What do you guys think of a Test Range similar to BF in Halo 5?
I say this because my first BF was BF4 and my K/D was 0.23 and my Accuracy was 4.17% or somthing like that. Normally I don’t worry about my K/D but since me getting kills was going to lead to new and exciting guns I needed to get better.
So every day before I play BF4 I practiced at the Test Range for 30 minutes to an hour a day. And it has paid off. My K/D is now 0.50 and climbing and my Accuracy is 8.47% and climbing. I know it is still in the noobish area but you have to admit it is a significant improvement.
I couldn’t help but think how this could have helped me in the Halo games.
Now it wouldn’t be exactly the same as it was in BF 4 obviously. One of the major changes is not letting the targets fall until the health bar goes down. That way you get an accurate representation of how fast you can kill a guy in MP. Another thing is adding new variables. Targets that are moving at different speeds or standing still is good and all but kind a predictable.
What about targets that move in and out of cover. What about targets that employ different methods of Strafing. What about targets that jump. Or targets that run and then stop then go again.
It would also be cool if you could practice on different MP maps.
You know variety. I’m sure there are things I missed, but I think that would be neat addition to Halo 5 or any Halo afterwards.
One day they will see. Anyway with the training area thing it would help with all the beginners, ya could practice some good old fashion strafing and like it would be that hard to add.
I think its foolish to say that 343i don’t check the forums, lest we forget that we have members like Catalog roaming around here and there. Not to mention that a while ago, there was a thread posted in the General Discussion forum, where a few members noted that there was strange activity on the forums that could be undercover 343 employees. I’d say they do check the forums, they just don’t make it obvious.
OT: Your idea is neat OP, but i’d prefer bots, as it would feel much more like an online experience. Of course diversity of said modes is what will make said experience more accurate. Of course, for beginners, this would make a lot of sense. It would remove any necessity to make Halo ‘more accessible’, at least.
> Not to mention that a while ago, there was a thread posted in the General Discussion forum, where a few members noted that there was strange activity on the forums that could be undercover 343 employees.
What type of strange activity?
> OT: Your idea is neat OP, but i’d prefer bots, as it would feel much more like an online experience. Of course diversity of said modes is what will make said experience more accurate. Of course, for beginners, this would make a lot of sense. It would remove any necessity to make Halo ‘more accessible’, at least.
Bots like in CoD? That would be cool too. If they implemented player actions like the ones you see in MP like jumping, strafing, crouching, taking cover. The A.I. Would have to be incredibly smart.
Also it would be cool if they had a progress bar or milestones, so while you are practicing you can see if you are improving or not, or getting closer to the skill level you want to be in. Like me, I just want to consistently get more kills then deaths. I’m not looking to be the guy who gets 20/5 almost every game (though that would be good too).
I don’t feel like a test range is worth the time and effort that goes into creating the test range. Personally, all I ever used the Battlefield 4 test range for was a bit of messing around with the weapons and vehicles to see what they are like. Beyond that, I don’t see a lot of practical uses for a test range.
Sure, shooting the moving targets on a test range can help your aim a bit, but the problem is that it’s not a realistic simulation of the kinds of encounters you are going to have. Most of the time the opponent is going to be shooting back at you. In Halo, the problem is even worse. An average encounter takes a few seconds. The opponent will shoot at you at some point (unless you have a one-hit-kill power weapons), and the opponent will probably strafe. The encounter has no resemblances on target practice.
Target practice only teaches the player how to aim at a certain point and shoot. That’s not a worthless skill, but there is so much more in learning to actually play the game that your hour in target practice is time wasted. That time would be better spent in playing campaign that, while not a realistic simulation of multiplayer encounters, will actually teach you to move, use cover, shoot at unpredictably moving enemies (although not very well), and plan your encounters.
If there was to be any kind of practice mode, it would have to have bots designed to behave as much like a player would. That’s the only proper practice simulation. If the implementation of multiplayer bots isn’t worthwhile, a better idea than target practice is the Firefight mode which uses AI from campaign to challenge the player. There is just so much more to shooters than point and shoot that plain target practice is really inefficient practice.
> I don’t feel like a test range is worth the time and effort that goes into creating the test range. Personally, all I ever used the Battlefield 4 test range for was a bit of messing around with the weapons and vehicles to see what they are like. Beyond that, I don’t see a lot of practical uses for a test range.
>
> Sure, shooting the moving targets on a test range can help your aim a bit, but the problem is that it’s not a realistic simulation of the kinds of encounters you are going to have. Most of the time the opponent is going to be shooting back at you. In Halo, the problem is even worse. An average encounter takes a few seconds. The opponent will shoot at you at some point (unless you have a one-hit-kill power weapons), and the opponent will probably strafe. The encounter has no resemblances on target practice.
>
> Target practice only teaches the player how to aim at a certain point and shoot. That’s not a worthless skill, but there is so much more in learning to actually play the game that your hour in target practice is time wasted. That time would be better spent in playing campaign that, while not a realistic simulation of multiplayer encounters, will actually teach you to move, use cover, shoot at unpredictably moving enemies (although not very well), and plan your encounters.
>
> If there was to be any kind of practice mode, it would have to have bots designed to behave as much like a player would. That’s the only proper practice simulation. If the implementation of multiplayer bots isn’t worthwhile, a better idea than target practice is the Firefight mode which uses AI from campaign to challenge the player. There is just so much more to shooters than point and shoot that plain target practice is really inefficient practice.
I am not saying it should be exactly like BF4. I believe the test range can be improved upon, but I can’t deny that it has helped with my K/D or my Accuracy
That is why I suggested there be variations in the movements of the targets, very close to the way players move on the field. I suggested various types of strafing, jumping targets, running targets, crouching targets.
