TU on Halo 4

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
36 messages Options
12
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
This post was updated on .
There's two things that I feel make halo unique to every other fps on the market today, the first being player generated content. The idea of giving the player the tools to create the content they want is genius, not only taking work off the backs of the developers but giving the consumer endless amount of content. My second reason for halo being unique among the fps market is the competitive multiplayer. When i say competitive multiplayer, i mean a game that spent the time tweaking, balancing and testing their online multiplayer from the beginning, not tacking it on as some sale gimmick as we see with every single player game these days.

This is the part where 343 failed in my eyes. I understand why they implemented some of these casual friendly modifications, but in doing so they took away the competitive nature of the game and lost several passionate fans along the way. Instead of sitting here crying about how they should have gave us a public beta to express our opinions before the launch (well i guess i just did) i would rather try and put the great minds of RP together to come up with a solution. I don't think 343 should TU halo 4 like they did with reach, casual player love infinity slayer because it's easy to jump on and get a few kills before work, that's cool.

I think what 343 did with the competitive playlist is the way to go, but the gametype they used was poorly executed and is why i'm here today. I would like to start a discussion with you all in what aspects we should push for in the next update to get halos competitiveness back on track. It can be anything from ordinance drops to instant spawns, after we gather all the information RP will test, tweak, test, adjust and test some more until it's matchmaking worthy. If there's anything you don't agree with, don't feel shy about stepping up and voicing your opinion.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
I'll start things off.
Disabling sprint as default

I believe 343s idea was to get the player in the middle of the action as soon as possible, but in doing so has created chaotic confusion among players. Like a good book, the action should have its highs and its lows. With sprint as default, players are constantly bombarded with conflict and rarely have those low moments to reflect what just happened. In previous halos you would engage in those intense battles, carefully and strategically planing your next attack, but with sprint as default now, more than likely you're interrupted by another player running in to your rescue or demise.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
Zombified Panda wrote
I'll start things off.
Disabling sprint as default

I believe 343s idea was to get the player in the middle of the action as soon as possible, but in doing so has created chaotic confusion among players. Like a good book, the action should have its highs and its lows. With sprint as default, players are constantly bombarded with conflict and rarely have those low moments to reflect what just happened. In previous halos you would engage in those intense battles, carefully and strategically planing your next attack, but with sprint as default now, more than likely you're interrupted by another player running in to your rescue or demise.
I have a problem with that, mostly because older games like Quake and Unreal played at a speed that would boggle the tiny mind of the average Halo player, but that Halo 4 faithfully touches on that 'old school' element of an age of game long gone. Halo 4's sprinting feature, to me, is not as chaotic and crazy as Call of Duty's sprint function, in that running around at the speed of light didn't usually end up in an instant death because of the fact that the player has shielding.

I personally think that adding sprint as a default function was one of the <thetruth>best</thetruth> moves that 343 could've taken to make sure that a player didn't have to sacrifice a way to protect themselves or fight back just to move faster on a larger map. Nothing pissed me off more in Reach to make an Oregon Trail-esque trek across Hemorrhage, only to be pancaked by a Ghost because I couldn't Armor Lock or Evade, because I was forced to choose the only means to make a trip across the map not take four years.

Even in a non-BTB setting I feel that sprinting is just such a great thing to be able to do all of the time. No more having to get shot in the back just as I'm rounding the corner because my dude couldn't pump his little sausage legs that extra two inches, it seems nice. I think that the reason so many people like Infinity Slayer is because they can just jump in and have an easy experience, and feel like they're doing well because they're getting points for everything they do. Yes, it's 'casual', but there IS in fact an appeal in the whole "Oh, this isn't an xXxXxXxXxMLGproDaRkNo0bshadowblackassassinsniperxXxXxXxXxXxXxXx experience, this is just a casual game that even people like me can jump into" sort of thing. I say have all of your pro playlists with no sprint, there's no reason that it should be removed from the majority of the game because it's not 'old-school' enough (which is funny, because it is).
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Randy 355
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
I'm okay with sprint, but I am not uncontested to getting rid of it either. I like the classic feel, but sprint has brought some benefits to Halo's gameplay as well.

