So neither I nor my friends could figure out just what went wrong with Reach’s BTB.
It had once held playlist of choice in both H2 and H3, but beyond lackluster, has been down right frustrating in Reach.
What has changed?
I’m convinced it’s map layout, and even more specifically, size. The most fun I ever had in Halo were BTB matches on Sandbox in H3. Just a massive firefight. Look opposite your base and start firing. CTF. And Neutral Bomb were equally as entertaining. In Reach I find BTB to be most enjoyable on large medium sized maps such as Boardwalk or *gasp! Atom. Haha.
What are maybe some other suggestions to bring the best playlist back to all its glory?
A Standoff remake. Symmetrical, very close bases with one MAIN power weapon to fight over, while both bases got 1 set of rockets and a hog. It was perfect.
> A Standoff remake. Symmetrical, very close bases with one MAIN power weapon to fight over, while both bases got 1 set of rockets and a hog. It was perfect.
I think I shed a tear . . . BTB on Turf in H2!!! Splendiferous!
> > It’s all about great maps and gameplay.
>
> So are Reach’s BTB maps suffering? Why?
>
> Paradiso is the worst map created in the history of ever. /opinion
>
> But what makes them better?
>
> I’m throwing out smaller maps + clearer sight lines. More straight forward battles. Like the massive stand offs on . . . Um . . . Err . . . “Standoff”
What makes Halo 2 and 3 maps better? Lots of things, but mainly weapon spawns and layout and how those two things interact with each other.
Nowadays you have people caring about graphics, environments, sound effects, and such. Don’t get me wrong those things can be nice, but they have nothing to do with a making a good map that works.
> Reach had a problem that prevented Big Team Battle to shine in the image that it had in both Halo 2 and Halo 3. The problem was that these maps weren’t specifically made for the purpose of larger conflicts, while being a reasonable distance for objective-type games.
>
> Reach’s fundamental problem was also having its maps shipped off on released fairly small. Smaller than the maps in the older games in this series. Reach had very small maps that were designed for close-quarters combat and the occasional Team Objectives.
>
> Plus, there was only three maps designed for large types of game types, such as that of Big Team Battle and Invasion. Not to mention that Spire and Boneyard were abymsal when it attempted to present big styled battles that many players were looking for. Forge World was somewhat of a solution to this problem, but was the only map that managed to provide Forge Map Makers to design and play their own versions of Big Team Battle games that in turn, were either imbalanced or just not fun to play. There were some exceptions to this, but it was merely a handful.
> (Not to mention that Bungie attempted to resolve this by using Hemorrhage as viable Big Team Battle map. Which was old, dull and surely repetitive.)
>
> So really it was a fault in diversity in giving players some maps from the release date with medium-large sized maps purposely designed for larger battles. It truly is disappointing and really could’ve been better, especially in the DLC Content.
> What made Halo 2 and Halo 3 memorable was the fact that players had a fairly large amount of maps designed for mid-large battles and weren’t specifically locked to play best with certain gametypes.
This is a good point on the sheer low quantity of BTB maps and the ones we did receive were the likes of Boneyard and Spire. Yech!
I’m glad I’m not the only person to find Hemmorahge veto-able . . .