Concept for new 'golden triangle'

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

EDIT:
Said thread
Said post:

> Bungie’s golden triangle is not important, it’s not a good guideline to follow. Yes, guns are important, as is the case with any shooter. And yes, grenades are a tool that can have a plethora of depth to them and are an important part of gameplay in Halo.
>
> However, melee. It’s not important, at all. It makes the golden triangle a pointless cliche because it’s not a viable combat option most of the time. Melee combat is something you want to avoid because there is little depth to it, there is little you can do to influence the results of the encounter. The only situations where you should use melee are situations where it’s either a clear win to you (assassinations) or there are no other options, in other words, you are at point blank range. In any other case maintaining distance to the opponent is always a better option solely because those options offer more ways to outplay your opponent.
>
> I don’t know if the golden triangle helped Bungie in their design of Halo, but I’ve personally always had a problem with the concept. As combat options, guns and grenades outweigh melee in a large majority of encounters and there is nothing that can be done about that because melee is fundamentally a close range ability and Halo is a mostly a long range oriented game.
>
> What probably bugs me the most about the concept of the golden triangle is that it views combat from a very shallow perspective. It only concerns tools that inflict damage. It gives no thought to tools that you use to avoid damage. For that reason, I think a much more sensible golden triangle, if you really need to have one, is guns, grenades, movement. It actually says something about avoiding damage, and includes what I think is the single most fundamental aspect of Halo gameplay aside from aiming mechanics.
>
> For solid gameplay in a shooter, all you need is solid movement and aiming mechanics. Even without any other weapons or abilities in the sandbox, it’s already fun and has a fine level of depth. Anything else you add to it is not mandatory for creating a shooter experience, but only works to further increase (or at least should increase) the depth of the game.
>
> So, the golden triangle: cute, but not really a good tool to describe Halo.

A while back, a saw a thread discussing the so called golden triangle with someone saying we should return to it (Melee>Weapon>Grenade>Melee, or something along those lines), there was a response completely debunking this idea saying how they are in no way equal measures for each other and in fact Weapon probably > All but the others are there for support. I agree with this. But the golden triangle concept was named redundant.

After playing halo 3, I concluded that there is another golden triangle in place. (Note that this should not be used strictly but as a rule of thumb.)

Loadout weapons > Ordinance weapons (excluding snipers) > Vehicles > Loadout weapons

As always, there will be was to reverse the triangle (which is good to keep up skill and tactics) but this was a general feel I got while playing it.

Weapons like the BR, AR, magnum, carbine ect. did not do much damage to vehicles but are lethal for infantry. Ordinance weapons, although can be potentially more lethal for infantry (splaser) they seemed to be directed more for vehicles. An example would be the Rocket launcher/missile pod and the splaser. the Rockets do a lot less damage to infantry than they do in reach/4 and the splaser is hard to use close range (still is i guess), but against vehicles, are deadly.

Ordinance > Vehicles. Now I know that if you were to reverse the triangle, you would still get vehicle vs infantry, but still, the weapon that infantryman uses makes the world of difference. If the player only has a br, then they cannot take down a scorpion (with it) but a splaser/rockets? all the player needs is good cover.

Now I’m not saying that loadout weapons should outclass ordinance weapons in infantry combat as the weapon spectrum is VERY blurred. But I believe that ordinance weapons should be focused more on Anti-vehiclism.

As i said, the weapon spectrum is very blurred, but maybe that was one of the core reasons why halo 4 was unbalanced. Ordinance was more focused on infantry combat, (as was the game generally itself) which players needed to replace their loadout weapons with their more powerful counterparts as soon as they could.
Take Valhalla on halo 3, ordinance pickups included; sniper, shotgun, splaser and missile pod. half of those have an Anti-vehicle niche.
Take the most played map (and one of the reasons i stopped playing) on halo 4, Exile, ordinance pickups included; sniper, SAW, rocket, shotgun, railgun, beamfile, needler, splaser. 7 of those are anti-infantry weapons (included rocket as it has a larger damage radius than it did in 3) which is 87.5%.

One of the wishes which will show this concept to be working more is NICHE.

TL;DR:

-My opinion of halo 3:
Loadout weapon > Ordinance weapon > Vehicle > Loadout weapon

  • Weapons need a purpose (niche) and to be unique not to be an all-rounder.

  • Loudout-weapons should not be able to easily destroy vehicles

  • With exception of the obvious Anti-Inaftry Ordinance (Shotguns and Snipers) ordinance should focus on being more Anti-Vehicles (like halo 3)

After writing this, it seems like there’s not much point asking a question, but just to ask your thoughts on the matter.
This is how i want halo 5 to be like. What do you think?

