Bring back the 1v1 playlist (Poll)!

I know there were issues with campers and other things with the previous 1v1 playlist, but I would LOVE for it to return anyway.

It seems when I get on to play, that’s all I want to do when no one is on to join me. I think they should at least give it a shot in Halo 4. If its a disaster (again), remove it.

What do you guys think?

Edit: I’m talking with updates and trying things to fix past problems. Like one guy mentioned, removing close quarter power weapons in all maps (all my custom 1v1 maps have snipe and/or grenade launcher).

Another fix would be to have specific maps where there are no “good” camping spots or no use of armor abilities with great advantage such as jet pack.

I think with the right effort, this could work.

i need to find a stronger word than no.

I believe a 1v1 playlist could work with the addition of forerunner vision. for the playlist to work they need to exclude weapons that promote camping. (No Sword, Shotgun, Rockets, Anything that gives a lopsided advantage in a close range.)

> i need to find a stronger word than no.

Also in halo 3 they Tried and people just cheated and boosted all not many people played it sorry but I dont think its going to happen…

But good luck

> > i need to find a stronger word than no.
>
> Also in halo 3 they Tried and people just cheated and boosted all not many people played it sorry but I dont think its going to happen…
>
>
> But good luck

which is why we need to band together to create/find a word stronger than no! it shall be our secret term…an inside joke of sorts, so that when we see it used we know to steer clear! =P

I hope this is considered. CoD tried a 1v1 list and that was a terrible idea. Shoved in the right mind, this could totally work.

1v1’s just don’t work.

Even if you get all the settings right, it is one of the most boosted/manipulated playlists.

My thoughts exactly:

> i need to find a stronger word than no.

YES.

It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.

I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.

> My thoughts exactly:
>
> > i need to find a stronger word than no.

Just curious, why are you both opposed to a 1v1 playlist?

> > My thoughts exactly:
> >
> > > i need to find a stronger word than no.
>
> Just curious, why are you both opposed to a 1v1 playlist?

My guess is fear.

> YES.
>
> It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
>
> I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.

Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.

I agree. 15 would be best. And you CAN prevent boosters. That’s what I don’t understand. All it takes is a little attention.

> > YES.
> >
> > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> >
> > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
>
> Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.

I respect your opinion, but disagree.

Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.

Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.

> > > YES.
> > >
> > > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> > >
> > > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
> >
> > Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.
>
> I respect your opinion, but disagree.
>
> Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.
>
> Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.

Yes, but the problem with 5/7 kills is that it is too few point to prove who is better/deserved to win the match. What happens if you get a spree of 4 kills, but are then getting out slayed 2 to 1 kills from then on? If it is up to 5 you win after their 2 points. If it is up to 7 you still win after their 6 points. If it is up to 10 you lose 10 to 9 and if it is up to 15 you lose 15 to 11.

Little sprees like that happen all the time in Halo and a spree does not show you are the better player, it shows you had a good play.

.

> > > > YES.
> > > >
> > > > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
> > >
> > > Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.
> >
> > I respect your opinion, but disagree.
> >
> > Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.
>
> Yes, but the problem with 5/7 kills is that it is too few point to prove who is better/deserved to win the match. What happens if you get a spree of 4 kills, but are then getting out slayed 2 to 1 kills from then on? If it is up to 5 you win after their 2 points. If it is up to 7 you still win after their 6 points. If it is up to 10 you lose 10 to 9 and if it is up to 15 you lose 15 to 11.
>
> Little sprees like that happen all the time in Halo and a spree does not show you are the better player, it shows you had a good play.

It must go to 15, and have power weapons too. A game is very equal in kills until the players get over 5 kills. A match can start off with 3-3, then 4-3 ,7-5 ,9-6 ,12-7, 15-7. A good player learns how the other player plays, and thus take advantage of it. If the game is too short, it is quite possible that the worst player wins.

Why would you need extremely high population in a 1v1 playlist anyway? You only need 2 players to get a game.

> > > > YES.
> > > >
> > > > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> > > >
> > > > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
> > >
> > > Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.
> >
> > I respect your opinion, but disagree.
> >
> > Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.
> >
> > Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.
>
> Yes, but the problem with 5/7 kills is that it is too few point to prove who is better/deserved to win the match. What happens if you get a spree of 4 kills, but are then getting out slayed 2 to 1 kills from then on? If it is up to 5 you win after their 2 points. If it is up to 7 you still win after their 6 points. If it is up to 10 you lose 10 to 9 and if it is up to 15 you lose 15 to 11.
>
> Little sprees like that happen all the time in Halo and a spree does not show you are the better player, it shows you had a good play.

You are correct about getting a streak to end the match. But the logic could be applied to a player losing 14 - 9, and ending on a spree.

Maybe 7 kills is better than 5, To slightly extend the match. But by making matches too long, they could get boring and make people hide out of anger to preserve their precious kdr when losing to obviously better players. Also these HLG kids would try to get up a kill and hide for 10 minutes. Not fun.

Bottom line is that the community wanted faster kills and gameplay. In my experience with 1v1’s, the losing party tends to hide when undoubtedly facing a loss. Likewise a player may hide to protect their lead if they feel they are lucky to be winning. The only relief from this, IMO, would be to make the game quicker. There are a few ways to do this.

