Equal Starts in Halo Xbox One?

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

What made the original trilogy multiplayer work?

 

In the original trilogy's multiplayer, there were no discrepancies in regard to what players were physically capable of at-spawn. You couldn't choose whether you wanted to specialize in one specific range or another, whether you could fly or see through walls and whatnot, etc. The only things that separated you from those you were playing with were skill and aesthetic customization.

 

Halo Reach broke this equality by implementing Preset Loadouts with various Armor Abilities, as one player would be more innately prepared for a situation than another with no in-game effort to justify such an advantage. Halo 4 then built upon this problematic implementation by allowing further variation from equal starts with Personal Loadouts. Now, not only can you have a different situational advantage than others, but also spawn with different weapons that excel at different ranges/situations AND trade out various base traits.

 

Many forum members have agreed that certain things in Personal Loadouts must go e.g. 'perks', but I don't think that's enough to maintain the equal starts principle that Halo had a successful foundation on. After all, the first game to deviate from this (Reach) only allowed for different AAs in most gametypes and it is widely considered sub-par to its predecessors. If only allowing different weapons proved to be harmful to Halo, how are we to know before its too late?

 

My point is: We know what works when it comes to spawn-in settings. Why must we deviate from it?

[Guts]

Whats the point in having the same system over and over? People want new things. 343 are experimenting. See what systems are popular. Halo is there game now.  They are deviating from Bungie's system in Reach for their own systems.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Whats the point in having the same system over and over? People want new things. 343 are experimenting. See what systems are popular. Halo is there game now.  They are deviating from Bungie's system in Reach for their own systems.

Each new game in the original trilogy added new things, all without breaking the core principles of gameplay. As for seeing what systems were popular, the original system was/is popular!! That's the reason the franchise has come as far as it has. Comparatively speaking, the "old" system is more popular than the new one, given the population/player retention of each.

 

Deviation can be either positive or negative, and this deviation has been statistically negative.

[Howling Death Wolf]

I was hoping this would be a better read but all I see is the same old "keep Halo the same!" Speech. If you're so afraid of change then just play the old Halo's. A lot of the community likes what's new (like me), and I've been around with Halo since the beginning and absolutely LOVE every gameso far. Great games aren't made by *Keeping it safe* like you want. It's funny, I hear so many Halo fans hating CoD for being the same game, then they turn around and yell out "MAKE HALO THE SAME!". Great games Evolve over time (Halo, FarCry, Assassin's Creed, Doom, etc.). So please, if you like the old formula's then play the old games (Hell I still play the old games all the time, and have a blast doing it.)

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I was hoping this would be a better read but all I see is the same old "keep Halo the same!" Speech. If you're so afraid of change then just play the old Halo's. A lot of the community likes what's new (like me), and I've been around with Halo since the beginning and absolutely LOVE every gameso far. Great games aren't made by *Keeping it safe* like you want. It's funny, I hear so many Halo fans hating CoD for being the same game, then they turn around and yell out "MAKE HALO THE SAME!". Great games Evolve over time (Halo, FarCry, Assassin's Creed, Doom, etc.). So please, if you like the old formula's then play the old games (Hell I still play the old games all the time, and have a blast doing it.)

My apologies for giving a generic OP on how the additions made in the latest two games have been lackluster. Thank you for listing exactly how/why they work well in the game, and thank you for using the hackneyed phrase "Halo must evolve." {sarcasm}

 

Not to be blunt or anything, but you've just disregarded my opinion of what makes a Halo game without taking time to detail your own. Instead of any real feedback, you merely said "if you like the old formula's then play the old games" (basically the equivalent of me saying "If you like the new formula, play Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo Reach/4.").

 

As for "Halo must evolve", evolution can be either positive or negative. Game mechanics that unfairly aid players (a prime example being granting various power weapons via dice roll and delivering them to players' feet e.g. Personal Ordnance) do not add anything positive to the gameplay IMO. They revolve around luck and unpredictability. How am I supposed to know what I'm up against when my opponents can not only choose from a plethora of various weapons and abilities, but also literally call down a clear advantage from the air?

 

I'm not against change, but that change must be positive to garner my support. The addition of Equipment in Halo 3 is/was one such change. Had Armor Abilities been placed on-map, rather than given freely at-spawn, then maybe their reception would've been more favorable... My point is, the nature of the recent changes have been making Halo into more of a hybrid between class- and arena-based shooters (I find it to be a disadvantageous mixing of bloods), rather than being the full-on arena shooter that garnered the recognition and admiration of so many people.

[Snipeside]

I love this thread. That is all.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

"Equal does not always mean the same."

 

I used to be such a proponent of this philosophy... but I've begun to doubt the credibility of this claim. Here's a question: What two things are different but equal in every scenario?

 

I couldn't come up with an answer, due to this...

Equal- adj. as great as; the same as; alike in quantity, value, or degree.

Different- adj. not alike in character or quality; not identical; various.

 

Semantics aside, the arguments for balancing weapons to have the same kill-time, etc. only really carries weight when talking about the most ideal of scenarios (such as when the opposing players have full shields). What of when they have the same shield level, but not 100%? Does that not potentially change things? 

 

For instance, two players (one BR-user and one Carbine-user) have taken the same amount of damage and have very low shields. While the Carbine-user will have to fire a shot to fully deplete his/her opponent's shields and a subsequent shot to finish with a headshot, the BR-user need only fire one 3-round burst to deplete shields and land the necessary headshot... all before the Carbine-user can even fire a second shot.

 

Similar scenarios can be envisioned between the AR and SR (or other PR variant), as there would be a different RoF and DPS; not to mention the added factor of not needing to reload.