2

I agrre with some of your points, but load out weapons shoild be useless against vehicles! The sniper also shouldn’t be anti-vehicle but great against infantry. It is the most annoying thing to get in banshee and die from a clip from a sniper or a clip and a quarter for the dmr! That is just ridiculous. As you said, the rocketand splaser should focus on vehicles and agree with that. I would like to see the halo cea rocket return. But as i said before anything you spawn with should not do anything to vehicles unless you are actually shooting the player. That means no plasma grenades or plasma pistols in loadouts 343, Including the loudout with the carbine!

3

I’m absolutely delighted to see that my post did exactly what it was supposed to do: it got someone to think.

The caveat here, and what I probably should’ve had included in the original post, is that whatever helps you build the game and see your goal is a valid design instrument. If you feel it helps, good for you. The post was written mainly in response to the fact that for a long time, the golden triangle has been raised on a pedestal by the community. The elaborately hidden question was: “why?”

If you have a golden triangle or any other design ideology, it should satisfy a deeper gameplay purpose. Mechanics should be there not to satisfy some arbitrary ideology, but to make the gameplay better. If A and B are mechanics that satisfy part of the ideology, but for the ideology to be perfect, C needs to be included, C is only there to satisfy the ideology, not for any gameplay related reason. That’s the danger of design ideologies: they need to arise from the gameplay you want, not the other way around.

For this particular triangle, is it supposed to be

Loadout Weapons > Ordnance > Vehicles > Loadouts

or

Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles?

Both really have problems and kind of show why condensing gameplay design into any geometric shapes may not work as intended (and this doesn’t only apply to the golden triangle). When you simplify gameplay to such extent, details are always left out.

The primary detail is that, for the most part, the Halo sandbox is really range dependent and varied. Rocket Launcher is guaranteed to beat anything at close range, but fails the further the engagement distance. The Sniper Rifle mostly dominates at long range, but is at least difficult at closer ranges. In most cases, it really depends on the scenario if a spawn weapon beats a power weapon.

On the other hand, the relation of anti-vehicle weapons and vehicles I would say is that they are practically equal. The secondary detail here is that “anti-vehicle” and “power” weapons are not the same set of weapons. They include same weapons, but both sets also have weapons the other set doesn’t have.

The tertiary detail, as an exception, is that vehicles always (are supposed to) beat spawn weapons. If they don’t, we end up with an undesirable vehicle sandbox such as those of Halos Reach and 4 where the vehicle user is vulnerable against all precision weapons, especially on open maps.

You could always use different notations such as “> or =” to include the details, but at that point you can’t really talk about geometric shapes anymore.

> - Loudout-weapons should be able to easily destroy vehicles

I don’t know whether this was a typo or not, but in case it wasn’t: no. The balance of vehicles and infantry is that in order to disable a vehicle, the player on foot either needs an anti-vehicle weapon or at least a well placed grenade. As soon as you let them destroy the vehicles with their DMR, vehicles are not destroyed due to the player outwitting the driver, but by repetition.

Additionally, I don’t think power weapons need to be more anti-vehicle centric. There are, of course, exceptions such as the Missle Pod, which I would welcome back if it meant stronger vehicles like in Halo 3. However, most of the anti-vehicle weapons are completely viable against infantry and it’s good that way because having to waste the second slot for a weapon that is only useful against vehicles makes the decision to pick up the power weapon so much less meaningful.

4

I really don’t see why we can’t get rid of the stupid anti-vehicle plasma pistols and go back to lock on rocket launchers!!

They were far more fun to use and you had to make the effort to fighting for a rocket launcher on the map to take down a threatening vehicle.

Another thing - There are too many vehicles on Halo 4! Banshee’s and Mantis’ on the same map? Come on!

5

Having only read tsassi’s post I disagree. Checking statistically my melee kills outweighs my grenade kills by a lot and consists of 20% of my kills one of my accounts (Including beat downs, hammer kills, and sword kills).

While not approaching your enemy sometimes is a good idea there are many times where avoiding a melee kill definitely is a bad idea.

Melee had the most depth in Halo 2 but it’s still plays a big part of Halo’s game play today. In Halo 2 you could both crouch, jump and double beat down players which increased the depth and usefulness of the pummel, which made the beat down a power weapon in itself. I remember watching Walshy beat down 3 pro players all by himself.

