Like some cover between spots.
Ok so happy to talk but stay on topic dont derail us into your threads topic please.
Weve had a conversation on the hyjack thing and its safe to say I dont see it as a solution or that it acknowledges the actual issues. If you want to explain or talk more on that tag me in the appropriate thread.
As for the qustion of how it doesn’t its just an innate buff in that setting by virtue of giving the vehicles a greater advantage.
Buffs dont have to be base stat increases.
You can buff or nerf something via the setting/play space.
Example: if a map had no mid to long sight lines the sniper that spawned on it would not be as powerful.
Where as if the spaces are tight with short sight lines the bulldog would have an increased utility than if it was on a wide open plane with long lines of sight.
I never said or meant to imply the buff of vehicles on the existing maps, my bad if it reads as such.
Just that it would buff vehicles on the new maps when compared to the tight 3 lane funnels that exist currently.
I should have been clearer.
exactly, when you make maps more open, weapons also become more powerful. Telll me how vehicles become more powerful in an open map when someone can just shoot it twice with a shock rifle?
Honestly I don’t get the hate on 3 lane maps. I find non-3 way maps mostly a frustrating insta-spawn kill fest. Also doesn’t encourage much team strategy/work. Imo.
1 Like
Did so in a previous post on the thread my friend.
So wont repeate it cause its spammy.
And again please stay on topic these questions veer into vehicle balance not the topic of 3 lane maps specifically which is the discussion for this particular thread.
Ty in advance for your cooperation spartan.
the OP thread is actually talking about arena. btb wasnt his focus. Also if we are going to talk about maps with limited lanes, its only logical we can also talk about the vehicle balance.
i read your original point and understand it better. you dont want an open map with no cover, you want more routes essentially.
1 Like
Easy, realistically there will only ever be 1-2 shock rifles active on a map at any given time.
If any shock rifles at all.
It could very well be in the hands of someone using it as a standard rifle, and now for its vehicle stun.
Frankly that says more about how poorly balanced the shock weapons are than it does anything about the problems in the map design and vehicle sandbox.
Outside of that,
An Open map gives vehicles tons of movement flexibility,
Ghosts have Omni-directional escape routes, Warthogs have an infinite amount of space to move forward as fast as it wants without losing any momentum.
Scorpion Tanks have Greater Access to unblocked sightlines, and less routes to being Hyjacked, since in a much more open map. Approaching it becomes much more difficult.
Wrath tanks have always been bad, it takes a ton of skill to use them proficiently.
The Greatest limiting factor to vehicles after a good map for them, is just how weak they are.
Warthogs only last a fraction of the time they previously did, and it destroyed super easily by concentrated Small arms fire.
Battle Creek. Sidewinder. Blood Gulch.
Ascension. Ivory Tower. Beaver Creek. Ivory Tower. Coagulation.
The Pit. Valhalla. Avalanche. Narrows. Citadel. Guardian.
Reflection. Pinnacle. Boardwalk.
1 Like
exactly, vehiccles have low heath in general and llong range weapons just pick vehicles apart which is why vehicles would need more heallth in more open spaced maps with no cover.
theres a big reason vehicles are easy to kill though, and that is to prevent snowballing where one team can steal all vehicles especially in 12v12 with even more vehicles. the main problem imo that is stopping vehicles being more powerfull is the hijack mechanic. it makes it too easy to simply take an enemies vvehiclle and potentially keep it for the rest of the match. I made a thread on how 343 can balance hijaccking properly so that snowballlling is no longer a concern.
the reason the btb maps also dont have open spaces imo is because 343 designed it to be focused on infantry and they wanted less cross map shooting. I agree with this but we play btb for vvehicles, not infantry. future maps really need to focus on the vehicles.
if most people are in vehicles, then a few infantry shooting accross the map is not a problem.
Thing is I don’t agree with the idea of Vehicle supremacy being bad,
A matching being perfectly balanced throughout is the most boring type of gameplay.
Especially in a PvP setting,
There is the Team push and Pull, each team doing their best to edge advantages.
A situation that forces a Team to Turtle, or refocus themselves from an objective to take out a priority target is a pretty critical part of emergent game play.
Even when a vehicle BECOMES available right now, very few people actually want to use it for its intended purpose. They only use it as a Temporary transport to get across the map faster.
Just because Ground Gameplay has a much higher survival and success rate.
No one likes snowballing in pvp. If vehicles were too strong, the snowballing would get out of control.
In halo 1, im told vehicles had no hijacking mechanic and vehicles were also really strong. Halo 1 players vouch that it had the best btb. I think I agree with them simply because it had no hijacking mechanic to snowball matches.
But no one like games that Drag on either,
CTF games that drag on till max time, because neither team can hold down an advantage is extremely frustrating.
No one likes it in LMS when everyone spends the entire game hiding, camping, stealing kills from their holes.
Sure the game might snowball, but at LEAST the game ends so much more quickly.
Its one of the Major reasons I stopped bothing with BtB all together,
Way too many matches ended in a complete stale-mate, neither side holding down a control advantage because all the tools for control were stomped flat for “balance”.
And that horrifical boring,
Because for the ENTIRE 15 minutes + Overtime, people are just exchanging kills and Drawing the game out for way longer than it is fun to play.
Its like knowing a team has already lost 5 minutes into the game, with ZERO chance of making a comeback,
But because they refuse to let the game end in a clear victory, they just run the clock out.
Would you honestly say you prefer that over quicker more decisive games?
I would rather my games be quick and punchy, if my team match up is bad, I can move on to the next game.
i agree with you. I hate matches like that. Its possible to both solve that problem and also have little snowballling.
The reason matches like ctf can drag on is because its rebalancing the scales too quickly that people cant push effectively.
vehicles need to be strong so that flags can be captured but they also need to respawn. hijacking stops them from respawning. Even if they did respawn, the other team still has 1 extra hijaccked vehicle to decide the rest of the match.
Think about it this way. If ctf had 30 second respawns for each pllayer, flags would always get captured but the other team will have a chance at fighting back when they respawn. thats how vehicles should be. The match should always be slowly restoring the balance of vehicles so that snowballing is always temporary.
While it is satisfying to take down vehicles with a sniper rifle, it doesn’t make a lot of sense (unless you manage to shoot the driver/pilot).
Maybe vehicles should have a recharging shield like the spartans?