Equal Starts in Halo Xbox One?

[Axilus Prime]

At first I didn't realize it either, but trying those combos out I noticed they were in fact overpowered.

 

My stance on this is simple. Preset loadouts are good, customizable loadouts are bad.

 

In a standard Slayer match the only loadout difference was AAs anyway.

[lilsilmarillion]

This is 343s first time, give me a break. They wanna try their own things and we should respect that. They put a lot of work into this game

[WonderWombat]

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.

Why assume that I am defending him? It's mostly the insults anyways, attitude is second. Imagine two guys having an argument both being arrogant, but one giving the other the middle finger after each point they make. How many arguments has derogatory language won on the internet?

 

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

 

Twice...twice...what is insulting the guy going to gain you and how is it going to make him believe what you are saying? Do you think the insults are going to be what will persuade him to see your viewpoint?

 

 

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

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

Unlike you, I make sure my information is accurate before I use it to try to disprove others.

 

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

 

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

Genuine question, what was your thought process when typing each of these sentences?

Edited January 15, 2014 by WonderWombat

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Why assume that I am defending him? It's mostly the insults anyways, attitude is second. Imagine two guys having an argument both being arrogant, but one giving the other the middle finger after each point they make. How many arguments has derogatory language won on the internet?

 

Twice...twice...what is insulting the guy going to gain you and how is it going to make him believe what you are saying? Do you think the insults are going to be what will persuade him to see your viewpoint?

I assumed you were defending him because you didn't say anything of that sort to him (despite his saying things like "Lol Your 'argument." and "The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply"). I completely agree that a venomous attitude and spiteful comments don't make anyone's argument any more agreeable, but I see a clear distinction between the credibility of an argument and the format that the argument is given in. I apologize for any mis-communication on this matter.

[WonderWombat]

I assumed you were defending him because you didn't say anything of that sort to him (despite his saying things like "Lol Your 'argument." and "The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply"). I completely agree that a venomous attitude and spiteful comments don't make anyone's argument any more agreeable, but I see a clear distinction between the credibility of an argument and the format that the argument is given in. I apologize for any mis-communication on this matter.

Yeah, that isn't exactly engaging, however, it is pretty easy to see the difference of the two. As for credibility it is just whether to trust or believe what is being said, why should I believe what someone is saying when they throw their attitude and insults in it?

 

As for the topic they obviously need to change it from what it is now. But I'm pretty sure there aren't studies suggesting that millions of people really want the Halo 3 way back. I don't frequent waypoint often but on this forum it seemed to be split 50/50 about which way they liked it. Sounds more like a compromise is needed than reverting to a system that is 7 years old. Because it might seem nice on paper but when there are 10 other fps games offering varying experiences who knows.

 

Only thing they need to bring back for me is the theme song.

Edited January 15, 2014 by WonderWombat

[Howling Death Wolf]

Only thing they need to bring back for me is the theme song.

True Story man.

[Gubz]

 

Imagine two guys having an argument both being arrogant, but one giving the other the middle finger after each point they make. How many arguments has derogatory language won on the internet?

 

 

-Pretty sure he was insulting Maine before I even got here. In addition, how many arguments are nullified by derogatory language, internet or otherwise. Same number as those that are won with it, 0.

 

 

 

Twice...twice...what is insulting the guy going to gain you and how is it going to make him believe what you are saying? Do you think the insults are going to be what will persuade him to see your viewpoint?

 

 

-Nothing, I just don't like arrogant people who also happen to be wrong. I don't expect insulting him to help my argument at all, I just wanted to insult him, because:

 

1. He was being arrogant to someone whose claims were obviously far more based in fact than his own. Claiming that his arguments weren't getting across because of close mindedness. Just...what even. Fedora++

2. He was downright wrong to make many of the claims he did. This is like people who correct grammatical errors, and in turn make grammatical errors of their own in the same sentence. This makes me friggin' crazy.

3. My immediate opinion of him was total distaste. Forgive me for disliking someone immediately, his comments pushed all of the wrong buttons.

 

So, in summary, I insulted him simply because I didn't like the way he was behaving and I felt like someone needed to step in and shut him up. This is no way negates any claims I have made, but, I understand your dislike of my behavior. I'll be more civil from here on out, I apologize.

 

 

Genuine question, what was your thought process when typing each of these sentences?

 

 

Let's see:

1 - he called me close minded because he was wrong, I'm not taking that garbage

* - He doesnt, they don't. Neither do I, neither do you. We mean nothing unless we're collectively a fanbase that supports an idea.

2 - admittedly, that was too far, but it isn't wrong...and that made me smile, so I had to say it.

* - summary of what I was about to say.. not sure why this made your list

3 - lost my patience, it felt like he was replying without even reading

4 - see #3

5 - see #3

6 - see #3, also arrogance + ignorance pisses me off, as I've previously stated

7 - just having a bit of fun with it

8 - another response directed towards blatant arrogance + ignorance

 

Again, I apologize for my behavior. I'm not going to say it wasn't warranted, because I think it was, but I will admit that it contributed nothing to the thread, and I will stop.