While melee most of the time were useful in Halo 3 you had to use weapons such as the sword and hammer combined with equipment to make it a game changer most of the time (Excluded maps like Snowbound and Cold Storage).

The hammer combined with the bubble shield, and a few jumps on Guardian might make the Hammer the best Power weapon on Guardian. While the Sword is the only Power weapon on Heretic controlling it definitely helps you win the match. The Sword on The Pit definitely lets you keep control of one of towers.

Here’s a video showing how useful the Sword on Heretic actually is and I have had it as my tool of destruction several times on the certain map:


While you can’t BXB or crouch to affect the game, you can still jump over players and easily turn the tide of a battle against a close combat weapon user with a weapon such as the Shotgun and Mauler in Halo 3.

In Halo 3 many of the maps seems to have been created or modified to make melee’s useful, such as Guardian, Snowbound, Assembly and Cold Storage. While Cold Storage is a remake there are changes to the design that actually makes pummeling a game changer. The same could be said with Snowbound or Assembly’s shields.

Melee’s are also useful when you surprise an enemy, and in every doubles game there is someone spraying with the AR following up with a quick beat down, because it is the best choice for a certain moment.

While beat downs has lost a little bit of it’s shine, so has grenades and movement over the past years too. With the inclusion of sprint (While your movement decisions decreased you melee abilities now increased a little bit again) and removing the grenades ability to move a weapon from it’s spawn.

I have only mentioned a few maps where melee is good. There are places and moments happening on every map where melee could be a better choice then using a weapon or grenade.

While movement definitely is a big part of achieving success, melee is too - But you never go for a melee kill, like you don’t go for a grenade kill or weapon kill either. You use it when it is needed.

Here are some examples only pummeling from Halo 3:

  1. Ninja.
  2. Back-smacking people coming out from a teleportal.
  3. Crouching in hidden places, back-smacking them (certain spots works against almost every player if the game is intense enough).
  4. Outsmarting players where they can drop down ending up assassinating them in the back.
  5. Using shield doors or bubble shield + melee to protect yourself against shotguns and maulers.
  6. You can turn the tide of battles with a little bit of jumping and pummeling (Pummel, Jump, Pummel).

Anyway, it doesn’t seem like 343 care much about the golden trial.

6

> I agrre with some of your points, <mark>but load out weapons shoild be useless against vehicles</mark>! The sniper also shouldn’t be anti-vehicle but great against infantry. It is the most annoying thing to get in banshee and die from a clip from a sniper or a clip and a quarter for the dmr! That is just ridiculous. As you said, the rocketand splaser should focus on vehicles and agree with that. I would like to see the halo cea rocket return. But as i said before anything you spawn with should not do anything to vehicles unless you are actually shooting the player. That means no plasma grenades or plasma pistols in loadouts 343, Including the loudout with the carbine!

Maybe I wasn’t clear but thats what i was trying to say. Loadouts should not beat vehicles.

EDIT: I saw the typo that mislead you, fixed :).

7

> I’m absolutely delighted to see that my post did exactly what it was supposed to do: it got someone to think.

Good job, it did :slight_smile:

> The caveat here, and what I probably should’ve had included in the original post, is that whatever helps you build the game and see your goal is a valid design instrument. If you feel it helps, good for you. The post was written mainly in response to the fact that for a long time, the golden triangle has been raised on a pedestal by the community. The elaborately hidden question was: “why?”
>
> If you have a golden triangle or any other design ideology, it should satisfy a deeper gameplay purpose. Mechanics should be there not to satisfy some arbitrary ideology, but to make the gameplay better. If A and B are mechanics that satisfy part of the ideology, but for the ideology to be perfect, C needs to be included, C is only there to satisfy the ideology, not for any gameplay related reason. That’s the danger of design ideologies: they need to arise from the gameplay you want, not the other way around.
>
> For this particular triangle, is it supposed to be
>
> Loadout Weapons > Ordnance > Vehicles > Loadouts
>
> or
>
> Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles?
>
> Both really have problems and kind of show why condensing gameplay design into any geometric shapes may not work as intended (and this doesn’t only apply to the golden triangle). When you simplify gameplay to such extent, details are always left out.

Like I said at the beginning, its not an exact science but a general rule of thumb.

Second: the triangle i was trying to get across: Loadout Weapons > Ordnance > Vehicles > Loadouts

Third: I agree that you can’t always simplify gameplay to a great extent all the time, but at the end of the day, you need to have a core gameplay mechanic set in place to keep things flowing and balanced.

Like I said at the beginning, its not an exact science but a general rule of thumb.

