Same. Sanctuary was too open with too many long sight lines, with plenty of angles to get shot at from. It was too hard to get from one point to another. Haven is a very nice map, and like the other H4 maps, it looks really damn good.
Halo 343i best thing to happen to halo or worst?
- Thread starter Vinceagashi
- Start date
I wont say best, nor will I say the worst. I think the fans themselves own both of those positions. We have our great moments but many times we are a giant bag of ego driven dicks.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but in most Reach playlists, weren't the choices forced DMR/AR or AR/Magnum?
You might be right- I don't really remember that well. I just remember playing invasion, with a progressive, somewhat confusing load out system with a variety of weapons and abilities for both sides.
Honestly, I haven't played Halo 4 in a while, because I need a new hard drive. I think Halo 4 is my favorite Halo. I haven't had any problems or complaints about the game. The game to me is more competitive than I've seen, so that kind of voids everything.
I think too May people define "competitive" and "skill" as 'how well one can aim with a battle rifle.' To them, a competitive game/game type is one where players are thrown into an arena practically butt naked with nothing but their battle rifles. The fewer gadgets and options one has, the better. How boring.
Halo 4 really isn't that much less competitive than the others. Personal ordinance does make it slightly less so, but that is only present in a few game types and playlists. The other additions, such as load outs, do not make it less competitive. They only make it so that other factors and skills are necessary to win other than just how well one can aim with that one gun.
That being said, I completely agree with you.
Actually, this isn't how most people define the game being competitive. While aiming/ shooting skills are a part of it, there is a lot more on top of that that factor in. The factors that hurt Halo 4 as a competitive shooter are as follows for the following reasons:
Personal ordnance drops: In all previous Halo games, players had to work hard to get ahold of power weapons. It wasn't just your shooting skill that mattered, but your ability to time when they would pop up, to be in the right place to grab them, and to set up situations where the other player is dead or incapacitated while you are going for the weapon. A smart player who controls the map well doesn't necessarily have to be a better shot to win if they play their cards right. Personal ordnance on the other hand promotes the best shot doing the best. When power weapons are based on kills and points, the player who does better gets more weapons, perpetuating their winning streaks.
Some loadout options: Loadouts as a system are not broken or uncompetitive. In fact, they make the game more varied and interesting and let players focus more on their chosen play styles. Certain items within the load outs however are broken as spawn weapons, which tends to taint the system in general. Plasma pistol and plasma grenades off spawn destroy the entire triangle of how player's can choose to deal with vehicles (cooperation, power weapons, or skill in hijacking,) removing any trade offs and leading to stagnant vehicular gameplay.
Other: There are a few other things as well. Some consider sprint to be an issue as it allows players to run away from fights instead of facing them, though this is debated amongst the competitive crowd, as are armor abilities. Random drops are clearly broken for competitive structure as they tip the scales for one team or the other completely at random, allowing teams to win with no skill at all involved (imagine if a baseball team was given free points because the umpire "felt like it.") Several weapons also are either clearly or debatably too powerful, giving players "free kills" for simply picking them up without requiring much skill with said weapon to get a kill. There are a lot of little features scattered around in Halo 4 that are questionable in a competitive light, but most of them need to be tweaked, not utterly removed.
So actually, most "competitive" players want an interesting, varied experience that is still balanced and fair and that requires a lot of skill with weapon usage, map control, player movement prediction, teamwork, and a number of other factors.
Yeah, I understand this, and I mentioned it in my other post. This and random drops are really the only things that make the game less competitive, though I don't really think that the latter is that bad.
Much of this is true. However, I wouldn't necessarily call it less competitive, but rather unbalanced or broken. 343 was definitely on the right track by adding customizable loadouts and weapons, but it is true that the changes were poorly incorporated, as Physco (trolololol) had mentioned somewhere earlier, and should be fixed or improved.
I don't. I think it's great that they gave victims a better chance to get away and set up for a reengagement. But even if some players don't like it and think it makes the game worse, it definitely doesn't make it less competitive.
