This is another topic we could probably talk forever on. Whether the ability to grenade power items across the map is good or not. I do agree that the quicker you can access power items the more power items should be on the map.

 

 

Anyhow, I think a respectable average for later games would be about 1 min per power-up on static timers, with camo and OS alternating every minute on maps that support both. Rockets shouldn't be over 2 mins (even if that means reducing the ammo you get per pick-up), and for snipers, it ultimately depends on how much better they are than the utility weapon. In Halo 3, you could have gotten away with a sniper every minute with 4 or 8 shots in it (depends on the map and whether it's neutral or not). In Halo 2 or 4, it would have been an absolute shit fest. 

 

IMO, you want something like this. I'm thinking of Halo 3 Pit for the example, pretend it has both camo placed in long hall or under sword and OS in either position:

0:00 all power weapons are up, 1 of 2 power-ups on the map

1:00 alternate power-up spawns, team-based weapons spawn as well

1:30 neutral power weapons respawn

2:00 original power-up respawns, team-based weapons respawn

3:00 all power weapons respawn, alternate power-up respawns 

 

...and so on.

 

Of course, it's not applicable to all maps within H3 and definitely not each individual game, but I feel like it'd be a rate that provides an interesting flow without having the entire team converge on one specific point at any given time. If I designed maps, I'd do it with a similar model in mind.

This I'm kind of confused on. To clarify, you're saying that on The Pit the game should play out like this:

Game start- 1 OS, 2 Snipe, 1 Rocket

1:00- 1 Invis, 2 Snipe

1:30- 1 Rocket

2:00- 1 OS, 2 Snipe

3:00- 1 Invis, 2 Snipe, 1 Rocket

 

I assume when you say "team based weapons" you're referring to the two snipers? I assume when you say "neutral power weapons" you're referring tot he rockets?

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

I personally think a passive play-style is the whole reason EU is behind NA

I think it's a little deeper than that, insofar as the passive play style is the main product of the disparity in competition and "echo chamber" syndrome that the EU scene suffers from, rather than the whole reason itself. But I do agree that it's the most stark difference in terms of actual play, and it even ends up affecting viewer experience as well as the meta game.

 

Problem is, HCS's current map selection is making passive play a real problem in the US, so it's even worse in the EU. I've got a soft spot for Lockdown TS, but damn does it get old quickly when people play (understandably, to a point) so slow.

 

I'm from the UK so I really want to see EU Halo go further. I think it's good for our scene for obvious reasons, and good for the US to have extra blood pushing the competition up over there. I think it's very unlikely we'll see an EU team battling for first at an event any time soon, but more variety and unfamiliar talent in the top 8 and even top 16 is good for HCS as a whole.

 

I hope we see more stuff like we did at S2 Finals (though hopefully the wildcards won't have to play an absolute juggernaut like NB due to seeding next time :P...), the EU scene is going to have a really, really tough time moving forward if the top teams aren't pushed by competing with the best in the world. We've got some immense talent over here, but unless teams are pushed it isn't fully realised.

  • Upvote (+1) 2

Share this post


Link to post

There will always be people who are too itchy to sit still. They will always want to push hard against their opponents and engage as often as possible. It's not so much what we think about passive play style but rather just being aware that games need to accommodate both.

Share this post


Link to post

snip

Agree for the most part with your post, though I'm not worried about the game lacking regular gunfights even if power items spawn fast. I think even transitioning between various power items will result in plenty of gunfights anyway... but I think *IF* players want to move around the map, there should almost always be something to go for, even if it's something like going from Magnum to DMR in H5 for instance (AKA not a significant increase in firepower, or a weapon with unique abilities, but still not an actual power item).

 

Again, it depends on each individual game, its sandbox, utility, base traits, etc.

 

 

 

 

I assume when you say "team based weapons" you're referring to the two snipers? I assume when you say "neutral power weapons" you're referring tot he rockets?

Correct, I just decided to add I was thinking of Pit after, but I feel like it's a decent a general guideline.

Share this post


Link to post

Correct, I just decided to add I was thinking of Pit after, but I feel like it's a decent a general guideline.

Agreed that there are a lot of things to consider. Just based on this discussion I imagine that on average I'd probably choose to spawn items a little slower than you would, but not by much. I think that what you've mentioned for The Pit is very close to what I would choose. In a 4v4 match I think those times would provide an appropriate mix of player controlled pacing and urgency.

 

Ultimately, what we're discussing and differing on here are very fine details. It's kinda cool because we can skip the basics and start a discussion at a fairly high level. Kinda weird because what we're discussing is mostly insignificant. Virtually everyone here is in total agreement on the big picture. Promoting map movement is a good thing and powerful items on static timers, objectives, and good map design are the best ways to promote that movement. 

  • Upvote (+1) 1

Share this post


Link to post

Passive play is fine in certain scenarios, and 2v2s are a completely different playstyle. 

 

Halo 1 is different from halo 2 and from halo 3.

Im okay with it to get the lead back and initiate pushes, I do not however agree with the game I had on lockout where the other team was up 20-3 and they refused to move and my team just sat bottom mid and snipe tower as they sat BR 3, library, BR 1 and open ramp....

Share this post


Link to post

Passive play is fine in certain scenarios, and 2v2s are a completely different playstyle.

 

Halo 1 is different from halo 2 and from halo 3.

 

Im okay with it to get the lead back and initiate pushes, I do not however agree with the game I had on lockout where the other team was up 20-3 and they refused to move and my team just sat bottom mid and snipe tower as they sat BR 3, library, BR 1 and open ramp....

You make it sound like the map promotes camping.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Does it? Be honest now.....

Share this post


Link to post

As for the static vs dynamic weapon spawn debate and how it ties in with passive/agressive play, a combination of both can actually work on the same map, but only for very select weapons in the case of dynamic. For instance, the Sword in Halo 2 is an example of a weapon I feel actually works beautifully as a dynamic weapon in which there is only 1 of on the map which only 1 player and hence team has control of at any point in the game. This introduces a psuedo-objective and adds a different way for teams to fight over something, rather than solely static positions on the map. However, this should never be applied to all weapons like it was in Halo 2, as otherwise it can lead to incredible stagnation or snowballing and is just a bad idea in general. Having Halo CE's static power-up and weapon timer system as well as a single dynamic weapon on the map like the Sword could potentially be really interesting.

  • 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 & Privacy Policy.