I think the problem lies with instant respawn as far as over-active gameplay. Some player gets outplayed and *BAM* they're back in the action as soon as they left it. It's not hard to mash X as soon as you die, and as a result, I often forget to choose a new loadout or I find myself mashing X uncontrollably in objective gametypes that force you to wait. I don't like that. Respawn times should not only act as downtime to collect your thoughts, but it should also act as punishment for your loss. I think 5 second respawns (and no less) should help make a nice even pace in 4v4 slayer.

Now, I'm not a highly competitive player, but I do like what the motion tracker has to offer for competitive play. Motion tracker gets ripped on by the competitive community, but I don't see why. Of course, it should stay this way for the competitive playlist because that's what they seem to like, but motion tracker can add a very competitive element to gameplay. It's not just a crutch to aid you in finding your opponent. The motion tracker is an opportunity to manipulate player movement and outsmart the opposing team by giving them a false sense of security. It can be used to communicate with your team as well. People complain that it takes more skill to obtain situation awareness without it, but I disagree. Both having and not having motion tracker take different kinds of advanced skills. Both change the game into something entirely different.

As far as custom loadouts... I like them, but there needs to be alterations. Primary weapon selection can stay the same, but I believe secondary should only ever be the magnum, unless you are using firepower. The only option for grenades should be frags as well. No more outplaying somebody and getting stuck out of a panic-click of the left trigger. That is, not as often. Which brings me to my next point.

Bring back weapons on maps! This has always made map movement flow on a well thought out map.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
In reply to this post by FuN Fortress
FuN Fortress wrote
I have a problem with that, mostly because older games like Quake and Unreal played at a speed that would boggle the tiny mind of the average Halo player, but that Halo 4 faithfully touches on that 'old school' element of an age of game long gone. Halo 4's sprinting feature, to me, is not as chaotic and crazy as Call of Duty's sprint function, in that running around at the speed of light didn't usually end up in an instant death because of the fact that the player has shielding.

I personally think that adding sprint as a default function was one of the <thetruth>best</thetruth> moves that 343 could've taken to make sure that a player didn't have to sacrifice a way to protect themselves or fight back just to move faster on a larger map. Nothing pissed me off more in Reach to make an Oregon Trail-esque trek across Hemorrhage, only to be pancaked by a Ghost because I couldn't Armor Lock or Evade, because I was forced to choose the only means to make a trip across the map not take four years.

Even in a non-BTB setting I feel that sprinting is just such a great thing to be able to do all of the time. No more having to get shot in the back just as I'm rounding the corner because my dude couldn't pump his little sausage legs that extra two inches, it seems nice. I think that the reason so many people like Infinity Slayer is because they can just jump in and have an easy experience, and feel like they're doing well because they're getting points for everything they do. Yes, it's 'casual', but there IS in fact an appeal in the whole "Oh, this isn't an xXxXxXxXxMLGproDaRkNo0bshadowblackassassinsniperxXxXxXxXxXxXxXx experience, this is just a casual game that even people like me can jump into" sort of thing. I say have all of your pro playlists with no sprint, there's no reason that it should be removed from the majority of the game because it's not 'old-school' enough (which is funny, because it is).
I completely agree, infinity slayer appeals to those casual players because they can jump in and feel like they're doing well, and it's because they are. The player skill gap between Hreach and H4 has been significantly reduced, now when you get the jump on another player your chances of winning that battle is almost guaranteed, where in previous halos the one with the better skill, still had a good chance of reacting and winning that battle. That's why so many of my friends have given up on H4, it basically has became COD in the sense of who spots who first.

Does this mean i want 343 to take sprint out of H4 all together, of course not. I feel it definitely has it's advantages in IS and should stay in most of the playlist, especially btb for reasons you've explained above. I'm just talking about specifically for this competitive gametype. Maybe part of the chaotic mess i was speaking of, is due to the Instant spawning like randy was talking about. Possibly with the spawn timer back, the frustration of killing someone, then them sprinting back in before your shields are recharged would be eliminated. But i think it would still be nice to have that classic, slower paced halo combat back in play. For me personally, it's a lot more intense when you're able to slow down and methodically plan your next move, instead of just being overwhelmed and dying every 20 seconds.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
In reply to this post by Randy 355
Randy 355 wrote
I'm okay with sprint, but I am not uncontested to getting rid of it either. I like the classic feel, but sprint has brought some benefits to Halo's gameplay as well.