But bots work too. I can be down with that as well…
> I am not saying it should be exactly like BF4. I believe the test range can be improved upon, but I can’t deny that it has helped with my K/D or my Accuracy
>
> That is why I suggested there be variations in the movements of the targets, very close to the way players move on the field. I suggested various types of strafing, jumping targets, running targets, crouching targets.
>
> But bots work too. I can be down with that as well…
When you start adding more unpredictable movement, you are essentially reinventing game AI. If the goal is to have target practice that simulates real players as well as possible without making it too difficult for the player, you will inevitably end up with bots with adjustable difficulty levels. Target practice with only dummy targets that don’t react to the player is just lazy design.
> When you start adding more unpredictable movement, you are essentially reinventing game AI. If the goal is to have target practice that simulates real players as well as possible without making it too difficult for the player, you will inevitably end up with bots with adjustable difficulty levels. Target practice with only dummy targets that don’t react to the player is just lazy design.
Sigh… I thought it was a good idea and you just shot it down.
> Sigh… I thought it was a good idea and you just shot it down.
>
> Oh well…
A practice mode isn’t a bad idea at all. It just has more potential than a mere shooting range.
No idea is perfect out of the gate. When you throw your idea out there, if it’s any good at all, other people make suggestions to improve it. My purpose wasn’t to completely shoot down your idea to upset you, but to propose a more varied solution for a practice mode.
> > Sigh… I thought it was a good idea and you just shot it down.
> >
> > Oh well…
>
> A practice mode isn’t a bad idea at all. It just has more potential than a mere shooting range.
>
> No idea is perfect out of the gate. When you throw your idea out there, if it’s any good at all, other people make suggestions to improve it. My purpose wasn’t to completely shoot down your idea to upset you, but to propose a more varied solution for a practice mode.
LOL, you didn’t upset me. You just made me realize my idea wasn’t as good on paper as it was in my head.
You are right bots would be more common sense. I just don’t like things shooting at me when I am learning how to aim correctly.
Maybe there could be a setting where the bots don’t shoot. Idk, even that sounds crazy…
> > What type of strange activity?
>
> Maybe ‘strange activity’ was the wrong phrase to use, but i will just simply link this thread so that you can make your own opinion on the matter.
> > > Sigh… I thought it was a good idea and you just shot it down.
> > >
> > > Oh well…
> >
> > A practice mode isn’t a bad idea at all. It just has more potential than a mere shooting range.
> >
> > No idea is perfect out of the gate. When you throw your idea out there, if it’s any good at all, other people make suggestions to improve it. My purpose wasn’t to completely shoot down your idea to upset you, but to propose a more varied solution for a practice mode.
>
> LOL, you didn’t upset me. You just made me realize my idea wasn’t as good on paper as it was in my head.
>
> You are right bots would be more common sense. I just don’t like things shooting at me when I am learning how to aim correctly.
>
> Maybe there could be a setting where the bots don’t shoot. Idk, even that sounds crazy…
The problem is that whilst it’s likely that your accuracy would improve with any form of target practice - if you remove that from a combat scenario then it won’t improve as much as it otherwise could. In the multiplayer you’re going to have to deal with much more than just being shot at, so it’s good for you to improve all of your multiplayer skills at once rather than just target practice, such as map awareness and knowledge.
The only example I can think of where non-aggressive bots have helped me are in fighting games, but there it comes down to practicing combos etc. and you still move on to aggressive bots pretty quickly.
I don’t think your idea is bad in theory, but I’d say that practicing all aspects of the game at once rather than one at a time is more likely to lead to improvement :)Though it probably depends on the person somewhat…
> > I don’t feel like a test range is worth the time and effort that goes into creating the test range. Personally, all I ever used the Battlefield 4 test range for was a bit of messing around with the weapons and vehicles to see what they are like. Beyond that, I don’t see a lot of practical uses for a test range.
> >
> > Sure, shooting the moving targets on a test range can help your aim a bit, but the problem is that it’s not a realistic simulation of the kinds of encounters you are going to have. Most of the time the opponent is going to be shooting back at you. In Halo, the problem is even worse. An average encounter takes a few seconds. The opponent will shoot at you at some point (unless you have a one-hit-kill power weapons), and the opponent will probably strafe. The encounter has no resemblances on target practice.
> >
> > Target practice only teaches the player how to aim at a certain point and shoot. That’s not a worthless skill, but there is so much more in learning to actually play the game that your hour in target practice is time wasted. That time would be better spent in playing campaign that, while not a realistic simulation of multiplayer encounters, will actually teach you to move, use cover, shoot at unpredictably moving enemies (although not very well), and plan your encounters.
> >
> > If there was to be any kind of practice mode, it would have to have bots designed to behave as much like a player would. That’s the only proper practice simulation. If the implementation of multiplayer bots isn’t worthwhile, a better idea than target practice is the Firefight mode which uses AI from campaign to challenge the player. There is just so much more to shooters than point and shoot that plain target practice is really inefficient practice.
>
> I am not saying it should be exactly like BF4. I believe the test range can be improved upon, but I can’t deny that it has helped with my K/D or my Accuracy
>
> That is why I suggested there be variations in the movements of the targets, very close to the way players move on the field. I suggested various types of strafing, jumping targets, running targets, crouching targets.
>
> But bots work too. I can be down with that as well…
Honestly you should just play the multiplayer and skip ranges all together. that is honestly the best way for you to get better. like in halo 3 i’d say the best way for people to get better was in rumble pit, because it was FFA and did not mess with your true skill. halo is too complex of a game to get good at simpy by shooting at targets are bots that do honestly almost nothing in return. And even with battlefield, getting your kd to .50 wasn’t really as big of an improvement, as just playing multiplayer more.