Through out history we see many examples of the rules of war being changed and the side that refuses to change to accommodate them loses. Back during the American Revolutionary War, the British pissed and moan that the Americans were sniping their generals in the battle. During the Civil War the advancing weapons technology chewed up both sides of the conflict. Guerrilla tactics in Vietnam eventually drove us out. The point that I’m getting at is that the “rules” changed and those that didn’t change to this new rule set quickly found themselves getting beat. I see a striking parallel to right now. Bungie changed the rules of the game and people are decrying it.
Example? Jetpack breaking map control. That on maps like Asylum you set up in the center ring to trap your opponents at their base, removing most if not all of their options and forcing them into a position so that the only way for them to win is to outshoot you. Is this really the fault of the AA? Shouldn’t the players who are setting up for map control know that they are and can be vulnerable to people jetpacking into center ring and plan for it?
The other thing I see is that AAs are offering players more avenues to attack their targets. What this means is that instead of one player being completely covered and safe in all other areas of attack outside of how he wants to engage players, direct head to head midrange duels, he instead has areas that are impossible to cover. This allows his opponent to capitalize on this and attack him there. The intended result is that there is more ebb and flow to battles because of these planned weaknesses instead of static face offs.
This is something that I think the two weapon limit that Halo originally brought to FPS tried to do as well. With only two weapons, you couldn’t cover all possible ranges of engagements, especially since you would have to make sacrifices for the coveted Power Weapons as well.
Quick point: This is a Video Game and an E-Sport, not War. It should be designed with fairness, and competitiveness in mind, not cheesy gimmicks. I can’t build a nuke in a game of Halo to instantly win me the game can I? And I should never be able to.
You shouldn’t be given an item off spawn that makes breaking map control exponentially easier, such as jetpack. If jetpack spawned on the map, then it would be perfectly fine, as it provides the extra option you speak of, but also allows the opposing team to prevent you from obtaining it.
> Quick point: This is a Video Game and an E-Sport, not War.
Video games do reflect real life. I remember more than a few articles actually documenting World of Warcraft to see real world economic trends in effect within the game.
> It should be designed with fairness, and competitiveness in mind, not cheesy gimmicks.
With the intent, as I stated, to bring more ebb and flow to the game, with one side capitalizing on your weaknesses you can not cover and you doing the same in turn.
> Quick point: This is a Video Game and an E-Sport, not War. It should be designed with fairness, and competitiveness in mind, not cheesy gimmicks. I can’t build a nuke in a game of Halo to instantly win me the game can I? And I should never be able to.
I personally don’t think AA’s are a bad concept i just think they were implemented very poorly in reach because each one wasn’t balanced and some like armor lock gave an asymmetrical advantage over players and ruined game flow. They dont have to throw away AA’s they just need to fix them and if they can’t do that in 4, then just throw them away.
> > Quick point: This is a Video Game and an E-Sport, not War.
>
> Video games do reflect real life. I remember more than a few articles actually documenting World of Warcraft to see real world economic trends in effect within the game.
Well that’s crazy, and likely a coincidence. Hardly ever do games reflect the outside world. They do, however, shape it to some extent, with some sense of undeserved elitism being gained from being good at a game, and online bashing running rampant.
Also, Halo has nothing to do with war, nor does COD, nor does Battlefield, both games that sell themselves on their apparent basis in war. Remember the Normandy scene in Saving Private Ryan? That’s war, with men throwing themselves at the enemy, with the only thing keeping them alive being that their enemies are too busy aiming at their comrades. Don’t trivialize it.
> Shouldn’t the players know are setting up for map control know that they are and can be vulnerable to people jetpacking into center ring and plan for it?
Explain how you are supposed to “plan for” jetpacks. Please. All I see is an escape from map control due to something all players can have access to, rather tha something like the equipment Grav Lift, where one player has access to it. There’s no logical way to “prepare” for jetpacks.
> …he instead has areas that are impossible to cover. This allows his opponent to capitalize on this and attack him there. The intended result is that there is more ebb and flow to battles because of these planned weaknesses instead of static face offs.
Then explain to me how each of the previous Halo games worked so fine without these gimicks. All I see are crutches to break map control, and you say yourself that they are “impossible” to cover. This only leads to 50-49 games, with back and forth (as you say, “ebb ad flow”) action limiting any sort of tactical arrangement. Why bring up War if you don’t want tactics? Your argument contradicts itself. Instead of a good team winning 50-25, you run the risk of gettig beat by 1 or 2 points because of these gimicks that are unstoppable. I can’t count the number of times I’ve lost a game 50-49 on Uncaged simply because the other team uses Jetpack.