I think the problem lies with instant respawn as far as over-active gameplay. Some player gets outplayed and *BAM* they're back in the action as soon as they left it. It's not hard to mash X as soon as you die, and as a result, I often forget to choose a new loadout or I find myself mashing X uncontrollably in objective gametypes that force you to wait. I don't like that. Respawn times should not only act as downtime to collect your thoughts, but it should also act as punishment for your loss. I think 5 second respawns (and no less) should help make a nice even pace in 4v4 slayer.

Now, I'm not a highly competitive player, but I do like what the motion tracker has to offer for competitive play. Motion tracker gets ripped on by the competitive community, but I don't see why. Of course, it should stay this way for the competitive playlist because that's what they seem to like, but motion tracker can add a very competitive element to gameplay. It's not just a crutch to aid you in finding your opponent. The motion tracker is an opportunity to manipulate player movement and outsmart the opposing team by giving them a false sense of security. It can be used to communicate with your team as well. People complain that it takes more skill to obtain situation awareness without it, but I disagree. Both having and not having motion tracker take different kinds of advanced skills. Both change the game into something entirely different.

As far as custom loadouts... I like them, but there needs to be alterations. Primary weapon selection can stay the same, but I believe secondary should only ever be the magnum, unless you are using firepower. The only option for grenades should be frags as well. No more outplaying somebody and getting stuck out of a panic-click of the left trigger. That is, not as often. Which brings me to my next point.

Bring back weapons on maps! This has always made map movement flow on a well thought out map.
I can not agree with you more concerning the spawn timers! There's nothing more frustrating (especially in doubles where it's most noticeable) than when you're fighting, you kill one of their team mates so your first reaction is to push since they're down a player, then all of a sudden there's two again.. When i was first thinking i was thinking a 3 second spawn timer. But after what you said, i do wan't there to be a reasonable penalty for dying in this competitive playlist, not only to that player, but also the team.

As for the motion tracker, i get why people say it's more competitive. It forces players to talk to one another, and usually the team without the communication will loose. That's great and all for players that have a full team and know all the call outs, but not so much for the competitive players that just want to get on and show off their individual skill. I'm right there with you, i hate not having a motion tracker, it feels like i'm charging into battle blind.  I love my motion tracker and i feel it brings so much more layers of strategy when the player is aware of his or her surroundings, but i'm trying to consider the community as a whole. Two versions of this gametype, one with the motion tracker and one (pro) without it, then let the players can vote in the lobby like previous halos on what they want.

I agree and disagree with the rest. Weapons on map did create better flow, it gave map makers more incentives on where to direct the players and combat, what i disagree with is custom loadouts. Competitive halo before was always two teams spawn, both with the same traits and depending on the map, the same amount of advantages and disadvantages. That is what i'm aiming for, a more controlled and balanced gametype, one where i never have to think "how did that grenade not kill him, it was perfectly placed. Ugh, he must have had explosives as a perk". I think everyone should start out on an even playing field, no matter what level or experience they are, for the competitive gametype at least.

 
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
On halo tracker, they say that the march 25th update is bringing back the red x over teammates dead bodies. This was actually one of the things on my list for them to change for the competitive gametype, i'm glad that 343 is actually listening to the community and making appropriate changes!
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Randy 355
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
Zombified Panda wrote
I can not agree with you more concerning the spawn timers! There's nothing more frustrating (especially in doubles where it's most noticeable) than when you're fighting, you kill one of their team mates so your first reaction is to push since they're down a player, then all of a sudden there's two again.. When i was first thinking i was thinking a 3 second spawn timer. But after what you said, i do wan't there to be a reasonable penalty for dying in this competitive playlist, not only to that player, but also the team.
Right! It's my one major issue with the game. I just can't play Team Slayer because of it.

Zombified Panda wrote
As for the motion tracker, i get why people say it's more competitive. It forces players to talk to one another, and usually the team without the communication will loose. That's great and all for players that have a full team and know all the call outs, but not so much for the competitive players that just want to get on and show off their individual skill. I'm right there with you, i hate not having a motion tracker, it feels like i'm charging into battle blind.  I love my motion tracker and i feel it brings so much more layers of strategy when the player is aware of his or her surroundings, but i'm trying to consider the community as a whole. Two versions of this gametype, one with the motion tracker and one (pro) without it, then let the players can vote in the lobby like previous halos on what they want.
I suppose we are talking competitive here, I'm thinking a bit more personally I'll admit. Communication is huge for when you are without radar, and some people really do feel passionately about games with no radar. Hell, just last night I was on Ragnarok with a team of randoms. Catch is, we all actually had mics! We won without a contest. Yes, it was BTB which has radar, but the communication spread our situational awareness across the map. I imagine it's a similar feeling on small maps with no radar.