> The primary detail is that, for the most part, the Halo sandbox is really range dependent and varied. Rocket Launcher is guaranteed to beat anything at close range, but fails the further the engagement distance. The Sniper Rifle mostly dominates at long range, but is at least difficult at closer ranges. In most cases, it really depends on the scenario if a spawn weapon beats a power weapon.
>
> On the other hand, the relation of anti-vehicle weapons and vehicles I would say is that they are practically equal. The secondary detail here is that “anti-vehicle” and “power” weapons are not the same set of weapons. They include same weapons, but both sets also have weapons the other set doesn’t have.
>
> The tertiary detail, as an exception, is that vehicles always (are supposed to) beat spawn weapons. If they don’t, we end up with an undesirable vehicle sandbox such as those of Halos Reach and 4 where the vehicle user is vulnerable against all precision weapons, especially on open maps.

Primary detail: perhaps thats where this triangle falls down, but its still important for weapons to have a niche.
Secondary: I didn’t specifically state that power weapons and Anti-vehicle weapons are the same, I just stated that power weapons should be generally focused towards AT or maybe halo 3’s 50% mark. I did also acknowlege that the triangle can (and should) reverse from time to time, after all the PP is loadout and thats more or less AT. the sniper and shotgun also got a mention as being Anti-infantry also.

> You could always use different notations such as “> or =” to include the details, but at that point you can’t really talk about geometric shapes anymore.
>
> <mark>> - Loudout-weapons should be able to easily destroy vehicles</mark>
> <mark>I don’t know whether this was a typo or not</mark>, but in case it wasn’t: no. The balance of vehicles and infantry is that in order to disable a vehicle, the player on foot either needs an anti-vehicle weapon or at least a well placed grenade. As soon as you let them destroy the vehicles with their DMR, vehicles are not destroyed due to the player outwitting the driver, but by repetition.
>
> <mark>Additionally, I don’t think power weapons need to be more anti-vehicle centric.</mark> There are, of course, exceptions such as the Missle Pod, which I would welcome back if it meant stronger vehicles like in Halo 3. However, most of the anti-vehicle weapons are completely viable against infantry and it’s good that way because having to waste the second slot for a weapon that is only useful against vehicles makes the decision to pick up the power weapon so much less meaningful.

It was a typo. Thanks for noticing.

Maybe the triangle has flaws, undoubtedly, but the concept of weapons having a niche i think is important, not all ordinance weapons should be able to be used to kick the crap out of a player, just some.

8

> Having only read tsassi’s post I disagree. Checking statistically my melee kills outweighs my grenade kills by a lot and consists of 20% of my kills one of my accounts (Including beat downs, hammer kills, and sword kills).
>
> While not approaching your enemy sometimes is a good idea there are many times where avoiding a melee kill definitely is a bad idea.
>
> Melee had the most depth in Halo 2 but it’s still plays a big part of Halo’s game play today. In Halo 2 you could both crouch, jump and double beat down players which increased the depth and usefulness of the pummel, which made the beat down a power weapon in itself. I remember watching Walshy beat down 3 pro players all by himself.
>
> While melee most of the time were useful in Halo 3 you had to use weapons such as the sword and hammer combined with equipment to make it a game changer most of the time (Excluded maps like Snowbound and Cold Storage).

My triangle doesn’t take into account melee, but I’d say that its still an important mechanic:
My halo 3 stats show melee as second highest weapon of choice
My halo reach stats show that melee is my second best weapon (ignore first)
Melee is high up in a lot of my halo 4 stats (they’re a bit too specific to show)

It is good for giving yourself an advantage in unbalanced situations like if its 2 or 3 against 1, lob a nade melee one, headshot him and take the others out.

I wouldn’t say that it deserves its place in a triangle though :confused:

> The hammer combined with the bubble shield, and a few jumps on Guardian might make the Hammer the best Power weapon on Guardian. While the Sword is the only Power weapon on Heretic controlling it definitely helps you win the match. The Sword on The Pit definitely lets you keep control of one of towers.
>
> Here’s a video showing how useful the Sword on Heretic actually is and I have had it as my tool of destruction several times on the certain map:
> DeMoNCaaT and TiZoTiC playing Dubs 50 high! - YouTube
>
> While you can’t BXB or crouch to affect the game, you can still jump over players and easily turn the tide of a battle against a close combat weapon user with a weapon such as the Shotgun and Mauler in Halo 3.

That’s what i Love about covy weapons, there’s always one to trump any argument. They have so much character all (off the top of my head) have a good niche.