 

The different weapons' mechanics themselves condemn them to be unequal to each other because they are different (which is not a bad thing). This variety gives each weapon character, whereas balancing them (or at least attempting to do so) would strip them of such distinguishing qualities and leaves no meaningful choice to be made when choosing between them. However, for spawning, we should have it where everyone spawns with the same setup and similar weapons (like Covie weapons) can be picked up from the map and are given a bit more incentive for players to do so. That's my take on the matter anyways...

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

For consideration, here's a spreadsheet of weapon stats post-Turbo Update.

[Howling Death Wolf]

My apologies for giving a generic OP on how the additions made in the latest two games have been lackluster. Thank you for listing exactly how/why they work well in the game, and thank you for using the hackneyed phrase "Halo must evolve." {sarcasm}

 

Not to be blunt or anything, but you've just disregarded my opinion of what makes a Halo game without taking time to detail your own. Instead of any real feedback, you merely said "if you like the old formula's then play the old games" (basically the equivalent of me saying "If you like the new formula, play Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo Reach/4.").

 

As for "Halo must evolve", evolution can be either positive or negative. Game mechanics that unfairly aid players (a prime example being granting various power weapons via dice roll and delivering them to players' feet e.g. Personal Ordnance) do not add anything positive to the gameplay IMO. They revolve around luck and unpredictability. How am I supposed to know what I'm up against when my opponents can not only choose from a plethora of various weapons and abilities, but also literally call down a clear advantage from the air?

 

I'm not against change, but that change must be positive to garner my support. The addition of Equipment in Halo 3 is/was one such change. Had Armor Abilities been placed on-map, rather than given freely at-spawn, then maybe their reception would've been more favorable... My point is, the nature of the recent changes have been making Halo into more of a hybrid between class- and arena-based shooters (I find it to be a disadvantageous mixing of bloods), rather than being the full-on arena shooter that garnered the recognition and admiration of so many people.

 

Lol,

Your "argument":

 

1) Letting people customize the way they play is bad because guns only work one way.

 

- Reality Check, guns don't work one way. Everybody's play styles are different. For example; I've recently got into BF4 and like sniping but hate that I can't easily watch my back with an effective major gun. So I created in a "Class" a Long range Rifle which I have out-sniped a lot of snipers and been able to also kill a lot of people at close range too when I'm on the run (for that is how I play).

 

- Also, (and I'm sure plenty of others have had this happen to them) In past Halo's I've played tons of games where I would be bummed out from not being able to play with the weapon of my choice (BR or DMR for me as I was not to big a fan of the AR until H4). I've played many games where I, along with many other players, bum rush it for the BR or DMR because they too don't like the AR or prefer the DMR/BR.

 

2) Ordnance is bad because it takes "no skill" to get and "only has OP weapons on it."

 

- Unlike popular belief (sarcasm), Ordanance drops take time to get, you need to be able to get kills and points before being able to touch a chance at a more powerful weapon unlike the previous installments where everybody could simply spawn camp any powerful weapon such as the Rocket, Sniper Rifle, Grav Hammer, etc. And you don't always get good "Over Powered Weapons", as you think, I have had many a times where I'm being more stealthy and long range (because thanks to H4 and 343i I can play that way) and when I call down an ordanance drop I get useless stuff at that time; such as the Grav Hammer, Shotgun, etc, I have passed up many "OP" weapons because they didn't fit what I was going for and the same goes for a lot of friends I know.

 

- The weapons aren't OP. The more powerful they are the less chance of getting them you are. Unlike you seem to think Ordanance is balanced, not to mention very helpful all based around what you can get and what you need.

 

The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply; I've heard it all before. Whining that 343i "changed Halo for the worst" when in fact so many people love what they've done. I love each and every Halo game I've ever played and hell, I even go back and play Halo 3 & Reach a ton, and even replay the old games on my original XBox. So my simple answer now is; if you like Halo back in the day, play it that way (In other words "If you like the old formula, play the old games"), Hell, if you and your friends like it better old school then make a custom gametype for it. I loved playing custom games in Reach, infact at one point it's all I ever did. So in conclusion;

 

Go play the old games if you like them enough or make your own gametypes with your friends. Halo is going to a new (and to most) a fun direction thanks to 343i.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Lol,

Your "argument":

 

1) Letting people customize the way they play is bad because guns only work one way.

 

2) Ordnance is bad because it takes "no skill" to get and "only has OP weapons on it."

 

The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply; I've heard it all before. Whining that 343i "changed Halo for the worst" when in fact so many people love what they've done. I love each and every Halo game I've ever played and hell, I even go back and play Halo 3 & Reach a ton, and even replay the old games on my original XBox. So my simple answer now is; if you like Halo back in the day, play it that way (In other words "If you like the old formula, play the old games"), Hell, if you and your friends like it better old school then make a custom gametype for it. I loved playing custom games in Reach, infact at one point it's all I ever did. So in conclusion;

 

Go play the old games if you like them enough or make your own gametypes with your friends. Halo is going to a new (and to most) a fun direction thanks to 343i.

1. Letting people customize the weapons they spawn with is "bad" because different weapons work differently from one another. Alone, that's not a bad thing. If every weapon worked the same way in every scenario, we would only have one weapon. Its negative for spawning settings because there is no way players (of equal skill or otherwise) can be equals when they have started with different weapons, as each weapon has its own advantages/disadvantages in various situations.