 

 

As for credibility it is just whether to trust or believe what is being said, why should I believe what someone is saying when they throw their attitude and insults in it?

 

 

An individuals attitude is completely irrelevant to their logic. This shouldn't need to be said.

 

 

But I'm pretty sure there aren't studies suggesting that millions of people really want the Halo 3 way back. I don't frequent waypoint often but on this forum it seemed to be split 50/50 about which way they liked it. Sounds more like a compromise is needed than reverting to a system that is 7 years old. Because it might seem nice on paper but when there are 10 other fps games offering varying experiences who knows.

 

 

This forum is comprised mainly of people who are fond of Halo 4, and is therefore an extremely biased source of information. The only reason I am here is because I hope to make as much of an impact as I can on the next title. My efforts will likely amount to nothing, but at least I can say I did something. A compromise would be alright with me, but there are certain things in Halo 4 that just need to go. Forever. (I'm looking at you, unequal ordnance drops)

 

There is no need for a study, I just did it. Call of Duty was alive and kicking in Halo 3's era just as it is now. Counter Strike has been around forever, Battlefield 2 was out in 2006, and Bad Company was out in 2008. These are the only truly relevant players to the data, all of which are static to the scene up through today.

 

 

 

Only thing they need to bring back for me is the theme song.

 

 

I do also miss the theme song :l

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Just gonna laugh my head off. I find it funny how you guys think I'm arrogant. But whatever you wish to believe.

What was the point of this comment? To instigate others? You're not contributing anything to the discussion with this. This topic has already been derailed by such comments, and no one benefits from it. Please speak civilly and with constructive reasoning for your beliefs, or don't comment at all. 

[Crude]

Hi
First, sorry for my english..i'm from france

In my opinion, equal starts was the core of the success of halo 2 & halo 3. It brings more skill to kill someone because at the very beginning, we're all equal. The rush for the sniper, overshield, etc is what make halo a competitive game, where strategy and teamwork are keys success factors. Therefore map control was indeed a game of position but also a game of nerves and pace. 

Moreover, i disagree with the "let the player choose his weapon" because again it will bias the algorithm.
What is the point of creating "balanced maps" if the players are not equals (with jetpacks, abilities, different weapons,..) ?? How can 343 Industries can establish balanced maps if all the players doesn't have the same speed, the same ability to jump etc ?

 

To me, what made halo 2-3 blockbusters was the style of the fps. It was competitive, so you had to train to level up in ranked matchmaking. I remember sometimes going completely crazy in my room after loosing but also in great joy after winning 50-49 for instance. And that's what made it beautiful. 

On average, 90% of the time the players who won were the best players. Ok, there was luck, there was lag, but in the end, if you had more skilled, and if you played well with your teammates, you were winning because you deserved to win. That's what made it competitive therefore successful because everyone knew that the best players were hardworking and really talented. It was a pleasure to see all the MLG finals because it was only skill, strategy and how to adapt in fast-stressed situations. 

Watching MLG on halo reach-4 is a pain in the ass (imo)

Seen on an another topic, it's exactly what i think :
 

First I'd like to say that I'm still mad at you 343 for not actually giving us a true Halo 1 remake. Infinitely not cool what you did to true Halo fans. 

 

I speak for myself but basically all my friends and we all believe that halo has gotten worse and worse since halo 3. The load outs and perks need to go. Halo used to be a game about battling for the control of weapons and power ups on the map but now it has taken a turn towards the strategy-less game play of Call of Duty. Sprinting is the worst thing that ever happened to this game. It renders control of key places almost useless, especially when combined with a jet pack. When all players had one speed it allowed for a key aspect I loved in halo which allowed my teammate to very accurately gauge when and where players would be based on where they were going. Please make this new game closer to the "good" Halo titles by catering less to the little kids who love the pointless customization features. This title was better off when the goal was more on game play rather than the accessibility of the average gamer. This shift in focus has to be part of the reason no one has ever been online in this game since reach. 

 

Lastly, please bring back proximity voice. That might have been the best thing this game did to gaming. 

 

[Azaxx]

Staff Response
Too all members, get the thread back on track to what the OP posed as discussion, if that cannot be achieved the thread will be locked.

If flaming continues from any member, penalties may occur.

[Gubz]

Staff Response

Too all members, get the thread back on track to what the OP posed as discussion, if that cannot be achieved the thread will be locked.

If flaming continues from any member, penalties may occur.

 

 

Thank you for the prompt reply Azaxx.

So, as we were, without all of the pomp and circumstance.

 

I believe the arguments FOR standardized spawning were:

 

-equal playing field

-understanding of enemy capabilities

-Halo 4's changes were (collectively) unpopular

 

and the arguments AGAINST standardized spawning were:

 

-more varied gameplay

-standardized spawning is a worn out idea

-nobody actually ever has zero chance to succeed

[Howling Death Wolf]

Thank you for the prompt reply Azaxx.

So, as we were, without all of the pomp and circumstance.

