Please don't ruin Halo 4 matchmaking like Bungie did with Reach...

[Absolute Dog]

I think that something is getting lost sight of in threads like this and others.

 

Basically we have one group of players that have a deep appreciation and understanding of what they liked about Halo. Halo CE, Halo 2 and Halo 3 were three games in the series that were well received by players of Halo as a whole. Halo 2 became the benchmark for online Halo play, in general, and the competitive designs in it's map, movement, weaponry and ranking system became the key stone of this franchises online play. It was the first. It was what we feel in love with. Halo 3 showed a direct lineage to Halo 2 and also some refinements in graphics and sounds, some improvements in ranking and other various changes that improved and advanced game play and reduced glitches and other issues found in Halo 2. There was still no doubt it was a sequel to Halo2. The game still played very much the same. We now had a consistent style of game play even as the game progressed from the original game. When Reach hit, all of that changed. That is a fact, like it or not.

 

Reach brought a completely new set of wholesale changes to the Halo franchise. The graphics were improved over the prior game, you were still a Spartan, be it an earlier version, and the maps still were similar, but little else seemed to remain. The movement was slower and the game now incorporated "abilities" that significantly altered the way the game was played. These "abilities" changed the core play of the game. There was already a continuous thread that bound the previous titles together and now that thread was not there. These "abilities" altered game play so much that to those of us who played the original games at the times of their release and throughout Halo's history now saw what can best be described as a whole new game. Some of us referred to it as a "stand alone" game. To us it was not Halo, period. Regardless of how someone describes the changes, their feelings or expresses their opinions it was a complete departure from the three games in the series we had played from the beginning. It has nothing to do with "adapting", "being stuck in the past" or about "not being able to deal with change".

 

When the news of 343 Studios was being formed and that the series was to continue again where Halo 3 left off, players who heard Frank O'Connor say that Halo 4 was returning to what made Halo good, that they were going to bring back what once was, we saw hope. The use of "abilities" in Halo 4 would not be the continuation we thought we were getting. Since the "abilities" were part of a game that for one, supposedly predated Halo CE and two, was believed to have been, at least by me, what was referred to by Frank his statement of, "No more dead end stories", their return seemed to have no chance. They had been publicly despised by a very large group of fans. They fractured the fan base so far beyond any dispute that had ever existed before. They were a lightning rod of some of the most heated and contemptuous arguments that could have ever been imagined. Why would they return?

 

If Reach had never happened and Halo 4 had been the next game and sprint was introduced as a pick up similar to invisibility, over shield, bubble shield and gravity lift........it may not have been a big deal. Now that it is referred to as an "ability" it brings up all of the connotations that were dreaded before.

 

Please think about these thoughts, truly sit back, be quiet, stop your quick response posts and think about what was said here. Not to tear it apart piece by piece and argue minute points, but think about "our" side. At least try.

[ZB-85]

ok, Absolute Dog.

 

I see your side .And I understand

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

Absolutely AD.

[Mezz]

as much as i do meant what i said when i started this post i do agree with alot of what absolute dog said, I just would be happy if i could get half the enjoyment i got with h2 and h3 in the new h4. :/

[Krinn3]

maybe because i dont play so competively, i enjoyed reach more than others, but i dont think halo was ruined with Reach. Yeah it had its problems, but i believe it would be a shame if 343 pulled out AA's, they add an interesting aspect to the game. Saying that Reach doesnt offer fair play because of AA's i find to be very false, noticing how everyone has access to these abilities. Some work better on different levels, that doesnt mean because the other guy picked a better-suited one than you that Reach is unfair.

[Pink Lemonade]

After seeing the released of the videos last week of matchmaking gameplay for Halo 4 my heart sank. I saw the same old jet packs, the same old speedy running guys, everything I hated about Reach's matchmaking. I absolutely HATE having classes in matchmaking. There should be two options, elites and spartans THATS IT! Make it like Halo 2 and Halo 3's matchmaking, where it was actually enjoyable. People wondered why Reach couldn't hold a population over 100,000 throughout the first year, when Halo 3 averaged well over 350,000. These games thrive on competitive matchmaking, not temporary campaign players. If the matchmaking isn't good the game fails, its that simple. And if 343 industries puts classes in matchmaking again Halo 4 will fail just as bad as Reach did. I still play Halo 3 to this day because I can't stand Reach. This is just my opinion and although I believe it will never get seen by someone important enough to make a change I couldn't help but get my voice out somewhere. Heres to another 2 years of waiting and getting my hopes up only to be yet again disappointed. CHEERS

with the thruster packs, i think those will be pickup. So long as loadout are not added into competitive matchmaking im fine with the game having that kind of stuff.

[iTz KeeFy]

@ Absolute Dog, very well written post. You nailed it on the head! If that doesn't explain "our" point of view then there is no hope.

[Baby Boo]

Tephnos, honestly. What's the point of you attacking twin like that? I like twin. I like the information he provides. He's a valuable member of this community. If you have a problem with him, keep it to yourself. No one wants to hear it. Twin, keep up the good work. Your information is in every way helpful.