 

Your example doesn't carry any weight here, as Battlefield is a class-based FPS, whereas Halo is (or at least WAS originally) an Arena FPS. Halo's gameplay was built upon a set of principles over game mechanics, such as the Golden Triangle and Equal Starts. With equal starts, what determined the victor of an encounter was which player was better, not which player was better-equipped for the situation. A Bungie employee had this to say about it in a vidoc "Two men enter. The better man leaves. The loser is respawning... and that's Halo!" This is no longer the case in Halo 4, so by the game's original creators... Halo 4 isn't truly Halo.

 

Your "argument" supporting loadouts is equivalent to "Loadouts are good because you can choose what you want." You neglect to realize the issues that discrepancies between players off-spawn create. To illustrate, imagine a game of Slayer where the Blue team spawns with ARs and the Red team spawns with BRs. Is this balanced? Is this fair? the same thing happens with loadouts. You have your choice, but you will be unfairly rewarded/punished for your choice. Its not like the choice of what armor to wear, as that doesn't alter your ability to win an encounter. Loadouts do.

 

2. Personal Ordnance is "bad" because it is an indirect result of existing in the game. With medals like Distraction and the like, you needn't do anything but be in the game at all to make potential progress towards their choice of a number of weapons/power-ups that are intentionally balanced to be more effective than starting weapons (and oftentimes, on-map Power Weapons). There's always the possibility that you will get an option that is better than anything you could've picked up from the map. It not only ignores map control; it has the capacity to override it at times.

 

Your argument supporting Personal Ordnance is equivalent to "PODs are good because (again) you can choose what you want and you don't ALWAYS get better weapons."

 

You say ""so many people love what they [343 Industries] have done", but do you realize that Halo 4 has a drastically lower population than previous titles? So while there are surely a good number of players who DO like the changes, there is a noticeably larger percentage that apparently DOESN'T!! What's more is that your last statement here implies that you feel Halo's traditional gameplay isn't "fun", despite your earlier claims that they are.... and again, your saying "If you like the old gameplay, play the old games." is just the same as me saying "If you like the new gameplay, play Halo 4."

[Howling Death Wolf]

1. Letting people customize the weapons they spawn with is "bad" because different weapons work differently from one another. Alone, that's not a bad thing. If every weapon worked the same way in every scenario, we would only have one weapon. Its negative for spawning settings because there is no way players (of equal skill or otherwise) can be equals when they have started with different weapons, as each weapon has its own advantages/disadvantages in various situations.

 

Your example doesn't carry any weight here, as Battlefield is a class-based FPS, whereas Halo is (or at least WAS originally) an Arena FPS. Halo's gameplay was built upon a set of principles over game mechanics, such as the Golden Triangle and Equal Starts. With equal starts, what determined the victor of an encounter was which player was better, not which player was better-equipped for the situation. A Bungie employee had this to say about it in a vidoc "Two men enter. The better man leaves. The loser is respawning... and that's Halo!" This is no longer the case in Halo 4, so by the game's original creators... Halo 4 isn't truly Halo.

 

Your "argument" supporting loadouts is equivalent to "Loadouts are good because you can choose what you want." You neglect to realize the issues that discrepancies between players off-spawn create. To illustrate, imagine a game of Slayer where the Blue team spawns with ARs and the Red team spawns with BRs. Is this balanced? Is this fair? the same thing happens with loadouts. You have your choice, but you will be unfairly rewarded/punished for your choice. Its not like the choice of what armor to wear, as that doesn't alter your ability to win an encounter. Loadouts do.

 

2. Personal Ordnance is "bad" because it is an indirect result of existing in the game. With medals like Distraction and the like, you needn't do anything but be in the game at all to make potential progress towards their choice of a number of weapons/power-ups that are intentionally balanced to be more effective than starting weapons (and oftentimes, on-map Power Weapons). There's always the possibility that you will get an option that is better than anything you could've picked up from the map. It not only ignores map control; it has the capacity to override it at times.

 

Your argument supporting Personal Ordnance is equivalent to "PODs are good because (again) you can choose what you want and you don't ALWAYS get better weapons."

 

You say ""so many people love what they [343 Industries] have done", but do you realize that Halo 4 has a drastically lower population than previous titles? So while there are surely a good number of players who DO like the changes, there is a noticeably larger percentage that apparently DOESN'T!! What's more is that your last statement here implies that you feel Halo's traditional gameplay isn't "fun", despite your earlier claims that they are.... and again, your saying "If you like the old gameplay, play the old games." is just the same as me saying "If you like the new gameplay, play Halo 4."

 

And yet again, you ignore the facts that each weapon isn't always used for it's "purpose" and are all balanced (like I've already stated many times before), many use weapons differently, such as CoD's quick scoping and Halo's no scoping for snipers. You say my "argument" is invalid because this FPS isn't exactly that FPS. Whilst I find Halo and BF to be quite similar in some aspects especially now that Halo gives you the ability to customize your loadouts now. And as for your quote "Two men enter. The better man leaves. The loser is respawning... and that's Halo!", according to Bungie this IS still infact the case. Seeing as how Reach, Bungies game, was already going in that direction and most of the employees in 343i are in fact from Bungie.

 

As for POD;

- You are over dramatizing Personal Ordnance Drops Seeing as how "just being there points" don't give you much points and are far and few between. You can rarely get "just being there points" during a game. Aswell as the fact that having a chance at getting, let's just say, a rocket launcher after getting a bunch of points from headshots, kills, kill streaks, etc. Is a lot better than noobishly camping the weapon spawns.

 

Also, yes, if you like the newer Halo's than play them and if you like the older Halo's than play those. As I've stated before, I love all of them, and your belief in that really isn't my problem.

 

Seeing as I know you won't listen to reason, I will just leave it at that for you to think of.