Zombified Panda wrote
I agree and disagree with the rest. Weapons on map did create better flow, it gave map makers more incentives on where to direct the players and combat, what i disagree with is custom loadouts. Competitive halo before was always two teams spawn, both with the same traits and depending on the map, the same amount of advantages and disadvantages. That is what i'm aiming for, a more controlled and balanced gametype, one where i never have to think "how did that grenade not kill him, it was perfectly placed. Ugh, he must have had explosives as a perk". I think everyone should start out on an even playing field, no matter what level or experience they are, for the competitive gametype at least.
You have fair points. Halo 4's tactical packages and support upgrades do add inconsistencies in gameplay. Scrap those.

 So, if custom loadouts were to be scrapped completely, would pre-set loadouts be acceptable, or would spawning with all of the same set be the only way? I've always liked having a choice of at least a primary, whether it's the BR, Carbine, Light Rifle, etc.

I'm thinking:
Primary: BR/Carbine/Light Rifle
Secondary: Magnum
Grenades: 2x Frag Grenades

Which brings me to another thought. Are AAs anything competitive players are interested in? Surely not Jetpack or Active Camo, but maybe Thruster Pack, Hardlight Shield, Regeneration Field, or Auto Sentry? If there were to be a choice of these, than maybe it could be all BR/Magnum starts, but with the choice of an AA? Kind of like how Reach had it, but with only competitive AA choices.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
Zombified Panda wrote
it basically has became COD in the sense of who spots who first.
Zombified Panda wrote
it basically has became COD
Zombified Panda wrote
has became COD
Zombified Panda wrote
COD
No.

It's not even fair to compare the two games, they're so very different. In fact, it's kind of funny to compare CoD against everything else, as CoD itself features 'core' gameplay elements that were used in pretty much every actual good game preceding it.

Loadouts: The first CoD was released in 2003, and that installment didn't have multiplayer. Team Fortress, however, released four years prior, was doing the loadout thing before it was even cool. Hell, Counter Strike before that was leading that before CoD had its first money-induced panic attack.

ADS System: Okay, Aim-Down-Sight was pretty neat-o for the first four minutes of gameplay, granted. But staring down the length of a gun metal-gray weapon for the entire game just to have the hope of hitting anything gets more than boring. Unreal, Quake, Deus Ex, Team Fortress, Half Life, and even games like Halo had it right with the 'simpler-is-better' approach that is straight hip-fire. Comparing Halo's combat mechanics to that of CoD's is not at all a fair comparison, as doing anything but staring down an ironsight for the entire eight-minute game of Deathmatch in CoD pretty much guarantees a negative K/D.

SO MANY WEAPONS: Yeah, sure, CoD had weapons out the ass. It had like a million guns, and a thousand attachments for them. But what does that mean in the multiplayer department? Jack. Shit. Nearly every gun (within its own class, that is) performs nearly identically, with the most notable differences usually being clip size and rate of fire. Turok, Quake, and UT are good examples of games with a core set of weapons that each serve their own purpose, an example that Halo follows with one, generic assault rifle as opposed to CoD's fifty-thousand. Team Fortress takes that even further by dividing the weapons among specific classes. Besides, Goldeneye 64 (1997, mind you) was doing the ten-billion weapons thing before CoD could take its first ungraceful dump, and it even had multiplayer to boot.

Killstreaks awmigawd: Get three kills, call in a helicopter made of dogs that fires jets that shoot nukes that split into throwing knives that launch radars which explode into throwing axes which win the game. Call of Dooty's reward system for gaining multiple kills in a life is unbalanced, and unrewarding. Do you know what happens when you get on a roll in Halo 4? The player will get a weapon, that they'll lose, which the enemy will pick up and destroy them with, because the player sucked CoD's training wheel-laden teat and expected Halo to be cake compared to it. But, like everybody knows, CoD is a shit series in the multiplayer department and no other series deserves to have their multiplayer compared to CoD's.

Respawning instantly: Quake, Unreal, Turok, Goldeneye, and certain mods on CS let this occur years before CoD even had multiplayer. This mechanic has been around far longer than 'baby's first first person shooter' has been around.

