With all the announcements about Halo 4 I think completive gaming like Halo 2 and 3 will not be matched for some time… So what will you do? The only reason I even got XBL was for Halo 3 and to be challenged and now that it is gone I’m not sure what game comes even close to being as competitive as those games were. Any ideas?
play Halo 3 if its the best game evar
Gamebattles CoD and ranked GOW3 but they do not match up anywhere near competitive Halo 2 and 3
Any game with tournament and people who want to be the best?.. Competitive isn’t in the gameplay of a game…
Although I do respect your opinion and thoughts, I’d rather wait and see how this game turns out in the competitive scene, rather than go by your word. No Hard feelings tho
There is going to be a better system than what Reach pooped out. Just because a terribly flawed 1-50 system that can get you at the top rank for winning 20-something games in a row isn’t implemented doesn’t mean you’re not getting a challenge.
Wait it out. All they did was confirm that something they think is Better than Reach
s system AND Halo 3’s system is being implemented.
How much do you know about the changes? What do they do, how do they act? How many are there? How badly do they affect gameplay? What are the weapon like? Are the maps ok? Is there ranked mathcmaking?
You cant answer any of these questions. Therefore you do not have enough information t claim that the MLG style of compteitive halo is dead.
Silent
sorry…I play halo for the campaign, MP interests me solely as a mean to get a free feel of how some weapons/vehicles handle so I can improve my campaign experience without AI or people to bother me
If you are looking for a game to play compeitively, you only need to look as far was what games are popular on the “pro-gaming scene” currently. Fighting games seem to be pretty popular right now along with Starcraft and League of Legends.
> How much do you know about the changes? What do they do, how do they act? How many are there? How badly do they affect gameplay? What are the weapon like? Are the maps ok? Is there ranked mathcmaking?
>
> You cant answer any of these questions. Therefore you do not have enough information t claim that the MLG style of compteitive halo is dead.
>
> Silent
How much do we know about the changes? A little, the basics concepts which is enough for semi-accurate creation of plausible scenarios but barely anything concrete. But what is certain based on what we know, the changes made aren’t exactly the best choices for a Halo game.
What do they do, how do they they act? A few paragraphs of text could be written about this based on known information. As I said, we know the basic concepts of each and how it works. Chances are, they won’t be radically different from the base concepts of abilities such as those.
How many are there? At least four.
How badly do they affect gameplay? An interesting question. In a worst case scenario: they will make the gameplay unplayable on a competitive level, even assuming the design was not “broken” in terms of balance. In a best case sceneraio: they affect the game neutrally, not really improving gameplay on competitive level nor harming it. Or, at least, the improvement and harmfulness will both neutralize eachother.
What are the weapons like? There is no clear utility weapon, BR has recoil and is five shot kill, DMR presumably has bloom and is also five shot kill, pistol is apparently six shot kill with bloom and eight round magazine, power weapons are dropped on the map more or less randomly, we have a limited choice of what weapons do we spawn with. Of course, this is all based on what we have heard and not supported by actual gameplay.
Are the maps ok? Presumably, what has been heard and seen about them, they are supposed to be fine. Then again, nothing can be confirmed about them. All their quality depends on what’s 343i’s definition of “competitive design” and “shortcut jumps” (latter based on what we know about Wraparound).
Is there ranked matchmaking? The only one I cannot form a good semi-confirmative or ven speculative answer to.
As I was capable of answering those questions, let’s make a compromise and say that we don’t know with certainity that Halo 4 won’t be good for competitive gameplay, but things aren’t looking exactly good in terms of it. In other words, if I had to decide, I would lean more towards it being bad for competitive gameplay. Presumably not as bad as pre-TU Reach, but not good either.
> > How much do you know about the changes? What do they do, how do they act? How many are there? How badly do they affect gameplay? What are the weapon like? Are the maps ok? Is there ranked mathcmaking?
> >
> > You cant answer any of these questions. Therefore you do not have enough information t claim that the MLG style of compteitive halo is dead.