[Gubz]

The changes made after Halo 3 are unpopular. If you would doubt this claim, take a look at the average player count. No, I don't have "source" for this data, because I collected it with my own two eyes, and I remember it very clearly. I used to play Halo constantly because I had too much free time after school every day. College changed this, but not by much, even with school and a job I have a lot of time to kill. Now, I see my Halo 4 case collecting dust, the memory of a dying multiplayer franchise that I pray rebirths with the fiery explosiveness of a pheonix of legend.

 

Now, these are the numbers, and they are accurate within a 10% margin. Period. I remember this very well:

 

Within a year of release, Halo 3 still averaged 100-150k players online at a given time

Within a year of release, Halo: Reach still averaged around 50k online players at a given time

Within a year of release, Halo 4 had dropped to 10-15k (This is being generous, usually that number is around 6-

 

 

AT THIS POINT (1 year and a half after release) in the history of Halo 3: there were roughly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND players constantly online, all day. Even at 2am the number scarcely fell below 75k.

RIGHT NOW there are less than 10,000 players on Halo 4.

 

So what do these numbers tell us? Sales didn't drop, in fact, they increased, so it's not the number of people who have the game, which means the issue is with the game itself. 85% of the playerbase (The remaining 85-90,000 that AREN'T playing Halo 4) have MADE their decision, and their decision counters every argument for Halo 4's gameplay. You can't fight statistics, they're numbers, not thoughts. Please stop trying, you are the barricade that is standing between the consumer base and the game they want.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

And...just because of how painful this thread was to read

 

Some responses to Howling Death Wolf and his disgusting 'reasoning':

Also, yes, if you like the newer Halo's than play them and if you like the older Halo's than play those. As I've stated before, I love all of them, and your belief in that really isn't my problem.
 

 

 "play the old stuff if you don't like the new stuff" is among the worst logic I've seen in this debate. By saying that, you acknowledge that there is in fact an issue with the most current game that would cause people to not want to play, and are effectively telling him to screw off. That's checkmate right there, but I'll continue. The old stuff isn't even as good as it once was. Halo 2 is completely gone forever, while Halo 3 has been overrun by F2P folks with terrible internet connections and leftover tryhards from the golden age. The standard playerbase is gone, it's not the same game any longer.

 

Fedora harder... please, I need a good laugh.

 

You are over dramatizing Personal Ordnance Drops Seeing as how "just being there points" don't give you much points and are far and few between. You can rarely get "just being there points" during a game. Aswell as the fact that having a chance at getting, let's just say, a rocket launcher after getting a bunch of points from headshots, kills, kill streaks, etc. Is a lot better than noobishly camping the weapon spawns.
 

 

I think your inability to proofread just gave me cancer.

 

The problem with ordnance is not THAT it is earned, nor HOW it is earned, but WHAT is earned. Ordnance would be fine if everyone got identical drops to choose from for each corresponding roll in the match.

Currently, someone might get a needler, a SAW, and a speed boost to choose from, while someone else might get a Sniper, a railgun, and an overshield. Randomness is NOT conducive to a competitive environment. EVER. Assume we're playing on Ragnarok: How is it fair for Player A to get a laser and Player B to get a scattershot for accomplishing the same thing? Answer- it isn't fair. PERIOD.

 

Also, "noobishly camping the weapons" is known as map control. It's the idea of controlling KEY AREAS of the map to gain a competitive advantage, and no, it is actually impossible to do while standing still. It requires watching 2-4 vantage points at once for approaching enemies. Camping is sitting in a hallway watching one doorway, or crying in a corner about your lack of ability to aim. You obviously know jack about the Halo competitive scene if you call map control "noobishly camping the weapons", thereby making you the noob.

 

That's checkmate number 2, I'm on a roll.

 

Also, (and I'm sure plenty of others have had this happen to them) In past Halo's I've played tons of games where I would be bummed out from not being able to play with the weapon of my choice (BR or DMR for me as I was not to big a fan of the AR until H4). I've played many games where I, along with many other players, bum rush it for the BR or DMR because they too don't like the AR or prefer the DMR/BR.
 

 

Again, it's called map control. If you lose the fight over the BR spawn, guess what? You don't get a BR. And if you don't spawn with it, neither does anyone else. It's completely fair, you sound like a spoiled child who didn't get his ice cream.

 

*sigh*...three.

 

 

The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply; I've heard it all before. Whining that 343i "changed Halo for the worst" when in fact so many people love what they've done.
 

 

So that's why one year later, 85% less people are playing Halo 4 multiplayer than played Halo 3? I had no idea. You grace us with your genius, good sir. In all honestly though, you are pulling "factoids" out of your buttcrack. Back it up or shut it up, you are the cancer that is preventing the core market from getting the game they want.

 

That's four.

 

-Reality Check, guns don't work one way. Everybody's play styles are different. For example; I've recently got into BF4 and like sniping but hate that I can't easily watch my back with an effective major gun. So I created in a "Class" a Long range Rifle which I have out-sniped a lot of snipers and been able to also kill a lot of people at close range too when I'm on the run (for that is how I play).
 

Again with this "I want my ice cream" attitude. If you had it your way, I bet you'd spawn with a rocket launcher. You'd call it 'balanced' because you 'only get 2 shots'.

 

Reality check: you are describing rock-paper-scissors. "How I play" should be "I use my equal footing to:" "control the rockets" or "go for overshield", not "I use what I spawn with to counter what someone else spawns with". If I have a BR and a plasma pistol, and my equally-skilled enemy has an AR and a Boltshot, he's going to win every close range fight, and I'm going to win every long range fight. That's how the current system works. It seems to me like you want to remove as much equality as you possibly can, and replace it with customization. Putting weapons on the map fixes this. If the enemy has a boltshot and I have a plasma pistol, it's my fault for not taking better care of the boltshot spawn, or knowing that he had it because the weapon isn't on the ground where it belongs.