What I'm getting at here, is that CoD has absolutely nothing original about its multiplayer experience, besides the shitty implementation of Sprint, and the crappy blood spatter and no-health system that makes no sense whatsoever and just messes up the player's screen. Granted, Halo has this to an extent with Shielding, but like I said like ten times, you just can't compare anything to the crappy eye-candy that is CoD.

Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
Zombified Panda wrote
has became COD
Also, no.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
This post was updated on .
Randy 355 wrote
I suppose we are talking competitive here, I'm thinking a bit more personally I'll admit. Communication is huge for when you are without radar, and some people really do feel passionately about games with no radar. Hell, just last night I was on Ragnarok with a team of randoms. Catch is, we all actually had mics! We won without a contest. Yes, it was BTB which has radar, but the communication spread our situational awareness across the map. I imagine it's a similar feeling on small maps with no radar.
Yeah, i absolutely love those games and I don't want to take away from those experiences. You think this gametype should have no radar at all, or be put to the vote via the player lobby?

Randy 355 wrote
You have fair points. Halo 4's tactical packages and support upgrades do add inconsistencies in gameplay. Scrap those.

 So, if custom loadouts were to be scrapped completely, would pre-set loadouts be acceptable, or would spawning with all of the same set be the only way? I've always liked having a choice of at least a primary, whether it's the BR, Carbine, Light Rifle, etc.

I'm thinking:
Primary: BR/Carbine/Light Rifle
Secondary: Magnum
Grenades: 2x Frag Grenades

Which brings me to another thought. Are AAs anything competitive players are interested in? Surely not Jetpack or Active Camo, but maybe Thruster Pack, Hardlight Shield, Regeneration Field, or Auto Sentry? If there were to be a choice of these, than maybe it could be all BR/Magnum starts, but with the choice of an AA? Kind of like how Reach had it, but with only competitive AA choices.
After reading your comment, i booted up my xbox and tried out some things. I can't find a way to actually just limit the players choices to just a primary, we would have to use pre-set loadouts.

But before we decide loadouts, we need to discuss your second point about AA's. There's a few ways we could actually do this, one would be like you said with reach, where you'd have the same loadout primary and secondary but could choose different AA's. Or the other way is you could pick out your primary, and have AA's placed on map.

So the question is, are Armor Abilities competitive?

My opinion is yes, AA can bring a level of dynamic gameplay that without, could make the game feel redundant and stale. Weather it be an item on map or a pre-set loadout choice, armor abilities by themselves have enough pro's and con's to give longevity and variety to any map. As long as it is equal to all players, i feel like it would be a great asset to the competitive playlist.

FuN Fortress wrote
Zombified Panda wrote
has became COD
Also, no.
I said "it basically has became COD in the sense of who spots who first". My brother plays COD, every now and then i'll go to his place and we'll play. The thing i don't like about that game is:
1. Even after i learned the map's, i still wonder aimlessly like a chicken with it's head cut off. (That i also do when i have no radar in halo)
2. The combat; I come around the corner look left, at the same time a guy to my right comes around the corner and looks left. BAM, i'm dead.

That's what i admired in previous halos, even though you're caught off guard you still have a few options. Run and hide, or play your ass off and win that battle. With 0 bloom (because it basically is 0 bloom with aesthetic) you don't have that other option in H4. Unless who you're fighting is absolutely terrible. Which reminds me of what you said about COD.

FuN Fortress wrote
Yeah, sure, CoD had weapons out the ass. It had like a million guns, and a thousand attachments for them. But what does that mean in the multiplayer department? Jack. Shit. Nearly every gun (within its own class, that is) performs nearly identically, with the most notable differences usually being clip size and rate of fire.
That's kind of how i feel about H4 and all the rifles. In my mind it makes no sense that a designated marksman rifle (that is mean't to take off heads long range) can beat a battle rifle (that is designed for mid to close combat) in a up close battle. In my opinion, they should have lowered the rate of fire on the dmr so it's still super deadly from afar, but will get it's ass kicked in a close range battle with the BR.

So hear me out, this is a few way they can fix this. Either they can lower the firing rate by at least 50% on the dmr, or we could raise the damage modifier to 110%. With this 10% increase, it makes the BR a 4 if you're skilled enough to land all your shots just like in halo 3, and the dmr is still a 5 shot. I feel this actually balances and gives each weapon a set of ranged advantages.