[Lᴜᴋᴇ]

The fact is, the Reach population is abysmal.

I went on Halo 3 and Reach the other day, within minutes of each other.

Reach population ~ 100,000

Halo 3 population ~ 25,000

Right. Numbers don't lie my friend.

[Cheebusal]

I agree. Halo Reach's multiplayer would have been 30x better without the classes. Halo 3 is still the better game despite being older because of the perfect balance between pickups and weapons.

 

I would do damn near anything for them not to put armor abilities into Halo 4.

[Cheebusal]

I went on Halo 3 and Reach the other day, within minutes of each other.

Reach population ~ 100,000

Halo 3 population ~ 25,000

Right. Numbers don't lie my friend.

 

Reach's population hasn't been 100,000 in weeks. Plus it is also over 3 years newer than Halo 3. Casual players wouldn't go play a game that came out in 2007. If you want to start talking about population statistics between Halo 3 and Reach, talk about how many people were playing them at the one year mark of their releases.

[DoctorB77]

Classic...

No aa's.

 

We havnt confirmed aa's either.

 

We have just seen thruster packs.

[M a x w e l l]

Sorry babe but I still believe your dead wrong. When you add more things to the game you take out equality, which leads to advantages and disadvantages not by skill rather by what you have, this isn't the halo I know and love. Level the playing field give everyone a battle rifle and let skill determine the outcome of the game. Make it so what matters most in the game is not what you have but what you can do with it.

This is a defiant win right here and it's so true ^

[M a x w e l l]

I went on Halo 3 and Reach the other day, within minutes of each other.

Reach population ~ 100,000

Halo 3 population ~ 25,000

Right. Numbers don't lie my friend.

 

If you're going to compare numbers of population between the two, Then please compare halo 3 on launch day and Halo reach on launch day because right here you are comparing halo 3 which is a very old game to a fairly new game (Halo reach).

 

The reason why there is a higher population in halo reach is not the simple fact it's good, It's the simple fact that if there is a new halo game I'm going to buy that one and play the new one no matter how bad it is. That is how most mentalities are in the community. Very few people enjoy halo reach, I've joined parties where people play halo reach and all I hear is rage but see that there is my example of what I whitnessed so don't mistaken it for a generalization

[Absolute Dog]

I went on Halo 3 and Reach the other day, within minutes of each other.

Reach population ~ 100,000

Halo 3 population ~ 25,000

Right. Numbers don't lie my friend.

There is no good way to compare and interpret the numbers Luke. During any part of the same period of each games life Halo 3 had the better numbers by far. This is not just about numbers who play the game now. It is about getting players like the OP to wait and see what the actual new game will be. Making your mind up so early, 8 months before release, seems hurried to me. We have cried out for information, anything, and when offered an early preview of a yet unfinished game some say it is no good. Personally, considering how the community can be at times and how many different "camps" there are regarding game features, I wish sometimes 343 would release less information. I mean I want to know about Halo 4, but if info is given, offer the key elements that are really wanted. The ranking system and whether or not abilities are part of the game.

[Mezz]

Reach's population hasn't been 100,000 in weeks. Plus it is also over 3 years newer than Halo 3. Casual players wouldn't go play a game that came out in 2007. If you want to start talking about population statistics between Halo 3 and Reach, talk about how many people were playing them at the one year mark of their releases.

 

EXACTLY TO CHECK THE POPULATIONS NOW IS MEANINGLESS!

[SavageTwinky]

Adding more things to a game doesn't mean that you're sacrificing equality. When you have a more advanced game, you have to take into account more options, tactics, gameplay styles, etc. The simpler a game is, the less you have to factor in when you play. Which, to me, means that you don't have to have as much skill to play it. When a game is more advanced than another, that means that there is more to take into account when playing. More than you have to learn, more than you have to find counters for, more that you have to adapt to, more that you have to deal with on a game by game basis. You're honestly telling me you think something as simple as DOOM requires more skill than something like Battlefield? Just because it's simpler?

 

Play something like DOOM. Take a look at how basic and bare bones it is. Then go to something like Battlefield, where there are a multitude of things to learn and deal with while playing. After playing a decent amount of time for both, come back to me and try to honestly tell me DOOM is the more skill demanding game. That it requires more thought and planning and teamwork than something like Battlefield.

 

Here's another example if you're tired of that one. Take checkers and chess. Which do you think requires more skill? By your logic, checkers would require more skill because it's simpler, not as advanced as chess. But in my opinion, because of how complex chess is in comparison to checkers, it requires more skill. That's also an example of being more advanced without sacrificing equality.

 

 

Also, why don't you show me some respect by not calling me babe? I don't know you on a personal level, and neither you me.

I made an account just to throw my two cents in. There is many different types of skill, but when you add all these new types of mechanics the basics skills don't really count as much. In a one on one match you might be at a disadvantage if you pick a mechanic thats weak to someone else, so now its down to luck.