 

...and that's five. I'm going to stop before I give the poor guy a brain aneurysm.

[Howling Death Wolf]

Just so I don't waste to much of my own time;

 

Step one) Reread everything I've said or open your closed (everything should stay the same) mind.

 

1) I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way it currently is because I like the way it currently is and I also like it the way it was. I am simply stating that whilst some people like Vanilla frosting others will like chocolate frosting and they should "eat" what they prefer.

 

2) Yes, noobishly camping weapons, it's kind of funny how doing this online is called exactly what it is; noobishly camping weapons, but in MLG it's some big "strategy" called "Map Control". And how, in any way is randomness bad? It's quite good actually. There's an old saying; Adapt and Survive. Being good isn't about the weapons in your hands, it's about knowing how to adjust in a situation.

 

3) Again with your noobishly camping weapons "strategy".

 

4) I've come across a LOT of people playing H4, a lot of my friends still play it too.

 

5) You blatantly ignore the fact that, as I've stated many times in this thread, guns don't just work one way, they work many.

 

Like I said to the last guy, "Seeing as I know you won't listen to reason, I will just leave it at that for you to think of." Good day to you sir

[WonderWombat]

 

And...just because of how painful this thread was to read

 

Fedora harder... please, I need a good laugh.

 

I think your inability to proofread just gave me cancer.

 

That's checkmate number 2, I'm on a roll.

 

*sigh*...three.

 

That's four.

 

...and that's five. I'm going to stop before I give the poor guy a brain aneurysm.

Looks like you ruined the credibility of your entire argument.

Edited January 14, 2014 by WonderWombat

[Unease Peanut]

I wouldn't want a halo that doesn't change in a major way. Of course standard weapons at spawn works... but kinda impacts the dynamic of the game. There are so many different situations and possibilities now (good and bad of course but still more options) and I for one like it.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Looks like you ruined the credibility of your entire argument.

How so? By his attitude? Howling Death Wolf has been acting arrogant and brushing off others' opinions since his first post on this topic. If you think attitude alone is the deciding factor over whether or not a claim, theory, idea, or opinion is credible, then I must point out that (while such presentation does nothing to help your argument), it doesn't make that person any less credible, either.

[Howling Death Wolf]

I wouldn't want a halo that doesn't change in a major way. Of course standard weapons at spawn works... but kinda impacts the dynamic of the game. There are so many different situations and possibilities now (good and bad of course but still more options) and I for one like it.

I completely agree with you man. Every Halo game I hold close at heart and I am glad they change it up every game.

 

 

How so? By his attitude? Howling Death Wolf has been acting arrogant and brushing off others' opinions since his first post on this topic. If you think attitude alone is the deciding factor over whether or not a claim, theory, idea, or opinion is credible, then I must point out that (while such presentation does nothing to help your argument), it doesn't make that person any less credible, either.

Apparently I'm acting arrogant since I disputed all his "claims". Lmao!

 

And yes, anger discredits him (even though his point wasn't really accurate in the first place), with anger you are less likely to think and more likely to pull arguments from you *** just to win. I've seen it happen quite a bit and have done it once or twice too.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Apparently I'm acting arrogant since I disputed all his "claims". Lmao!

And yes, anger discredits him (even though his point wasn't really accurate in the first place), with anger you are less likely to think and more likely to pull arguments from you *** just to win. I've seen it happen quite a bit and have done it once or twice too.

 

Attitude doesn't directly discredit anything someone says. If that were true, then someone angrily shouting that "the sky is blue, the grass is green, and we are only human" would automatically be incorrect.

 

As for your arrogance, it isn't because you disputed his claims. Its because you did so by ignoring points of his arguments e.g. population counts, etc. Furthermore, (as you seem to be a proponent for Sprint as well) I give you this argument. Please actually regard it when making your counter-argument, rather than simply brushing away points in it and stating the opposite without giving valid examples/evidence.

 

The main problem I have with sprint is that it's creating the illusion of increasing "the pace and flow" of combat, but is instead disrupting quite literally every single aspect of Halo not limited to larger maps, reduced kill times, increased radar range, increased aim assist, spawn system influencers, and decreased player speed (relative or global)

 

Firstly, every map in Halo is designed for base player traits, which means they are built with sprinting players in mind. If there's a jump you can't make at normal jump height, then the designer didn't intend for you to get there. If there's a jump you can only make with Sprint, then the designer most likely spaced those areas accordingly. If there's a power weapon that is 10 seconds away from your spawn, the designer intended for you to sprint there to get to it in 10 seconds. Sometimes they'll even place cover to last the duration of your sprint, so that when it ends, you are out of cover with your gun at the ready. It is for this reason that exact 1:1 map remakes haven't worked for Reach or Halo 4. Everything is scaled according to how the player can interact with them. 

 

"If it takes 10 seconds to get to the power weapon with Sprint, aren't I getting there faster than someone who doesn't Sprint?". Yes, but only relative to other players and not relative to the map. If you're the only one sprinting, you are moving at "default" speed and everyone else is moving slower. If everyone is sprinting, you are not reaching your teammate faster. 

 

Because Sprint does not last forever and because you cannot shoot when you are using it, more people are going to be out of Sprint, meaning more people are moving slower for most of the match. Cover is spaced according to Sprint because you'd be in cover too much if it was based around default movement. Therefore, because people cannot shoot while they Sprint, they stay behind cover, creating a large void - "deadzones" - which afford long range combat (re. DMR) the perfect opportunity to dominate. This is also one likely reason flinch was created, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. 