> This is something that I think the two weapon limit that Halo originally brought to FPS tried to do as well. With only two weapons, you couldn’t cover all possible ranges of engagements, especially since you would have to make sacrifices for the coveted Power Weapons as well.
Right, so why change it? Why add more gimicky things to hurt the gameplay? Halo Reach tried to make things balanced, but it quickly became clear that certain AAs were more overpowered. People relied on Jetpacks when they were losing, ad they relied on Armor Lock when they were winning. If these were pick-ups, only a few people would be arguing, but they are instead provided to everybody off spawn. This creates an inbalance.
The best way for AA"s to work is no having the players spawn with them. If MLG did anything right, that was it. It creates incentive to move around the map. They’re basically “power ups” for the player.
Halo CE and it’s two weapon system started out like chess, you only have certain pieces, but there are limitless strategies that you can do. As the Halo games have progressed throughout the past decade, by the time we hit Halo Reach, we’re playing something like monopoly. You have a strategy, but there are so many different random factors that can affect the outcome. There is no clear cut way to measure skill, as it’s more based on chance than anything.
> > Quick point: This is a Video Game and an E-Sport, not War.
>
> Video games do reflect real life. I remember more than a few articles actually documenting World of Warcraft to see real world economic trends in effect within the game.
>
>
>
> > It should be designed with fairness, and competitiveness in mind, not cheesy gimmicks.
>
> What is a gimmick?
>
> If Gears 3’s Beast Mode was just an reversed Horde Mode, that would be a gimmick. As it is, AAs are not simply tacked on quirky or special feature to make it stand out from everything else. It’s a continued evolution of one of it’s own features.
>
> With the intent, as I stated, to bring more ebb and flow to the game, with one side capitalizing on your weaknesses you can not cover and you doing the same in turn.
I completely disagree with you bro. The skill gap has been significantly lowered since AA’s have been brought into Halo. It takes no skill to camp with Camo and sniper. Its no skill to jetpack over a wall and shoot the enemy from above. Dont even get me started on Armor lock, which is thankfully being taken out. The only AA I am slightly ok with is Sprint, but even that is irritating. The good news is that I am never playing Reach again once Halo 4 comes out, since a lot of these problems are getting fixed and adjusted to more fair and less overpowered.
You say its the players problem, which is really ironic, since AA’s have never been consistent with halo, at any time. I have played all of the halo’s since they came out, and it sucks that the makers of these games have to cave into the pressures of their competitors. Oh well, hopefully Halo 4 doesnt suck, and is a step up from Reach, which wont be hard.
> The best way for AA"s to work is no having the players spawn with them. If MLG did anything right, that was it. It creates incentive to move around the map. They’re basically “power ups” for the player.
>
> Halo CE and it’s two weapon system started out like chess, you only have certain pieces, but there are limitless strategies that you can do. As the Halo games have progressed throughout the past decade, by the time we hit Halo Reach, we’re playing something like monopoly. You have a strategy, but there are so many different random factors that can affect the outcome. There is no clear cut way to measure skill, as it’s more based on chance than anything.
One of the things that set Halo apart from other FPSs at the time was that everyone started equal. If you want that shotgun advantage in close combat you ran out and risked yourself to get it.
Now if you want an advantage in close combat you just armor lock and beatdown…
I think its both. For my case, I’ll limit it to Sprint.
Sprint is used in many games. For my case, I’ll stick to BF3 and GoW3, since I have yet to play MW3.
Sprint in Reach works like BF3. However, players take more damage compared to players in BF3. Since we can survive, we can run as fast as we want and can get away from a good number of situations.
On top of that, BF3 had sprint in their minds when they make their maps. Reach had to be made with AND without it, probably making it more challenging for the devs to make them then they should.
GoW3 also had their Sprint, or Roadie Run, in mind when they build their maps. Since they knew their players will take more damage than a player in BF3, they gave a downside to running: Getting shot slows you down. You also make alot of noise while running.
Although Reach had a third of it down, making Sprint OPTIONAL, and without no combat penalty has its downside. By making the changes they announced in Halo 4, maps should have sprint in mind, causing them to not be so powerful as they are in Reach. And by making the sprint debuff, using them to charge players is not a good idea, depending on distance.
Edited by Moderator - Please do not flame/attack others.
*Original post, click at your own discretion.
Good one Methew.
I finally found another who completely understands it all.
BTW…
If it has not occurred to you people yet. It is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons and association between FPS’s and the Real world battlefield.
For what do you think FPS’s originally got their inspiration from?
If wars were fought with rubberbands. And Halo had you shooting rubberbands… Would you then accept the associations and comparisons between the two?
What’s it going to take to get you to accept it?