> >
> > Silent
>
> How much do we know about the changes? A little, the basics concepts which is enough for semi-accurate creation of plausible scenarios but barely anything concrete. But what is certain based on what we know, the changes made aren’t exactly the best choices for a Halo game.
>
> What do they do, how do they they act? A few paragraphs of text could be written about this based on known information. As I said, we know the basic concepts of each and how it works. Chances are, they won’t be radically different from the base concepts of abilities such as those.
>
> How many are there? At least four.
Very true, but remember what the information is based off of. It is based off of halo reach for the most part, and the abilities have been tweaked as far as 343i has stated. Not to mention the only bad one that we have seen return is the jetpack, which however is a cause for concern and i am priorly discussing in another thread.
It is true that the chanegs might not be the best for a halo game (such as loadouts) but who is to say that they are not indeed competitive?
> How badly do they affect gameplay? An interesting question. In a worst case scenario: they will make the gameplay unplayable on a competitive level, even assuming the design was not “broken” in terms of balance. In a best case sceneraio: they affect the game neutrally, not really improving gameplay on competitive level nor harming it. Or, at least, the improvement and harmfulness will both neutralize eachother.
Once again true. The armor abilites have been improved as has been stated by 343i, so i dont worry about them. Unfortuneatly, i am still waiting to know more about the perks and loadouts will affect the gameplay. Perks could be detrimental as you said if done incorrectly, but if made the right way could be perfectly fine. They could be the armor lock, or they could be the hologram of this game.
> What are the weapons like? There is no clear utility weapon, BR has recoil and is five shot kill, DMR presumably has bloom and is also five shot kill, pistol is apparently six shot kill with bloom and eight round magazine, power weapons are dropped on the map more or less randomly, we have a limited choice of what weapons do we spawn with. Of course, this is all based on what we have heard and not supported by actual gameplay.
I do disagree with the five shot kill BR. KillaKC said the DMR shot faster than the DMR also, leaving much concern for the redundantness of the BR. KillaKC also stated however, that the bloom was not liek reachs bloom, in it retreated much faster and was hardly noticable.
I do not like the fact that the pistol has bloom, as that pretty much renders the gun useless. I am worried that bloom is in the game at all, and this is definitley a cause for concern, but i shall watch and wait.
Weapon drops were stated to be not so much random, as to be in diffrent areas. They dont drop anywhere, more they drop in a coriographed plan that utilizes the main points on the map as was stated by Frankie.
> Are the maps ok? Presumably, what has been heard and seen about them, they are supposed to be fine. Then again, nothing can be confirmed about them. All their quality depends on what’s 343i’s definition of “competitive design” and “shortcut jumps” (latter based on what we know about Wraparound).
As 343i stated, they are competitve based. Unfortunately, we cant say for certain wheather or no this is true.
> As I was capable of answering those questions, let’s make a compromise and say that we don’t know with certainity that Halo 4 won’t be good for competitive gameplay, but things aren’t looking exactly good in terms of it. In other words, if I had to decide, I would lean more towards it being bad for competitive gameplay. Presumably not as bad as pre-TU Reach, but not good either.
See, but you didnt exactly answer those questions. Most of your answers were based on speculations and unconfirmed facts based upon articles posted by people who played. While that may give them credibility, nothing was actually confirmed. We dont even know for fact that the BR is five shots, or if bloom was as fine as it seemed. Most answers were left inconclusive which brings me to my next point.
We simply cant answer those questions for certain. Simply and truly we need more information before we can say anything important or make any claims about this game.
What you did say in the last paragraph was true however. Looking at what has been confirmed, and the possible negative effects that it could have on gameplay, this could leave the game very unbalanced and overall bad for competitive play. However, due to lack of information, we can not exactly confirm either side of the argument.
Silent
I will play Halo 4 to win and crush my opponents using any means necessary within the confines of the rules, which is what I have done in every game I have ever played. Therefore I will carry a competitive spirit to the game not determine the game to be competitive via it’s settings.