 

Because you have to decide whether to sprint to get there at the normal distance or walk at base speed (slower than people Sprinting) to use your gun, players would need to anticipate who is nearby so that they can have their gun at the ready. Radar range was likely increased not only because of the larger map size, but to also give players more time to make this transition. Those who are still caught off guard can disengage very easy, and the slow strafe (due to slow movement) and high aim assist (because of Sprint) guarantee that they can't kill you if they're down a few shots. This becomes an effective (and annoying) maneuver in most 1v1 engagements with experienced players. Slowing down while Sprinting doesn't change this much, especially when you factor in the resistor and mobility perks (which create a whole other set of problems that are also not relevant to the discussion). 

 

All this leads into the second biggest problem - Spawning. If you don't understand the Halo 4 spawn system, read this or any of the links there. Sprint disrupts the spawning system because it also increases the distance players need to be for safe spawning. If I can move from one of your spawns to the other and influence both of them before you have respawned, then I'll need to space them further away. Factor in 3-7 other teammates all influencing spawns and you have what is known as a spawn trap. Now because I can't shoot while I Sprint, I am forced to stay behind cover and take pot shots with my DMR. If I push up, I'll need to Sprint because I move too slow to cover the distance between cover (I could at least stand a chance by knocking you out of scope in Reach). If you kill me, my spawn can be entirely affected based on whether you sprint into a spawn zone at "normal" speed allowed on the map, or go there slower. You can quite literally spawn looking at somebody because he didn't sprint (move at the normal speed) into your spawn zone. Equating this to old games, it'd be like somebody crouching into the base you're spawning in. 

 

I'm not going to go into detail with the other problems because the fact that it affects the spawn system and design of engagements is reason enough to consider its removal. If you've been thinking while reading this "If the problem with Sprint is that I can't shoot in Sprint, then shouldn't I be able to?", just ask yourself how that'd be any different from moving at 120% speed. Halo 2 had ridiculous aim assist, but it worked because of how fast players could move and strafe to avoid it. Moving slower relative to either the players, maps, or kill times upsets this balance and only creates the illusion of "faster pace" by getting to your teammate quicker than you would walking normally. With fast movement speed and smaller maps, you'd get to your teammate and have the ability to shoot at literally the same pace as you would with Sprint. In fact, it speeds up combat because you are always ready to fight and don't have to transition into using your weapon. 

 

One of Halo's biggest innovations was the ability to retain accuracy and fire from the hip while moving; therefore, Sprint is not an innovation, but instead a mainstream mechanic merely tacked on in a vain attempt to "modernize" a game that did perfectly fine without it. Before Halo 3, we moved fast enough to where Sprint wasn't needed. Then Halo 3 happened and we moved to slowly to get around maps like Avalanche, Valhalla, and Sandtrap without the use of vehicles or man cannons. Again, if movement is fast enough, why sacrifice map design and the ability to shoot? Is it because the animation looks cool?

[Howling Death Wolf]

As for your arrogance, it isn't because you disputed his claims. Its because you did so by ignoring points of his arguments.

I'm just going to take a moment to note the hypocrisy of this statement.

...

...

...

...

...

Ok, moment over.

 

And as for your "argument"

 

1) I have no idea where you pulled the first one from seeing as how it's an over dramatization. Sprint does spead up gameplay (faster to get to fight and come out on top, or bottom, of a firefight/fistfight/etc.) It doesn't effect radar, nor reduce kill times, nor any of the other things you tried to "argue".

 

2) ""Maps are made with gameplay in mind"", all I have to say is, duh. And yes H3 or before maps can't easily be remade with H4 gameplay in mind because gameplay has changed. So just, duh.

 

3) And that is why maps are made with different gamplay types in mind, with the knowledge some people will go this direction and sprint, or this direction and not (same as how this area is wide enough for tanks, but this area is for close quarters soldier encounters). Maps are made with a mix of sprinting/not sprinting in mind.

 

4) You're assuming that maps (like you're assuming guns) only work one way, whilst that isn't the case, when making a game and maps and weapons and characters and the works, you must think of the different play styles, reactions of players which is what they base their maps off of. So Area A is wide enough for Tanks, Warthogs, etc can come through BUT it also has side parts or rock or whatever for Sprinters or walkers to go behind so they will not easily get killed by tanks or eachother (because in every game cover is important, it breaks off lines of sight, along with other things) But Area B is for more upclose for shotguns although has long enough area for dmrs ars and the works. And whilst Area A is more ideal for tanks and long range there will still be close quarters parts and a lot of people trying to kill eachother upclose like they would in B.

 

5) This is based on your, one map is made for one play style, which I have already disproved. Also you assume everybody will be sprinting around the map which is not the case, I know tons of players who run part way then walk the rest to make sure I don't get shot while running, either way if I am I still have a chance to do well in a firefight based on my skills as a player (adapt and survive).

 

6) Again, based on your idea of 'one play type for one map', the only logical thin in this whole thing is because you can sprint your obviously placed farther off from checkpoints, objectives, etc. and the fact that 343i took this (along with many things) into consideration whilst making and testing their maps.

 

7) "illusion of "faster pace" by getting to your teammate quicker" didn't know the "illusion" of getting places faster was actually getting places faster. Again, maps are created with multiple play types in mind.

 

8 ) Again, H3 maps were made for H3 play types whilst H4 maps are made for Halo 4 play types. And movements were never fast enough to me and a lot of the people I know, the whole reason for jumping whilst you are walking during all the old games, Hell I've been doing it since Halo: CE.