And what’s it going to take to get you to realize that comeptitives are stupid -Yoink- people.
AA’s = Everyone has access to them = Noone gets an advantage
Bloom = Everyoen has to deal with it = Noone gets an advantage
Competitive = AA’s are crutches for noobs = Gives advantages to noobs.
Just shut the -Yoink- up already. You people have no reasoning skills.
And even if that was the case. I’m bad -Yoink- enough, that I don’t care if you give them crutches, That just means the game is actually going to challenge me. I play games to be challenged. IF the player can’t provide that challenge, then I don’t mind if the game steps in to fill the gap.
Now listen to you… You’re pathetic.
You’re so pathetic that the game is trying to make it interesting for you, and you cry about it. You have no business giving you input on anything. If you are the type of person to -Yoink- about AA’s or bloom.
No really… here’s the sitrep:
3.0 KD player vs 0.5 KD player.
WAH!!! I go screwed over by an AA, I got screwed over by bloom, I got screwed over by Bungie, I got screwed over by everything. Why you giving that 0.5 KD player crutches to keep up with me. WAH!!!
For that exact reason… so that the matchup regardless of skill levels, might actually be worth playing out to the end. That is why you give crutches to bad players.
And considering how you like to LOCK people into lobbies… The only ones to blame are the people who advocate keeping matchmaking in it’s current form since it’s first debut in Halo 2.
At its core halo is an arena style shooter. armor abilities screws with the inherent intended balance of that style of game. In my opinion while these abilities are not bad individually they do not mesh naturally with the style of game most players expect halo to continue to be.
> Explain how you are supposed to “plan for” jetpacks.
You know that if you have map control, and that your opponents are any decent, they are going to try and jetpack into center ring either sooner or later.
> Then explain to me how each of the previous Halo games worked so fine without these gimicks.
Human civilization worked just fine without cars.
> Your argument contradicts itself.
I think you’re misunderstanding what I’m trying to say.
> Right, so why change it?
Why do toys and games get more complicated as time goes on. Everyone was satisfied with hoops and sticks and balls tied to cups.
> > Explain how you are supposed to “plan for” jetpacks.
>
> You know that if you have map control, and that your opponents are any decent, they are going to try and jetpack into center ring either sooner or later.
>
>
>
> > Then explain to me how each of the previous Halo games worked so fine without these gimicks.
>
> Human civilization worked just fine without cars.
>
>
>
> > Right, so why change it?
>
> Why do toys and games get more complicated as time goes on. Everyone was satisfied with hoops and sticks and balls tied to cups.
>
> It adds another layer to the game.
Good job answering 1% of my questions. You didn’t provide me with anything worthy of a response. Go read my text and respond to everything I said, and then get back to me. I asked how you are supposed to prepare for jetpacks, and you answer “By knowing they’re coming.” WHAT?!? If I know a horde of zombies is running towards my house, am I prepared? If I’m driving and I see a car coming full speed at me, am I prepared to survive without doing anything?
Use your brain and reply to me. This is ridiculous.
> Good one Methew.
>
> I finally found another who completely understands it all.
>
> BTW…
>
> If it has not occurred to you people yet. It is perfectly reasonable to make comparisons and association between FPS’s and the Real world battlefield.
>
> For what do you think FPS’s originally got their inspiration from?
>
>
>
> If wars were fought with rubberbands. And Halo had you shooting rubberbands… Would you then accept the associations and comparisons between the two?
>
> What’s it going to take to get you to accept it?
>
>
> And what’s it going to take to get you to realize that comeptitives are stupid -Yoink!- people.
> AA’s = Everyone has access to them = Noone gets an advantage
> Bloom = Everyoen has to deal with it = Noone gets an advantage
>
> Competitive = AA’s are crutches for noobs = Gives advantages to noobs.
>
> Just shut the -Yoink!- up already. You people have no reasoning skills.
>
> And even if that was the case. I’m bad -Yoink!- enough, that I don’t care if you give them crutches, That just means the game is actually going to challenge me. I play games to be challenged. IF the player can’t provide that challenge, then I don’t mind if the game steps in to fill the gap.
>
> Now listen to you… You’re pathetic.
> You’re so pathetic that the game is trying to make it interesting for you, and you cry about it. You have no business giving you input on anything. If you are the type of person to -Yoink!- about AA’s or bloom.
>
>
> No really… here’s the sitrep:
> 3.0 KD player vs 0.5 KD player.
> WAH!!! I go screwed over by an AA, I got screwed over by bloom, I got screwed over by Bungie, I got screwed over by everything. Why you giving that 0.5 KD player crutches to keep up with me. WAH!!!