Hell no! This is part of what I was talking about- the fact that they give players extra versatility does not make them less competitive, as long as they're balanced. Active camouflage is 90% of the reason I can stay alive for more than half minute in the game- don't know what I'd do without it.
The thing is though, a broken game is inherently less competitive. One can casually play a broken game and still have a good time potentially; what is broken are the aspects that allow for competitive play. Like I said, sprint is debated. I actually love sprint, but I can understand why some people do not. What is important is that we are able to turn it on or off, and that we actually can't do that in Halo 4 is a major issue. Sprint removes the player's need to commit to a fight, which many players consider a quintessential part of Halo. I would argue that it is not myself, but I respect that there are variations based on personal bias. That said, some things can be said to be uncompetitive if players start gaining unfair advantages or the basic structure of the game is undone. Not added to, but removed.
Camo is an example of this. Camo encourages players not to move, and often leads to a lot of player camping around good areas waiting for kills instead of actually engaging in the fight. If players had to risk themselves to gain this temporary advantage then it might be alright, but as an armor ability they risk nothing. This is the main issue with armor abilities, though most of them are so minor in their effect that they are not an issue. Only Camo, as it gives a rather large advantage, and (on some maps) jetpack are dubious, the rest are pretty much fine.
I really want to get info on Halo 5. That will tell us whether 343i really learned from Halo 4 or if we are going to keep seeing the same mistakes made because they were popular. That will answer a lot of questions about where the Halo series is going.
You're right about that. I realized that right after I posted my post and got too lazy to change it.
I guess my point was that I feel like 343 is on the right track by adding the loadouts- all they need to do is fix them and balance them.
Also, I feel like there's no way 343 could make the same mistakes in Halo 5. It's just impossible. Whether they listen to the community or their numbers (sales/population), they should realize what they have done wrong.
Because I use Active Camouflage, I immediately want to reject this. However, I can certainly see how one can make this argument. Camo can be used for camping, to elude enemy players and avoid fights, to gain an advantage in battle (they can't see you until you start shooting, thus guaranteeing you the first shots), for ambushes, concealed sniping, and to sneak past enemy lines undetected. I certainly don't think that the jetpack or promethian vision are too advantageous, but camo is one that they'll need to keep an eye on.
But generally, I don't think that armor abilities decrease competition level. They remove some skill requirement, but replace it with strategy, which is also a competitive element. They must be used tactically to get the right advantage at the right time. They also allow for more diverse strategies and different ways of playing the game.
343 industries are improving. They've learnt their mistakes from Halo 4 and are going to make Halo 5 a game to remember. Don't give up on them.
I used this ability as well recently I switched to using either a overall loadout with DMR/AR and a Shield or AR and Promethean Vision with Inf. Sprint
Something to note is that 343i were the ones who patched Reach, giving us 85% bloom gametypes, no bloom gametypes, and bleedthrough. These additions were quite popular, whereas the changes made in Halo 4 seem to be mcuh more controversial (as can be seen in the rest of this thread).
A question for you: What kinds of strategy do armor abilities promote? What "skill requirements," as you put it, do they reduce?
Other things to consider: Is diverse always better? Armor Lock returning on steroids would increase the diversity of the armor abilities in Halo 4, but would they really make the game more competitive?
I'm not making an argument or anything, just want your point of view.
Active Camouflage promotes stealth and slower-paced gameplay; with it, players can sneak to a better position for an engagement and get the first shot on an enemy instead of just charging them head-on and hoping that they can outgun them to win the shootout. This is how I play- basically, if I don't have the advantage in an encounter, then I turn around and run away to try to get myself in a better position, which pisses the hell out of some people, but it's still extremely tactical.
Autosentry supports fortification and defensive tactics. Players can get the advantage by strategically placing themselves and their sentry at a position they intend to hold to launch planned ambushes against attackers. The defender needs to make sure that his sentry isn't too easily noticeable, but is still placed where it can defend him and the location he intends to hold.This is another tactical alternative to just openly shooting at attackers the moment you see them.
Holograms must also be intelligently deployed in order to fool an enemy. It can be used offensively or defensively, as long as the user plays it right.
Regeneration fields support team-based gameplay. Players with this ability can exploit it by staying back further and playing like a medic to keep your guys alive.