  1. Reduce score to win
  2. Increase weapon damage / decrease shields (not my favorite)
  3. Reduce time limit to 5-7 minutes to force action and increase end of match excitement/intensity… (my personal favorite)

> > > > > YES.
> > > > >
> > > > > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
> > > >
> > > > Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.
> > >
> > > I respect your opinion, but disagree.
> > >
> > > Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.
> > >
> > > Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.
> >
> > Yes, but the problem with 5/7 kills is that it is too few point to prove who is better/deserved to win the match. What happens if you get a spree of 4 kills, but are then getting out slayed 2 to 1 kills from then on? If it is up to 5 you win after their 2 points. If it is up to 7 you still win after their 6 points. If it is up to 10 you lose 10 to 9 and if it is up to 15 you lose 15 to 11.
> >
> > Little sprees like that happen all the time in Halo and a spree does not show you are the better player, it shows you had a good play.
>
> You are correct about getting a streak to end the match. But the logic could be applied to a player losing 14 - 9, and ending on a spree.
>
> Maybe 7 kills is better than 5, To slightly extend the match. But by making matches too long, they could get boring and make people hide out of anger to preserve their precious kdr when losing to obviously better players. Also these HLG kids would try to get up a kill and hide for 10 minutes. Not fun.
>
> Bottom line is that the community wanted faster kills and gameplay. In my experience with 1v1’s, the losing party tends to hide when undoubtedly facing a loss. Likewise a player may hide to protect their lead if they feel they are lucky to be winning. The only relief from this, IMO, would be to make the game quicker. There are a few ways to do this.
>
> 1. Reduce score to win
> 2. Increase weapon damage / decrease shields (not my favorite)
> 3. Reduce time limit to 5-7 minutes to force action and increase end of match excitement/intensity… (my personal favorite)

There is one more solution to the camping problem and the slow gameplay problem, and that is to create good 1v1 maps in Forge.

A good 1v1 map should have no place to camp or hide, but should also provide cover/ power positions. You should have vantage points that show the majority of the map and be able to quickly scout the entire map without having to run around in vulnerable positions.

With this kind of map you get rid of every gameplay problem that comes with a 1v1, and you can extend the game to 15 kills or even more as the map will make for more fast paced gameplay, or at least consistent gameplay.

Also, all your problems are not limited to 1v1. Doubles can be an absolute campfest and it is HLG’s main playlist.

> > > > > YES.
> > > > >
> > > > > It needs to be first to 5 kills, maybe 7. An limited to very small maps to force action. Maybe even use forge to block certain map areas to their respective central arenas.
> > > > >
> > > > > I would say that the size of warlock is the largest these maps could be.
> > > >
> > > > Why first to 5/7 kills? 15 has worked fine in the past. If there is any logic being applied it would be the first to 12/13 as 2v2 is up to 25, 4v4 is up to 50 and 8v8 is to 100.
> > >
> > > I respect your opinion, but disagree.
> > >
> > > Games need to be fast paced. Power weapons could also not be allowed IMO. In a game to 15 there would be little chance of the lesser skilled player to win, thus turning away many people from trying. At least with a 5 - 7 kill limit the matches would appear close, and if you get stomped it won’t be as discouraging. Losing 5-1 is more tolerable to casuals than losing 15-3. Match losers are less likely to ragequit, thus maintaining playlist population.
> > >
> > > Don’t get me wrong, 15 kills is ok, but I feel if matches were quicker they would be better suited for matchmaking.
> >
> > Yes, but the problem with 5/7 kills is that it is too few point to prove who is better/deserved to win the match. What happens if you get a spree of 4 kills, but are then getting out slayed 2 to 1 kills from then on? If it is up to 5 you win after their 2 points. If it is up to 7 you still win after their 6 points. If it is up to 10 you lose 10 to 9 and if it is up to 15 you lose 15 to 11.
> >
> > Little sprees like that happen all the time in Halo and a spree does not show you are the better player, it shows you had a good play.
>
> You are correct about getting a streak to end the match. But the logic could be applied to a player losing 14 - 9, and ending on a spree.
>
> Maybe 7 kills is better than 5, To slightly extend the match. But by making matches too long, they could get boring and make people hide out of anger to preserve their precious kdr when losing to obviously better players. Also these HLG kids would try to get up a kill and hide for 10 minutes. Not fun.
>
> Bottom line is that the community wanted faster kills and gameplay. In my experience with 1v1’s, the losing party tends to hide when undoubtedly facing a loss. Likewise a player may hide to protect their lead if they feel they are lucky to be winning. The only relief from this, IMO, would be to make the game quicker. There are a few ways to do this.
>
> 1. Reduce score to win
> 2. Increase weapon damage / decrease shields (not my favorite)
> 3. Reduce time limit to 5-7 minutes to force action and increase end of match excitement/intensity… (my personal favorite)

Halo is for the better players at least, a thinking game. It isn’t about having fast kill times or rushing out on the middle off the map, hoping to get kills and thus ending the game fast.

Also, In a 1v1, you should never hide. You have no idea where the enemy is, or where he might come from. The enemy can slowly but surely search the hole map for where you are, and suprise you when he finds you. <- How better players play.

The best and most widely used strategy, on for example, Guardian, is to keep the S3 to be able gaze out over the pitch. If you do not see the enemy on blue, he must be on green. That is logical thinking and how better players play.