The Real Napsta
Member
You mean like all the new TU gametypes and the ZB gametypes?
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Halo: Reach |OT7| What are They to Say Now?
- Thread starter The Librarian
- Start date
The Henery
Member
If I was pushed to consider it - no. It's just a gametype that modifies General Player Traits parameters for us because they didn't take the time to add them to the menu UI.
I mean a gametype with new function. Modifying the Reach Magnum to act like the H1P and then holding back the gametype with it for 2 months for marketing purposes and then only having it in playlists that require you to either buy 15$ of DLC or a 40$ game to enter is some Halo Wars Strategic Options type stuff going down. And even at that point, it's mostly just a new weapon setup. Changing the loadouts on Capture the Flag doesn't qualify it as a new gametype either.
Give us a gametype with seperable CTF cap and spawn zones, give us a CTF game with Invasion spawns, give us an Bomb Tag game where touching people with the bomb attaches it to them and they have to tag another person to get it off before it explodes, give us an Invasion variant that can be used on Forge World that supports the core reset volumes, give us an Invasion variant that can do a Slayer phase, give us a Territories gametype that drops materiel when a territory is capped, or gametypes like this and many others that the community has thought up but can't do even with the options we have.
As it is, they won't even give us variations on the TU tweaks. The TU Beta is not used as a beta but more of a Preview, because the settings in the Beta playlist were same settings in the rest of matchmaking lists that had TU settings. They talked about how they had all this dials and knobs and levers and we can't even get a chance to experiment with settings outside of 85%. They continue to avoid questions on if bleedthrough has to be packaged with 85% Bloom or not. Beta playlists should be experimental and adventurous, not played safe.
Ultimately, the community should be given a way to write their own Megalo scripts.
Deadly Cyclone
Pride of Iowa State
Just sent in my resume/application for a position at Bungie. Wish me luck. 
ElzarTheBam
Member
Put it in a small arena style pit, and this could be very fun!
TBH, I expected, with the new powerfull gametype editor Bungie had, to see crazy game types like the bolded to be part of the action sack playlist, but what we have (as others have said) seems more limited than the halo 3 interation.
I think we have too many hoppers right now, but I do agree that more variation in Action Sack or the CTF options in Objective could add more draw and excitement to the game.
But I think people touched on it a couple days ago but H3 is suffering greatly from too many playlists and it seems like 3 has a FRACTION of what Reach does. For the people who hang back in Reach after for comes out (see: LOL) how much more drastically is that going to affect them?
New gametypes would be great, sure, but complaining about forcing people to buy DLC to use the H1 pistol is a bit much, don't you think? It's a throwback weapon for throwback maps...it's not essential to gameplay to play with it and if you can't live without it buy the DLC. It'd be different if every playlist required the new maps to even play multiplayer.
But I think people touched on it a couple days ago but H3 is suffering greatly from too many playlists and it seems like 3 has a FRACTION of what Reach does. For the people who hang back in Reach after for comes out (see: LOL) how much more drastically is that going to affect them?
New gametypes would be great, sure, but complaining about forcing people to buy DLC to use the H1 pistol is a bit much, don't you think? It's a throwback weapon for throwback maps...it's not essential to gameplay to play with it and if you can't live without it buy the DLC. It'd be different if every playlist required the new maps to even play multiplayer.
Well, they were refreshing with new gametypes up until the transition. The plan was to keep the fun/popular action sack gametypes in, then drop the less voted for / unpopular ones out and replace them with new ones, according to Jeremiah on Optimatch.
Ever since the transition, Action Sack just ended up frozen in the configuration Bungie left it in. At minimum, 343 could implement VIP. That'd open up a TON of gametypes for the community to make.