 

As I've said before, open your mind and Re-read my argument.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

As I've said before, open your mind and Re-read my argument.

First off, I'm noticing hints of spite and anger in your "argument", which (according to your logic) means that your "argument" carries no weight anyways. How's that for hypocrisy?

 

Secondly, you've again ignored argumentative points. I gave details for how Sprint affects the game aspects that you shrugged off.

 

Lastly (since I can see there's no reaching you with reason), I'll just counter your quoted statement with a few from more noted individuals:

 “By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”- Richard Dawkins

 

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”- Charles Darwin

 

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”- Marcus Aurelius

[Howling Death Wolf]

First off, I'm noticing hints of spite and anger in your "argument", which (according to your logic) means that your "argument" carries no weight anyways. How's that for hypocrisy?

 

Secondly, you've again ignored argumentative points. I gave details for how Sprint affects the game aspects that you shrugged off.

 

Lastly (since I can see there's no reaching you with reason), I'll just counter your quoted statement with a few from more noted individuals:

“By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”- Richard Dawkins

 

“Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”- Charles Darwin

 

“If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”- Marcus Aurelius

 

I actually haven't been mad through any of this. But I guess if you decide to perceive it that way than be my guest.

 

I didn't "ignore" your "argument", if you "re-read my argument" over again you'll see that I actually gave reasons and logic behind why you are wrong. But then you completely ignore everything I say and go on to say that infact 'I' was the one that did it.

 

And since I know you won't listen to reason, instead you copy everything I do/say for your own argument (honestly don't know why), I'll just leave it at that. Maybe, hopefully, you'll see reason and open your mind up a bit. While I doubt that'll be the case I can still say that I hope you do, for your love of Halo will strengthen when you do. So good day sir

[Axilus Prime]

The only problem I saw in loadouts was how an overpowered combination could very easily be made.

 

That, and how Tactical Packages and Support Upgrades took customization way too far, changing up base player traits.

 

However I do like the preset loadouts and Armor Abilities. Those did, in fact, take skill to use and not die horribly afterward. I hear a lot of complaining about Armor Lock but that's because most people used it was a "free shield recharge while a teammate kills him for me" button instead of a "not allow myself to die simply because he was lucky enough to get a rocket launcher or throw a grenade when I'm already fighting someone else" button.

[Howling Death Wolf]

Yeah, Armor Lock was used quite noobishly a lot but on the other side of things it made for some great gametypes in customs

[Gubz]

Looks like you ruined the credibility of your entire argument.

 

That logic though. I'm not even going to dignify that pathetic cry for a high five with a worthwhile response.

 

Just so I don't waste to much of my own time;

 

Step one) Reread everything I've said or open your closed (everything should stay the same) mind.

 

1) I'm not saying there's anything wrong with the way it currently is because I like the way it currently is and I also like it the way it was. I am simply stating that whilst some people like Vanilla frosting others will like chocolate frosting and they should "eat" what they prefer.

 

2) Yes, noobishly camping weapons, it's kind of funny how doing this online is called exactly what it is; noobishly camping weapons, but in MLG it's some big "strategy" called "Map Control". And how, in any way is randomness bad? It's quite good actually. There's an old saying; Adapt and Survive. Being good isn't about the weapons in your hands, it's about knowing how to adjust in a situation.

 

3) Again with your noobishly camping weapons "strategy".

 

4) I've come across a LOT of people playing H4, a lot of my friends still play it too.

 

5) You blatantly ignore the fact that, as I've stated many times in this thread, guns don't just work one way, they work many.

 

Like I said to the last guy, "Seeing as I know you won't listen to reason, I will just leave it at that for you to think of." Good day to you sir

 

First, you claim I'm the one with a closed mind, and somehow you're the one siding with the 15% minority. Well golly-gee-shucks, I guess you got me. I'll just stop reading your posts since I'm not open-minded enough to understand them. Please reread your post before you hit submit, that was as neckbeard a comment as neckbeards get.

 

 

1: Implying you and your friends matter

It doesn't matter what you think, and it doesn't matter what I think either. Tough. The player base has made their decision, and they do matter. If 15% like vanilla and 85% like chocolate, what does an intelligent company produce? Vanilla I presume? You're still crying about not getting your favorite ice cream, and yelling at everyone for patronizing the ice cream truck that's going to put yours out of business. That's all I'm seeing here. People like you seem incapable of comprehending that someone else can enjoy something you don't. But wait, before you use that same argument against me:

 

-It doesn't matter what you like. It doesn't matter what I like. What matters, is what the consumer base likes, and that just happens to coincide with my opinions, and not yours. I fully understand what you want to see in Halo 5, and I resent the fact that there are people that don't get what they want. But that's life.

 

The difference between you and I is that my visions for this game make 85% of the population happy. Yours make 85% of the population unhappy. By adamantly defending your position, you are being selfish. By adamantly defending my position, I am defending the interests of the people. You'll just have to either go with the flow, or deal with being the bad guy.

 

2: And again, missing step two of the train of though you've boarded 

"How is randomness bad?" I'm reasonably certain I explained that. I understand your "adapt and survive" philosophy, that part I agree with. The problem you keep ignoring however is that one player has to adapt, and another does not. Immediately giving the second player the advantage. It would be different if that advantage was earned, but it is assigned.

 

-You are saying that a battle of David and Goliath is a fair fight because David still has the opportunity to beat the Goliath.

-I am saying that a battle of David and Goliath is not a fair fight because David has a disadvantage to overcome to beat the Goliath.