> In Halo 3 many of the maps seems to have been created or modified to make melee’s useful, such as Guardian, Snowbound, Assembly and Cold Storage. While Cold Storage is a remake there are changes to the design that actually makes pummeling a game changer. The same could be said with Snowbound or Assembly’s shields.
>
> Melee’s are also useful when you surprise an enemy, and in every doubles game there is someone spraying with the AR following up with a quick beat down, because it is the best choice for a certain moment.
>
> While beat downs has lost a little bit of it’s shine, so has grenades and movement over the past years too. With the inclusion of sprint (While your movement decisions decreased you melee abilities now increased a little bit again) and removing the grenades ability to move a weapon from it’s spawn.
>
> I have only mentioned a few maps where melee is good. There are places and moments happening on every map where melee could be a better choice then using a weapon or grenade.
>
> While movement definitely is a big part of achieving success, melee is too - But you never go for a melee kill, like you don’t go for a grenade kill or weapon kill either. You use it when it is needed.
>
> Here are some examples only pummeling from Halo 3:
> 1. Ninja.
> 2. Back-smacking people coming out from a teleportal.
> 3. Crouching in hidden places, back-smacking them (certain spots works against almost every player if the game is intense enough).
> 4. Outsmarting players where they can drop down ending up assassinating them in the back.
> 5. Using shield doors or bubble shield + melee to protect yourself against shotguns and maulers.
> 6. You can turn the tide of battles with a little bit of jumping and pummeling (Pummel, Jump, Pummel).
>
> Anyway, it doesn’t seem like 343 care much about the golden trial.

9

> Additionally, I don’t think power weapons need to be more anti-vehicle centric. There are, of course, exceptions such as the Missle Pod, which I would welcome back if it meant stronger vehicles like in Halo 3. However, most of the anti-vehicle weapons are completely viable against infantry and it’s good that way because having to waste the second slot for a weapon that is only useful against vehicles makes the decision to pick up the power weapon so much less meaningful.

I would absolutely love to see Halo 3’s vehicle effectiveness come back into play as well as the proper anti-vehicle counterparts and do away with the new adage of ‘Sniper beats everything!’.

10

Why change the golden triangle? It simply works best, and is easiest to balance.

11

> > I agrre with some of your points, <mark>but load out weapons shoild be useless against vehicles</mark>! The sniper also shouldn’t be anti-vehicle but great against infantry. It is the most annoying thing to get in banshee and die from a clip from a sniper or a clip and a quarter for the dmr! That is just ridiculous. As you said, the rocketand splaser should focus on vehicles and agree with that. I would like to see the halo cea rocket return. But as i said before anything you spawn with should not do anything to vehicles unless you are actually shooting the player. That means no plasma grenades or plasma pistols in loadouts 343, Including the loudout with the carbine!
>
> Maybe I wasn’t clear but thats what i was trying to say. Loadouts should not beat vehicles.
>
> EDIT: I saw the typo that mislead you, fixed :).

I completely disagree because if I’m team shooting with my Clan and we all shoot the vehicle together it should go down rather quickly. Also I don’t want plasmas in Loadouts either.

EDIT: The reason why I say this is because when team shooting any vehicle it should go down quickly to prevent it from being OP and overpowering everybody else. With saying that on a balanced map it should have at least one of the two plasma pistols, stickeys, or both. In order to help bring down vehicles.

12

> > > I agrre with some of your points, <mark>but load out weapons shoild be useless against vehicles</mark>! The sniper also shouldn’t be anti-vehicle but great against infantry. It is the most annoying thing to get in banshee and die from a clip from a sniper or a clip and a quarter for the dmr! That is just ridiculous. As you said, the rocketand splaser should focus on vehicles and agree with that. I would like to see the halo cea rocket return. But as i said before anything you spawn with should not do anything to vehicles unless you are actually shooting the player. That means no plasma grenades or plasma pistols in loadouts 343, Including the loudout with the carbine!
> >
> > Maybe I wasn’t clear but thats what i was trying to say. Loadouts should not beat vehicles.
> >
> > EDIT: I saw the typo that mislead you, fixed :).
>
> I completely disagree because if I’m team shooting with my Clan and we all shoot the vehicle together it should go down rather quickly. Also I don’t want plasmas in Loadouts either.

Double POST

13

Both Melee - Weapon - Grenade (in whatever combination) and Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles are correct because they look at Halo’s gameplay in vastly different scales. It is all about what the player has at their disposal.