P.S. Keep in mind i'm doing this for balance, not because i'm in favor of the BR. If you look at what weapons i use on halowaypoint, you'll see i actually never use the BR and i'm in favor of the DMR. Thought i'd throw that out there so other DMR fans don't think i'm some DMR hater, lol.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
I entirely ignored your point about Halo being like Call of Duty in the sense that it become all about "who spots who first". I didn't know that this was not the case in any other shooter, unless a player is just really shitty at the game. I'm pretty sure that the advantage always goes to the player who spots another player first. The same exact argument could be made comparing Halo to any other game.

Oh, Halo is like Goldeneye. The first guy to spot the other guy always wins with surprise Slappers. This is crap.
Oh, Halo is like Team Fortress. The Scout spotted me first and could move more quickly so he had the advantage. Such bullshit.
Oh, Halo is like Quake. That dude spotted me and killed me with his melee weapon and I didn't see him. Shenanigans.
Oh, Halo is like Unreal. Dumb bastard killed me because I didn't see him. Fucking hacks.

Sorry, but I don't think I'll let a statement like "Halo is like CoD because it's all about who sees whom first" slide, it just doesn't jive with me. Unreal was just as hectic and chaotic as CoD, and I don't ever remember people putting any timed respawns on any server that I ever played. And I played a lot of Unreal in my day.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
FuN Fortress wrote
I entirely ignored your point about Halo being like Call of Duty in the sense that it become all about "who spots who first". I didn't know that this was not the case in any other shooter, unless a player is just really shitty at the game. I'm pretty sure that the advantage always goes to the player who spots another player first. The same exact argument could be made comparing Halo to any other game.
Its obvious you don't read everything before trying to argue, and you're still not getting my point.. Try debating something constructive instead
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
I don't need to read everything when the comparison is being made in the argument of "herpa derpa, instant spawning is ass". Of course I don't read everything before I decide to argue.

youmustbenewhere.jpg

Besides, try to tell me how my argument wasn't well-founded or poorly-written?
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
FuN Fortress wrote
I don't need to read everything when the comparison is being made in the argument of "herpa derpa, instant spawning is ass". Of course I don't read everything before I decide to argue.

youmustbenewhere.jpg

Besides, try to tell me how my argument wasn't well-founded or poorly-written?
Idk where to start, you're all over the place and can't keep to one idea.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
This post was updated on .
In reply to this post by FuN Fortress
Start by giving me an actual example of one of these many bad points I've made that you just don't know where to start with, or would you like me to hold your hand and offer some help?

FuN Fortress wrote
I entirely ignored your point about Halo being like Call of Duty in the sense that it become all about "who spots who first". I didn't know that this was not the case in any other shooter, unless a player is just really shitty at the game. I'm pretty sure that the advantage always goes to the player who spots another player first. The same exact argument could be made comparing Halo to any other game.

Oh, Halo is like Goldeneye. The first guy to spot the other guy always wins with surprise Slappers. This is crap.
Oh, Halo is like Team Fortress. The Scout spotted me first and could move more quickly so he had the advantage. Such bullshit.
Oh, Halo is like Quake. That dude spotted me and killed me with his melee weapon and I didn't see him. Shenanigans.
Oh, Halo is like Unreal. Dumb bastard killed me because I didn't see him. Fucking hacks.

Sorry, but I don't think I'll let a statement like "Halo is like CoD because it's all about who sees whom first" slide, it just doesn't jive with me. Unreal was just as hectic and chaotic as CoD, and I don't ever remember people putting any timed respawns on any server that I ever played. And I played a lot of Unreal in my day.
Pretty sure that this entire post of mine was all about an argument against your take on the whole 'who sees whom' first thing. Which is one thing, last time I checked. Why don't you oblige me and give me a very specific example of my posts being all over the place, and maybe then you can call me out on it.

I'm also pretty sure that my posts before that were all of my reasons for why Halo has become anything but CoD's multiplayer clone, skipping over the 'who spots whom' argument of yours because, like I said again and again, the same argument could be made comparing Halo to any other game if we're talking about advantage going to the player to first spot the other player. It sounded kind of (really) 'duh' to me, so I figured commenting on it would be pretty pointless.

Can't stay in one place? I thought that I couldn't be staying in the same place even harder than I already am, considering I'm still arguing one of your older points.

Moving on.