 

Heads up, the only reason we know who David and Goliath are is because the second bullet is true. The victory was legendary because it was not fair. Meaning it was a rarity, meaning that it shouldn't have happened, meaning that Goliath should have won.

 

I'm going to take a deep breath, and try my best to make you understand this in terms of Halo, because clearly either you don't get it, or you're in a disturbing amount of denial.

 

On a small map, player A gets to choose between plasma grenades, speed boost, and a sniper rifle. Player B gets to choose between damage boost, a needler, and a shotgun.

 

This causes several problems:

a. player B has an obvious advantage, that was given to him over player A for no reason at all

b. neither player has any way to accurately predict what weapon the enemy will be holding when they meet

 

point (a) de-levels the playing field, which is a bad thing. If you don't understand why that's a bad thing, it is not my responsibility to explain that to you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/equal

 

point ( removes another aspect of strategy from the game. also bad.

 

3: Since you don't like words, have evidence

Pulling factoids from your buttcrack again, not that I'm surprised. This video is the Halo 3 2010 championship game.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lnKJpVie1nM

 

Are they camping? Not at all, (with the exception of each sniper staying nearby the map's vantage points) they are controlling the map through careful movement that often encompasses moving around a lot. They don't spend the entire match at the rocket spawn, they know that the rockets take 180 seconds to spawn, and they know when the last person picked them up. They move in to take control of the rocket position when the rockets are about to spawn. Not that you would actually watch the video, everything you've said so far indicates a lackadaisical attitude towards accurate information.

 

You just got disproved by raw, factual, evidence. But, you probably don't know when you've lost, and are still going to argue for your invalid "point". Have fun with that.

 

4: A statistical proof of the inferiority of Halo 4 when compared to Halo 3, for your reading pleasure

Again, you are trying to argue against a statistic. Statistics are numerical in nature, and are not based in opinion. They are raw facts from which data is to be collected and interpreted. In this case, yes, 10k is a lot of people. But statistically, when compared to the 900% MORE that were on Halo 3, a game that sold a near identical number of copies after a year in, it is nothing. Have more links. Unlike you, I make sure my information is accurate before I use it to try to disprove others.

 

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/51758/halo-4/ <--- Halo 4 has 8.92M current units sold (1 year + about 3 months)

http://www.vgchartz.com/game/6964/halo-3/Global/ <---- Halo 3 had sold 8.88M by the end of 2008 (1 year + about 3 months)             

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/statistic

 

As you can see by the facts I gave you because you're too lazy to look them up, Halo 3 and Halo 4 performed almost identically in sales at this point in their lifespan.

And yet, again, at this time in its history, Halo 3 had 100,000 constant multiplayer users.

 

The sales didn't change, so what would cause the population to drop so dramatically? Oh, that's right, the only other factor in the equation...the game itself. 

 

------

So here comes some a watered down statistical proof to soothe your burned bum

------

 

Let's draw up a silly little function to use to illustrate...it does not matter that I made this function up. What matters is that it accurately illustrates the 3 variables in question in a way that makes the information useful.

 

Sales / Lack of game quality = popularity

 

"Sales, cut in number based on a numerical rating of how bad the game was, will equal to the number of people playing it at a given time"

 

We are going to use sales and the number of people playing to extract a ratio representing the quality of Halo 3 to Halo 4.

 

 

8.92M / x = 10,000 <--- this represents halo 4 with it's 10k player base, and 8.92M sales

 

x (lack of game quality) has a coefficient value of: 892

 

8.88M / x = 100,000 <---- this represents halo 3 with it's 100k player base, and 8.88M sales

 

x (lack of game quality) has a coefficient value of: 88

 

 

On our little arbitrary numerical scale of badness,

Halo 4 scores an 892. 

Halo 3 scores an 88.

 

Halo 4's 'badness' scales at a 10.13 to 1 ratio when compared to Halo 3.

Halo 4 is 10.13 times worse in the eyes of the consumer than Halo 3.

 

 

^That is a (watered down because you don't need cited logical laws) statistical proof with cited sources. If you try to argue this point again I'm just going to laugh at you. A lot.

 

5) Guns do work in many ways...but not all guns are equal in every situation

You're right, I'm the one being ignorant, how silly of me.

 

I didn't neglect the fact that guns work in multiple situations. You can use any gun in any situation.

You, however are missing the next step in that train of thought, which is: Which weapon is better in each situation.

 

Yes, I can use a sniper from 5 feet away to shoot, and then quickly melee for a kill. But the enemy with the scattershot has the advantage every time.

Yes, I can use a rocket launcher on an enemy 40 yards away, but the enemy with the BR has the advantage every time.

 

Ordnance is only imbalanced because everyone received something different.

If everyone got identical drops I would be 100% okay with it.

- - - - - - - - - - - -

 

In conclusion to this post: If you're going to "disprove" an argument, you might want to start off by saying something that is actually based in fact. Your logic is so tangled that it took this much text to unravel it, you should be ashamed of yourself.

[Howling Death Wolf]

The only problem I saw in loadouts was how an overpowered combination could very easily be made.

 

That, and how Tactical Packages and Support Upgrades took customization way too far, changing up base player traits.

 

However I do like the preset loadouts and Armor Abilities. Those did, in fact, take skill to use and not die horribly afterward. I hear a lot of complaining about Armor Lock but that's because most people used it was a "free shield recharge while a teammate kills him for me" button instead of a "not allow myself to die simply because he was lucky enough to get a rocket launcher or throw a grenade when I'm already fighting someone else" button.

 

Also I didn't find the combinations (one way or the other) to be too over powered, usually when I play I lose because the other player was just plain better than me at that point, although there will always be players who just noob out. But then again there will always be people who noob out in games.