Melee - Weapon - Grenade is the most raw form of combat and describes Halo on a small to personal scale. 4v4s and Duels. This “triangle”, if you will, is more concerned with what the player innately has at their disposal. The most basic level of damage output and in many situations what Halo boils down to.

Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles is looking at Halo on an entirely different and larger scale. 1/3rd of this ideology doesn’t even apply to a large portion of Halo’s gameplay. Using this to describe Halo is only suited in gametypes (ie BTB) that offer all 3 of the above. The difference is that this new ‘triangle’ describes the additional disposable elements the map grants the player while taking into the account what the player already spawns with.

14

> -My opinion of halo 3:
> Loadout weapon > Ordinance weapon > Vehicle > Loadout weapon

Love seeing people re-think designs and care about the game enough to improve it.

> - Weapons need a purpose (niche) and to be unique not to be an all-rounder.

Yep. Keep it simple. Keep two weapons.

> - Loudout-weapons should not be able to easily destroy vehicles

The starting weapon should have range and accuracy to shoot out drivers. I like reusing vehicles.

> - With exception of the obvious Anti-Inaftry Ordinance (Shotguns and Snipers) ordinance should focus on being more Anti-Vehicles (like halo 3)

I think what it comes down to is whether Halo is to be an arena shooter or not. “Is there a market for it” or “Will it survive” maybe is an excuse. With Halo’s track record maybe that illuminates something far more insidious? I could write a book on that! Halo was so far ahead of its time that its BTB and vehicles became staple even though 2v2 was the thing. I wish I could say the same thing about gametypes and maps.

The triangle has become cliche, but not in a bad way, it’s starting to get players identifying what works in Games which is really cool to see this involvement. Even Cliffy B and Team Epic sought after their own “golden triangle” with cover being a part of that in Gears. Gears was clunky in movement, but accomplished their design well if you prefer that type of game. Quake had the maps, but iD didn’t have the melee punch of a solid story to complete their games and Goldeneye slappers were fun, but Rare goofed around too much and is now making kinectimals 2. We experience Halo in many different ways, but it’s called “Golden” Triangle for a reason. Halo did everything right for a while maybe that contributes to its success. The Bungie/Microsoft story is a funny one. I’ve learned much about why Ed Fries is a game dev hero. All I can say about that is the best games come from people who know when to stop. Planning for success is up for debate, or market?

I know a large section of the Halo community says it would rather have a flawed diamond rather than flawless pearl. In a world where sports trump art you get neither. eSports in a nutshell. I keep hearing about this golden age of gaming we’re entering. There’s a certain culture shift that has to take place. The cake is a lie. Whoops sorry I’m ranting again. I’m sure I am spouting Bullpuckies…

TL;DR

-coool I agree weapons need more cowbell.

-64v64 les go!

-How will this effect funny racecar drivers?

-the graphics need to be dialed up one or two notch someone should do that.

15

>

I certainly wasn’t blind to the statistics while writing that post. But what’s the golden triangle really about? Why does it have to be triangle? Why weapons, grenades, and melee? There is really no point talking about the golden triangle unless it has a good reason to exist and be as it is.

The reason why I originally started to question the golden triangle was because I heard ”yeah, but armor abilities destroy the golden triangle” too many times. Too often do people talk about the golden triangle and use it to justify their position, leaving the triangle itself unjustified.

In that post I just went straight against something which I have never figured out what it’s even supposed to mean. Do the kill statistics really matter? And if the statistics go weapons > melee > grenades, why don’t we just call it a hierarchy? The triangle suggests that there is supposed to be some kind of balance or interplay between those. If I were to interpret it freely, it suggests that if I remove one element from the triangle, it all falls down and the gameplay just doesn’t work. Obviously, that’s not the case.

Weapons, grenades, and melee are supposed to be the corner stones of Halo (as said in the original thread in the OP), but I don’t really see how. By all means, tell me how much of your kills are made with melee, but if I come and take the melee away from you, it doesn’t really change the nature of the game. The game changes a little, but not in any destructive way. In contrast, removing weapons really changes the game. Grenades on the other hand are approximately as meaningful as melee. However, if I had the remove one, it would undoubtedly be melee. If I then had to put one aspect in its place (putting it back would also be allowed), I would put movement.

At that point I could actually start justifying it, albeit grenades still wouldn’t exactly be what I’d call a ”corner stone”. Movement and weapons are all you need to play Halo. Maps you can include if you actually want to get something out of it. Anything else you add is only going to add a relatively minimal amount of depth to the game. As far as I see, the golden triangle has no special purpose.