My argument against your... point of 'who sees whom first' making Halo become the Call of Duty franchise's clone in terms of multiplayer is that I don't think that there's a game out there in which spotting another player first is a bad thing. I always thought (and, do please tell me how I'm wording this one incorrectly, mkay?) that spotting a player first in any game of the genre gave that player an advantage, and was never looked upon as bad. Another point of mine was that Halo and Call of Duty are two entirely different games, so a comparison between the two is completely unfair.

Now, allow me to indulge you and start arguing all over up in this business:

Zombified Panda wrote
Even after I learned the maps, I would still wander aimlessly like a chicken with it's head cut off.


That's because CoD's spawning system (wait, scratch that, its everything) is shit in terms of multiplayer, and nothing constant is going to be happening for very long. There's no point in trying to know the maps on CoD because of how simply chaotic it is. Everybody's always going to be spawning everywhere, regardless of where your dudes are, and despite how the maps are set up, there are no such things as 'control spots' on CoD's maps because of the aforementioned spawning issue. There's no point in trying to learn a map in CoD, because it's going to be exactly what you described earlier; turn the corner, get shot, sit in corner, get shot, stop playing CoD, get shot up in Halo because you got dumbed down by CoD.

Having a bunch-o quotes isn't working, so I'm just going to bold what I was trying to quote from you so that we can tell it apart.
(I also do that when I have no radar in halo)

Fair enough, considering the fact that no-radar in Halo is dick. I've spent my fair share of time doing constant 360s shooting fuck-all trying to make sure that nobody was standing right behind me with my girlfriend in SWAT. Though, to be fair to CoD, most gametypes in the series feature a minimap feature, and while it doesn't function along the same lines as Halo's radar, it still provides a representation of where other players are relative to you.

The combat; I come around the corner look left, at the same time a guy to my right comes around the corner and looks left. BAM, i'm dead.

Yeah, but to be fair, again, the same could be said about pretty much every other game. Unreal, Quake, and even games like Counter Strike (depending on what gametype you're playing, of course) have this going on, which is why I say that it's unfair to compare Halo to CoD not only because the two are so different, but because what you're describing occurs in games that <thehonesttruth>aren't</thehonesttruth> complete trash.


That's what i admired in previous halos, even though you're caught off guard you still have a few options. Run and hide, or play, et cetera

I totally agree with that, and I think it's because of Halo's recharging shielding system. Sure, you get shot in the back a few times, but you still have the ability to round the corner and let them charge up, or throw some 'nades to buy some time to do that, or you could even just turn around and flat-out win if you were skilled, because losing half of your shields didn't mean you were going to lose a fight.

There. Now I'm officially all over the place with my arguments.
If I have to press 'edit' again, I'm going to jump out of my skin.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
If it sounds like I'm upset with you, or trying to argue against you personally, Panda, then please don't think that way. That's how I've argued or done point-counterpoint on here for as long as I've been here. Can't argue well about something if you don't try to be (or at least act, which isn't my case, I'm honestly that big-headed) kind of passionately and really pompously about it, right? Look back on basically anything I've ever posted in. Just try not to take me too seriously, and you'll get along swimmingly.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
This post was updated on .

FuN Fortress wrote
Why don't you oblige me and give me a very specific example of my posts being all over the place, and maybe then you can call me out on it.
First you argued about older games playing at a much faster pace than halo and it wasn't chaotic, so sprint in halo 4 is ok.

Second you argued the differences between COD and H4 when all i did was compare one key feature the two games shared, like you did with your previous argument about older games being faster paced.

Then lastly you argued that in every game, the player who spots their opponent first has the advantage.

I count three rebuttals, three separate topics and all misleading points that i wasn't trying to make from the start.
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

FuN Fortress
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
My first post were my thoughts on your thoughts on sprint, my second was me reasoning why Halo wasn't becoming CoD in any way whatsoever after you commented on it being so, and my sixth was me actually deciding to go all over the map at what I can only assume was a fan request. I'm only commenting on the things you've said first, nothing more. Anyway, I'll keep playing nice. If I didn't know any better, I'd say that you must think I'm calling yourself and your arguments stupid, as that's how I feel I'm being treated.





Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: TU on Halo 4

Zombified Panda
In reply to this post by Zombified Panda
Zombified Panda wrote
I count three rebuttals, three separate topics and all misleading points that i wasn't trying to make from the start.
Zombified Panda wrote
all misleading points that i wasn't trying to make from the start.
12