If you placed a stick in the middle of a circle and told two people to retrieve that stick by any means necessary. Those two people would be competing in a competition and assuming they both desired to win, would be competitive competitors.
There should be a new word for the settings people want in their game, because 99% of people are misusing “competitive” as a code word for settings they prefer.
> Very true, but remember what the information is based off of. It is based off of halo reach for the most part, and the abilities have been tweaked as far as 343i has stated. Not to mention the only bad one that we have seen return is the jetpack, which however is a cause for concern and i am priorly discussing in another thread.
>
> It is true that the chanegs might not be the best for a halo game (such as loadouts) but who is to say that they are not indeed competitive?
I was referring more to the absolute basic concepts of abilities. For example, loadout is naturally a selection of weapon(s) and/or abilities. If none of those parts is included, it is not a loadout. Jetpack flies as long as the thrust is used and if that got changed, it would not be a jetpack anymore. Of course, these are super obvious attributes, but that’s basically what I meant by “basic concepts”. Now, as for how much they have changed from Reach, some of them most likely more, some of them less. To what extent is really hard to say. But my sceptic mind raises the question: are these changes really for the better? They, indeed, do have the possibility of being even worse as their Reach counterparts.
> Once again true. The armor abilites have been improved as has been stated by 343i, so i dont worry about them. Unfortuneatly, i am still waiting to know more about the perks and loadouts will affect the gameplay. Perks could be detrimental as you said if done incorrectly, but if made the right way could be perfectly fine. They could be the armor lock, or they could be the hologram of this game.
I personally don’t consider the statement “they have been improved” as reliable at all, regardless if it comes from 343i. After all, that’s something that I decided myself when I have something more concrete. A more reliable statement would be “they have been changed” as regardless of if they have been changed, they might not have been actually improved.
Perks, in my eyes, seem like little insignficant modifications in comparison to armor abilities. After all, such minor changes like faster recharging health, one extra grenade (only at spawn?) and what other stuff they included all sound in significant when you pit two players with different armor abilities against eachother. After all, none of these exactly impact the flow of the combat itself unless hugely exaggerated (e.g. 200% health recharge rate). The largest potential impact I see would be the extra grenade.
> I do disagree with the five shot kill BR. KillaKC said the DMR shot faster than the DMR also, leaving much concern for the redundantness of the BR. KillaKC also stated however, that the bloom was not liek reachs bloom, in it retreated much faster and was hardly noticable.
>
> I do not like the fact that the pistol has bloom, as that pretty much renders the gun useless. I am worried that bloom is in the game at all, and this is definitley a cause for concern, but i shall watch and wait.
>
> Weapon drops were stated to be not so much random, as to be in diffrent areas. They dont drop anywhere, more they drop in a coriographed plan that utilizes the main points on the map as was stated by Frankie.
What do you disagree with me about the BR, exactly? That it was fice shot? As in that case, I have no doubt KillaKC could’ve been mistaken. After all, it’s easy to mistake the BR to five shot kill when four shots really requires you to fire perfectly. I could imagine a player playing Halo 3 for the first time mistaking the BR to five shot kill. And yes, I know the bloom wasn’t exactly like the bloom in Reach, but unless it has no effect on the actual combat and is only visual (as have been rumored) or is at least truly insignificant, it will have some detrimental effects to the game.
Regardless, the whole build was still old and far from final final. But it doesn’t make the weapon sandbox sound very promising. After all, five shot kill for any precision weapon is too slow. The whole sandbox would certainly be much better and the weapons function much more fluidly if all the weapons were four shot kills.
As for the weapon drops, as I said, they are more or less random. There is most likely a pattern, but if we have weapon spawn points A, B and C, ACBACBACB is certainly more predictable than ACBACBABACACBACBABACACBACBABAC even though both are completely consistent and non-random. Hence “more or less”.
> See, but you didnt exactly answer those questions. Most of your answers were based on speculations and unconfirmed facts based upon articles posted by people who played. While that may give them credibility, nothing was actually confirmed. We dont even know for fact that the BR is five shots, or if bloom was as fine as it seemed. Most answers were left inconclusive which brings me to my next point.