And just to be clear, that’s not just to discredit melee alone, but really the golden triangle. Grenades I can just somehow see as an important aspect because they really have a way in which they can transform the whole game. But as I said, my own golden triangle includes neither melee nor grenades. So, I know there are different ways to use melee, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

16

> Both Melee - Weapon - Grenade (in whatever combination) and Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles are correct because they look at Halo’s gameplay in vastly different scales. It is all about what the player has at their disposal.
>
> Melee - Weapon - Grenade is the most raw form of combat and describes Halo on a small to personal scale. 4v4s and Duels. This “triangle”, if you will, is more concerned with what the player innately has at their disposal. The most basic level of damage output and in many situations what Halo boils down to.
>
>
> Loadouts - Ordnance - Vehicles is looking at Halo on an entirely different and larger scale. 1/3rd of this ideology doesn’t even apply to a large portion of Halo’s gameplay. Using this to describe Halo is only suited in gametypes (ie BTB) that offer all 3 of the above. The difference is that this new ‘triangle’ describes the additional disposable elements the map grants the player while taking into the account what the player already spawns with.

I was about to post the exact same thoughts. :slight_smile:

The “Golden Triangle” concept has been oversimplified by much of the community; it isn’t a ‘triangle’ so much as it is a ‘Sierpinski’.

While the original Golden Triangle doesn’t adeptly describe everything in the sandbox, it describes what players are capable of in general. Each of the three points can be analyzed more closely to find:

  • In regards to shooting- how each weapon performs, how they can be obtained, and how they affect movement (not just Support Weapons; you’re unlikely to engage at close-quarters when you have a Sniper Rifle).- In regards to melee- basic melees, weapons that enhance them (Energy Sword/Gravity Hammer), and when you can move yourself into position to melee.- In regards to grenades- how they perform, how they can be obtained, and how they affect player movement (deterring pursuing enemies, sticking vehicles, etc).

Surrounding the central triangle, there are others that represent things like Vehicles, Equipment/Armor Abilities, and Power-ups. These can also be broken down to analyze the aspects of each one. In the end, the triangles coalesce into one larger one that represents Halo’s gameplay as a whole. {insert Inception joke here}

17

> Weapons, grenades, and melee are supposed to be the corner stones of Halo (as said in the original thread in the OP), but I don’t really see how.

It is so simple. All forms of damage compliment each other and at least one of them can always be used (and potentially bail you out) in a situation where others are not available.

> However, if I had the remove one, it would undoubtedly be melee. If I then had to put one aspect in its place (putting it back would also be allowed), I would put movement.

Weapons, grenades and melee is seen as the “triangle” because that is what everyone is given with. It defines the level playing field and the same potential to kill by the basic tools the game gives everyone. Any variable beyond this is a function of skill and dictates how well and efficiently you use them. Every aspect of movement, undeniably important, serves to compliment the triangle.

18

> >
>
> I certainly wasn’t blind to the statistics while writing that post. But what’s the golden triangle really about? Why does it have to be triangle? Why weapons, grenades, and melee? There is really no point talking about the golden triangle unless it has a good reason to exist and be as it is.
>
> The reason why I originally started to question the golden triangle was because I heard ”yeah, but armor abilities destroy the golden triangle” too many times. Too often do people talk about the golden triangle and use it to justify their position, leaving the triangle itself unjustified.
>
> In that post I just went straight against something which I have never figured out what it’s even supposed to mean. Do the kill statistics really matter? And if the statistics go weapons > melee > grenades, why don’t we just call it a hierarchy? The triangle suggests that there is supposed to be some kind of balance or interplay between those. If I were to interpret it freely, it suggests that if I remove one element from the triangle, it all falls down and the gameplay just doesn’t work. Obviously, that’s not the case.
>
> Weapons, grenades, and melee are supposed to be the corner stones of Halo (as said in the original thread in the OP), but I don’t really see how. By all means, tell me how much of your kills are made with melee, but if I come and take the melee away from you, it doesn’t really change the nature of the game. The game changes a little, but not in any destructive way. In contrast, removing weapons really changes the game. Grenades on the other hand are approximately as meaningful as melee. However, if I had the remove one, it would undoubtedly be melee. If I then had to put one aspect in its place (putting it back would also be allowed), I would put movement.
>
> At that point I could actually start justifying it, albeit grenades still wouldn’t exactly be what I’d call a ”corner stone”. Movement and weapons are all you need to play Halo. Maps you can include if you actually want to get something out of it. Anything else you add is only going to add a relatively minimal amount of depth to the game. As far as I see, the golden triangle has no special purpose.
>
> And just to be clear, that’s not just to discredit melee alone, but really the golden triangle. Grenades I can just somehow see as an important aspect because they really have a way in which they can transform the whole game. But as I said, my own golden triangle includes neither melee nor grenades. So, I know there are different ways to use melee, but that’s not the point I’m trying to make.