 

Also when you have all these new mechanics there is never any real way to fundamentally balance everything, people value things different and then you have exploiters that will try to take advantage of easier techniques.Many times with sprint it was easier to sprint into someone and beat them down while you were bing shot at. Or bait people into your shield for a quick armor lock kill.

 

A game like battlefield works because its all about working as a team to take objectives, but in a game like halo its more about map control and the abilities add advantages more so than adds a need for skill. It reduces the skill cap by allowing players that are bad to band-aid what they are bad at while letting good players exploit easier techniques.

 

I'm not saying they don't have a place in halo, they can can still be tons of fun, but sometimes the simpler game is the better competitive game, the players are on an even playing field, and it requires pure skill and good tactics to control the map and win. Having a team with jet packs that fly up and just chill in an easier camping spot to rain bullets down on other players is not skill full. Its too easy to maintain an unfair advantage with positioning or similar scenarios.

 

Also they have a visor now to show where enemies are as an armor ability... wtf

[Baby Boo]

 

I made an account just to throw my two cents in. There is many different types of skill, but when you add all these new types of mechanics the basics skills don't really count as much. In a one on one match you might be at a disadvantage if you pick a mechanic thats weak to someone else, so now its down to luck.

 

Also when you have all these new mechanics there is never any real way to fundamentally balance everything, people value things different and then you have exploiters that will try to take advantage of easier techniques.Many times with sprint it was easier to sprint into someone and beat them down while you were bing shot at. Or bait people into your shield for a quick armor lock kill.

 

A game like battlefield works because its all about working as a team to take objectives, but in a game like halo its more about map control and the abilities add advantages more so than adds a need for skill. It reduces the skill cap by allowing players that are bad to band-aid what they are bad at while letting good players exploit easier techniques.

 

I'm not saying they don't have a place in halo, they can can still be tons of fun, but sometimes the simpler game is the better competitive game, the players are on an even playing field, and it requires pure skill and good tactics to control the map and win. Having a team with jet packs that fly up and just chill in an easier camping spot to rain bullets down on other players is not skill full. Its too easy to maintain an unfair advantage with positioning or similar scenarios.

 

Also they have a visor now to show where enemies are as an armor ability... wtf

 

This topic is already discussed.

Let's please keep old threads buried. Last post here was in march, lots has been confirmed since then.

[P-1609]

:insert meme here:The number of people complying about Halo 4 multiplayer gameplay ITS TOO DAMN HIGH!.

 

You guys are complying on gameplay that might change, and gameplay you haven't even played yet. Wait 4 months, and then you can comply on everything, from Chief's looks, to multiplayer, to even that rock that isn't supposed to be there because it doesn't look like Halo 3's rocks.

[D-Wade]

Your right but online gamers now are getting so complex that they don't really want the simple online experience now. All of these games now a days have other modes to complement multiplayer like horde, forge, custom games, and spartan ops

[Man of The People]

:insert meme here:The number of people complying about Halo 4 multiplayer gameplay ITS TOO DAMN HIGH!.

 

You guys are complying on gameplay that might change, and gameplay you haven't even played yet. Wait 4 months, and then you can comply on everything, from Chief's looks, to multiplayer, to even that rock that isn't supposed to be there because it doesn't look like Halo 3's rocks.

 

When you say complying do you mean complaining?

[KRob]

i believe they said u can customize your weapon load out but no power weapons starting off and i feel the abilities add more excitement and tatics to the game but on the other hand it makes it easier for noobs. but veterans will still handle business if u dont like armor abilities dont play that playlist. they're trying to make the game fit best for the players of all kind.....

[DarkNazo]

I like Halo 3 better, but sometimes when I play it, I miss my sprint. As long as they have sprint I'm ok.

[RoosterTeethFan]

look halo needed to change or it was going to be left behind in the trash can. theres a whole generation out there who hasnt played halo and has been oppened up to huge amounts of customization in COD BF and GOW do you really think there going to want to play a game that only allows change of character model and colors no loadouts or even sprint thats what is being suggested here. i want halo to evolve not stay the same like COD has done. this amount of change isnt going to make halo more like COD but less like it because halo knows how to keep things fresh unlike COD.

[Man of The People]

i want halo to evolve not stay the same like COD has done. this amount of change isnt going to make halo more like COD but less like it because halo knows how to keep things fresh unlike COD.

 

Things Call of Duty has: Instant Respawn, customizable loadouts, random weapon drops ( care packages)

Things Halo 4 will have: Instant Respawn, customizable loadouts, random weapon drops (ordinance drops)

( I won't count sprinting)

 

Traits about Call of Duty multiplayer: Game is unbalanced due to higher ranked player having better equipment when starting a game

Traits about Halo games multiplayer (Reach-Halo CE): Game is balanced since everyone spawns with the same loadouts or starting weapons

Traits about Halo 4 multiplayer: Game will be unbalanced due to higher ranked players having better loadouts when starting a game

 

Call of Duty doesn't change much, but that doesn't mean Halo needs to adopt their ideas. Halo is Halo because it is a balanced game giving everyone a fair shot.