>
> We simply cant answer those questions for certain. Simply and truly we need more information before we can say anything important or make any claims about this game.
>
> What you did say in the last paragraph was true however. Looking at what has been confirmed, and the possible negative effects that it could have on gameplay, this could leave the game very unbalanced and overall bad for competitive play. However, due to lack of information, we can not exactly confirm either side of the argument.
>
> Silent
Granted, I did rely on more or less confirmed sources in the latter two answers. Then again, while I tried to rely as much on confirmed information, information that can’t be misinterpreted or that I have seen with my own eyes, I always did confirm when the sources weren’t completely reliable. For example: “Of course, this is all based on what we have heard and not supported by actual gameplay” and actually the whole paragraph answering to the question about the maps.
All the answers before these two contained completely confirmed facts and clear speculation that completely came from my own mind and has nothing to do with what some less reliable source has said about the game.
The questions certainly can’t be answered with great certainity, but nevertheless, I don’t consider there is any significant information left that would turn the game into a “jackpot for competitive play”. As much as I hope there was that magical information, the chances of it appearing are slim at best.
> With all the announcements about Halo 4 I think completive gaming like Halo 2 and 3 will not be matched for some time… So what will you do? The only reason I even got XBL was for Halo 3 and to be challenged and now that it is gone I’m not sure what game comes even close to being as competitive as those games were. Any ideas?
Wrong place bro. You should’ve posted this on the Halo 4 category.
> Gamebattles CoD and ranked GOW3 but they do not match up anywhere near competitive Halo 2 and 3
true but its preference. Halo 2 and 3 had the biggest hype. If Halo 4 doesn’t have a ranking system spawn killing is going to be easy unfortunately. People who don’t wanna play for map control always quit anyways!
I hear Halo 4 is gonna be pretty good.
> I hear Halo 4 is gonna be pretty good.
Im stoked about the campaign. I think 343 has that on lock but the MP on not sure about. I would have to play it to really know what to think.
Hmmm… Competitive gaming is now dead, at lest by OP’s opinion… So does this mean the competitive community will stop complaining about the none competitive community?
> I will play Halo 4 to win and crush my opponents using any means necessary within the confines of the rules, which is what I have done in every game I have ever played. Therefore I will carry a competitive spirit to the game not determine the game to be competitive via it’s settings.
>
> If you placed a stick in the middle of a circle and told two people to retrieve that stick by any means necessary. Those two people would be competing in a competition and assuming they both desired to win, would be competitive competitors.
>
> There should be a new word for the settings people want in their game, because 99% of people are misusing “competitive” as a code word for settings they prefer.
The thing is some games are better suited for competitions than others (as in they are fun to play, have considerable depth, and are spectator-friendly). While fighting over a stick can indeed be “competitive,” it is not fun, it does not have any depth, nor is it even spectator-friendly. Similarly in Reach’s and possibly, but hopefully not Halo 4’s case most, if not all of these three conditions are not met thus making it ill-suited for “competitive” play.
> > I will play Halo 4 to win and crush my opponents using any means necessary within the confines of the rules, which is what I have done in every game I have ever played. Therefore I will carry a competitive spirit to the game not determine the game to be competitive via it’s settings.
> >
> > If you placed a stick in the middle of a circle and told two people to retrieve that stick by any means necessary. Those two people would be competing in a competition and assuming they both desired to win, would be competitive competitors.
> >
> > There should be a new word for the settings people want in their game, because 99% of people are misusing “competitive” as a code word for settings they prefer.
>
> The thing is some games are better suited for competitions than others (as in they are fun to play, have considerable depth, and are spectator-friendly). While fighting over a stick can indeed be “competitive,” it is not fun, it does not have any depth, nor is it even spectator-friendly. Similarly in Reach’s and possibly, but hopefully not Halo 4’s case most, if not all of these three conditions are not met thus making it ill-suited for “competitive” play.
You know a rocket launcher is like a big tree branch with large pinecone rounds LOL! but i agree!