The balance of weapons, maps and objects is adjusted to and evolves around the Golden Triangle of Halo. Namely Weapons, Grenades and Beat downs, which is available to players in almost every situation. It is something many players have grown accustomed to and changing it, would change Halo to them. Non-bleed through, uncontrollable grenades and weapons like the for example DMR are things that takes away from Halo feel as they are all screwing with The Golden Triangle of Halo.

If you were to remove the ability to beat down you would change the game-play entirely.

When they introduced Armor Abilities and Tactial Packages they basically threw the Golden Triangle out of the window.

19

> The balance of weapons, maps and objects is adjusted to and evolves around the Golden Triangle of Halo. Namely Weapons, Grenades and Beat downs, which is available to players in almost every situation.

So, essentially, you say they are raised on a pedestal because they are the ways to kill an opponent that you always have with you? Fair enough.

> Non-bleed through, uncontrollable grenades and weapons like the for example DMR are things that takes away from Halo feel as they are all screwing with The Golden Triangle of Halo.

Uncontrollable grenades? I assume by the DMR example you are referring to bloom. But why is the removal of melee bleed through so detrimental to the golden triangle? Or more precisely, how does the golden triangle help you explain why melee bleed through is detrimental to gameplay?

And if the golden triangle is about the balance between weapons, grenades, and melee, what does DMR bloom have to do with any of that? Or in more general terms, what does control have to do with the golden triangle?

> If you were to remove the ability to beat down you would change the game-play entirely.

Not by much. Close range encounters would act out a bit differently when you would use your gun all the time instead of melee. AR encounters would become just a tad bit more skilful. The largest changes would be in how you react when you come to an opponent from behind. But how often is that?

By and large, as the gameplay in Halo mostly concentrates (or at least should concentrate) outside of melee range, things would be pretty much as normal. I guess the effect on a particular player would depend on their play style, but when I say that the game wouldn’t change, I mean that the strategies wouldn’t change. Map control would still work exactly as it did previously. Most of the movement would still be avoid avoiding running in the open, so player’s movement paths would be pretty similar. The overall strategies would be very much the same.

> When they introduced Armor Abilities and Tactial Packages they basically threw the Golden Triangle out of the window.

How? If the golden triangle doesn’t only concern weapons, grenades, and melee, couldn’t they be balanced to be compatible with it? If they couldn’t, does it mean vehicles and power-ups also can’t be balanced with it?

Again, it comes down to if you can explain the differences of armor abilities and power-ups from the perspective of weapons, grenades, and melee. It’s great if you can, but if you can’t it’s pointless to try to shoehorn the triangle where it doesn’t belong. I personally can’t see a way in which the difference of off-spawn and map-based abilities could be explained relative to weapons, grenades, and melee.

20

> The “Golden Triangle” concept has been oversimplified by much of the community; it isn’t a ‘triangle’ so much as it is a ‘Sierpinski’.
>
> While the original Golden Triangle doesn’t adeptly describe everything in the sandbox, it describes what players are capable of in general. Each of the three points can be analyzed more closely to find:
> - In regards to shooting- how each weapon performs, how they can be obtained, and how they affect movement (not just Support Weapons; you’re unlikely to engage at close-quarters when you have a Sniper Rifle).- In regards to melee- basic melees, weapons that enhance them (Energy Sword/Gravity Hammer), and when you can move yourself into position to melee.- In regards to grenades- how they perform, how they can be obtained, and how they affect player movement (deterring pursuing enemies, sticking vehicles, etc).
>
> Surrounding the central triangle, there are others that represent things like Vehicles, Equipment/Armor Abilities, and Power-ups. These can also be broken down to analyze the aspects of each one. In the end, the triangles coalesce into one larger one that represents Halo’s gameplay as a whole. {insert Inception joke here}

That said, I am opposed to Armor Abilities at-spawn (although not AAs themselves). The fact that you can spawn with them displaces them into a base ability, rather than additional equipment that can augment a player’s abilities (like vehicles and power-ups).

To put it into perspective, what kind of game would Halo 3 have been if players all spawned with either a Bubble Shield, Regen Field, Trip Mine, or Power Drain? That isn’t to say that Equipment/AAs are a bad addition, but I don’t think that they should have been implemented as varying base abilities.