 

I believe the arguments FOR standardized spawning were:

 

-equal playing field

-understanding of enemy capabilities

-Halo 4's changes were (collectively) unpopular

 

and the arguments AGAINST standardized spawning were:

 

-more varied gameplay

-standardized spawning is a worn out idea

-nobody actually ever has zero chance to succeed

 

No;

 

- More varied gameplay

- Camping Weapon Spawns was very Noobish

- Maps aren't made one way

- Weapons aren't made one way

- Things change

[Gubz]

No;

 

- More varied gameplay

- Camping Weapon Spawns was very Noobish

- Maps aren't made one way

- Weapons aren't made one way

- Things change

 

1: I included that one, check.

2: I disproved that one, it's no longer valid: I linked the following video that demonstrated map control without anyone camping.

3: Noted, but please expand on the idea so we can understand your point of view

4: I disproved that one, it's no longer valid: Yes you can beat a shotgun with a sniper, but in close range, the sniper has an advantage. Rebuttal?

5: I included that one: "more varied gameplay"

 

So, again:

 

Loadouts NO:

-equal playing field

-understanding enemy capabilities

-unpopular game

 

Loadouts YES:

-varied gameplay

-maps are open to interpretation (?) - I think this is what you meant but I still don't get it.

-everyone spawning with the same thing is boring

[Howling Death Wolf]

1: I included that one, check.

2: I disproved that one, it's no longer valid: 

3: Noted, but please expand on the idea so we can understand your point of view

4: I disproved that one, it's no longer valid: Yes you can beat a shotgun with a sniper, but in close range, the sniper has an advantage. Rebuttal?

5: I included that one: "more varied gameplay"

 

So, again:

 

Loadouts NO:

-equal playing field

-understanding enemy capabilities

-unpopular game

 

Loadouts YES:

-varied gameplay

-maps are open to interpretation (?) - I think this is what you meant but I still don't get it.

-everyone spawning with the same thing is boring

 

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it invalid as you'd like to believe. If I was like you I could say all your points are mute and invalid. But I don't. And if you've actually read any of my points (from what I've seen you both haven't) you would get your depth. Again, yes, noobishly camping weapon spawns is bad, and I am glad they took out (lessened) the ability to do that.

[Gubz]

Just because you disagree with something doesn't make it invalid as you'd like to believe. If I was like you I could say all your points are mute and invalid. But I don't. And if you've actually read any of my points (from what I've seen you both haven't) you would get your depth. Again, yes, noobishly camping weapon spawns is bad, and I am glad they took out (lessened) the ability to do that.

 

This is what we've been trying to tell you the entire time: WE ARE READING WHAT YOU SAY.

 

There, it's in big letters. The problem is that just saying something doesn't make it true, you need evidence to support your claim. If a scientist decides to come out and say Splenda causes cancer, but he has no research, nobody is going to believe it.

And so...

 

It's not the fact that I disagree with you that makes your point invalid, it's the fact that I presented a situation in which your point is not true that makes it invalid.

As for the disproof of your "noobish camping" point: Please watch the video if you haven't. Clearly they are controlling the power weapons, however, none of them are camping in order to do so. Having weapons on the map does not inherently cause people to camp them, in fact, the best players in the world don't camp them. So it would follow that should there be someone who is camping a power weapon, there is a strategy that outclasses it, and would provide you with an easy win over the "noobish" people. Again, there is evidence there that I linked just for you to see. I'm supporting my argument with something that proves it.

 

The disproof of "weapons being able to be used in different situations" is simple. I've explained it multiple times now and I'm running out of ideas, I'm not trying to argue with you, I'm trying to get my points across to you by using evidence, and asking you to provide some of your own. 

 

The evidence that supports my claim is simple: Loadouts are bad because if someone chooses a boltshot, and I choose a magnum, they have the advantage at close range. Again, yes I can use my magnum, and yes I can win, but the person with the boltshot has an unfair advantage.

[Howling Death Wolf]

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.

  

 

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.

  

 

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

  

 

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.

  

 

No;

- More varied gameplay

- Camping Weapon Spawns was very Noobish

- Maps aren't made one way

- Weapons aren't made one way

- Things change

 

I'll just leave this here for you to Re-read seeing as how you either didn't read it or just didn't care.

[Gubz]

 

I'll just leave this here for you to Re-read seeing as how you either didn't read it or just didn't care.

 

 

 

This is what we've been trying to tell you the entire time: WE ARE READING WHAT YOU SAY.

There, it's in big letters.

 

Again, you can't simply post something and then claim everyone else is automatically wrong when they disagree with you. We are asking you to post evidence. All you have done to argue for your point is repeat yourself, even the points that have been argued against. Let me present you with a scenario:

 

Person A is accused of theft.

Person B is the person accusing him.

 

Person A says, "I didn't do it, because I was somewhere else."

Person B presents evidence that Person A was at the scene of the crime.

Person A says "I didn't do it, because I was somewhere else," again...and again.....and again....

 

This is not exactly what you are doing, but a metaphor. We are not trying to fight with you, we simply want you to express some form of counterargument beyond just repeating yourself, because the stuff you're repeating has been successfully argued against.