I would say that players can use promethian vision to ambush enemies, but the fact that your position on radar is given up when it's used makes this difficult to do.
Players can use active camo or ProVi, for example, to gain an advantage, and with this advantage they do not need as much shooting skill to win a battle. I see this as a good thing because players can outsmart an opponent if the opponent is more skilled and you cannot outgun him. However, Some players see this as a bad thing, because they think that Halo should be all about skill, and that the more skilled players should always have a proportionate advantage and nothing should get in the way of that.
To build on my previous questions:
Camo: Is stealth a strategy? Is slower paced gameplay a strategy? And if they are, does Camo create a strategy or just reduce the amount of skill required to execute one (is playing passively / defensively viable without camo?)
Autosentry: Doesn't the sentry just shoot at attackers the moment it sees them (and then of course, you also shoot right after)?
Etc, etc... for the other armor abilities.
Also, I think somebody mentioned this above, but there is a distinction between "skill" and "aiming skill" - one can have more overall skill but have awful aim, or just rely on their aim to make up for their bad skill-based decisions. Not sure if that was clear; tell me if it's not.
Another thing to consider is the regenerating nature of the armor abilities and the inability of any player to know about or do anything about the armor ability beforehand. It is impossible to know whether opponent A has jetpack, in which case one, being no shields, might as well not bother running to consere his sniper ammo and go for the headshot since he'll be seen anyways, or whether opponent A has camo or some other armor ability, in which case the player with the sniper should run away in peace.
Which brings up the question: Are armor abilities bad by nature or is their implementation in this game bad? Would there be such a problem if armor abilities spawned on the map at set times so that people can fight over them like they do over normal weapons and powerups (RIP camo/custom powerups)?
The above also brings up the question of whether armor abilities should recharge (if they're map pickups, that is), seeing as over time, more and more players will have armor abilities and it will become more and more difficult to figure out who has what (imagine doing that in a BTB match).
Just food for thought. What would you say? Would armor abilities be better for casuals and competitive players if they weren't given off spawn and/or didn't recharge?
It's an alternative way to play the game. It also takes more active thinking and brainpower than a head-on engagement. So by my definition it does qualify as a tactical method of gameplay.
Neither. I don't think I would have enjoyed Halo 4 if it did not offer armor abilities.
The reason why I like Halo 4 the most is because it offers a variety of ways to play the game. This ability was provided to a lesser extent in Reach, and almost completely absent in Halo 3.
Would it be more competitive? Yes. Better? Certainly not in my opinion.
The addition of armor abilities creates for diversified and more personalized gameplay, but this can only work if it's provided from a selection at start. It does take away some competitive elements as you had mentioned, but overall I believe that they contribute to better gameplay.
Hmm never thought of it like that. I am going to throw this into one of my Load Outs and put some weapons in that will compliment it
Given your response, could you answer my earlier question: "does Camo create a strategy or just reduce the amount of skill required to execute one (is playing passively / defensively viable without camo?)?
Would you like Halo 4 better if it had Armor Lock with 10x the use time? It's a new way to play the game..
Just trying to bring up the idea that variety can both be good and bad, depending on its implementation.
Not sure if I'm interpreting this right: Given that competitive = fair, balanced, and no unnecessary RNG (to be honest, IDK how else it would be defined, but if you have an alternate definition to throw out there, please do), you prefer personalization to competitiveness? If that's true, it's not necessarily a wrong answer or anything - I just want a clarification before I say anything more about the topic.
Also, what do you say to the autosentry, AA regeneration, and AAs on map questions I brought up? Do you think AAs not regenerating or AAs being on the map would make the game more balanced / fun?
AA's without recharge could be interesting. I think they would have to be much more team orientated i.e deployable gravity lift, regen field, to function without feeling gimmicky. It would still be very frustrating because as an enemy you won't know what they have (you said this earlier), unlike a game like TF2 where all enemy abilities are visually distinguishable by class. I think the best option would be having them as pickups. I personally think jetpack and evade worked really well as pickups in reach and I like the idea of having AA's like the regen field as pickups.