Of course, due to splitting the userbase with the Anniversary disc and all the added achievements, a bunch of Anniversary-only lists and playlists are now locked into existence forever, versus Halo 3 which only needs two different playlists to satisfy being able to obtain all the DLC.
edit: I'm just going to say, look at how succesful CoD is with no multiplayer achievements whatsoever, and apply this lesson and stop saddling the Halo playerbases with multiplayer achievements. Especially those last round of achievements, which are so esoteric and picky that they practically beg people to boost them out.
Gabotron ES
Member
Reach's Action Sack is boooring
Another issue, after matchmaking's last update BTB built in maps (Boneyard, Spire...) are more likely to appear in the first slots, this is actually good since I was getting tired of all the grey.
We have a bigger problem now, these maps are actually BAD, I'll go into further detail later but anyone who has played one sided gametypes on Spire has seen the real face of madness.
They are introducing Heavy variants now (hopefully Slayer, 2 Flag and Assault gametypes will show up) so it would be nice if they also looked for "fixed" versions of these maps.
Another issue, after matchmaking's last update BTB built in maps (Boneyard, Spire...) are more likely to appear in the first slots, this is actually good since I was getting tired of all the grey.
We have a bigger problem now, these maps are actually BAD, I'll go into further detail later but anyone who has played one sided gametypes on Spire has seen the real face of madness.
They are introducing Heavy variants now (hopefully Slayer, 2 Flag and Assault gametypes will show up) so it would be nice if they also looked for "fixed" versions of these maps.
ncsuDuncan
Member
Sorry for the Wall o' Text, HaloGAF.
Yep, guesswork based on my personal experience. What other reasons would there be for quitting? I'm curious. The ranking was more for clarity purposes so I could refer to the numbers in the next paragraph.
I think this system is harder to explain through text and pictures than it would be to just pick up and use. You have sliders that let you upvote and downvote, sometimes the sliders won't move after you've made a few decisions. I can understand the argument that it's visually crowded, but I don't think players would be terribly confused after trying it out.
A blind vote with Reach's current system would only makes things worse:
BTB (8v8) voting round:
2-flag CTF on Ridgeline
1-flag CTF on Headlong
BTB Dino Blasters on Solitary
An unlikely scenario, but it's just for example purposes. Ten people wanted to play CTF, but because they split their vote they're stuck playing something else.
"Games that end due to surrender will still count as a win or loss, the same as any other game, except with a reduced Game Complete credit payout for everyone involved."
Winning teams aren't being denied victory, just a few credits because the terribly lopsided game ended early. I should have explained the credit penalty a little more. It's not a big deal.
Normal Game Complete payout for winners: 1000 cR
Surrender Game Complete payout for winners: 800 cR
Normal Game Complete payout for losers: 800 cR
Surrender Game Complete payout for losers: 500 cR
(I'm of the opinion that Game Complete should not scale as you rank up. Just scale the amount of credits required to earn the next rank, that way a 2000 cR challenge has the same value for all players relative to how many credits you earn in a single game.)
Booting on the first betrayal is ridiculous. One betrayal could very well be an accident, even if the victim doesn't feel that way.
The tosspots could only betray one person every five minutes, and that's if they don't have any previous strikes. Otherwise they can only betray once every 10 minutes. All while sitting through unusually long respawn times. I don't think that's game-breaking.
Strike One and Strike two would have similar popups explaining the consequences. I should have explained this in the article.
Remind me again what Reach's punishment system is...?
Thanks for the discussion.
No worries, let's do this:
Yep, guesswork based on my personal experience. What other reasons would there be for quitting? I'm curious. The ranking was more for clarity purposes so I could refer to the numbers in the next paragraph.
I feel like players would pick it up pretty quickly, although I must admit it would have to be presented differently to work well for colorblind users.
I think this system is harder to explain through text and pictures than it would be to just pick up and use. You have sliders that let you upvote and downvote, sometimes the sliders won't move after you've made a few decisions. I can understand the argument that it's visually crowded, but I don't think players would be terribly confused after trying it out.
A blind vote with Reach's current system would only makes things worse:
BTB (8v8) voting round:
2-flag CTF on Ridgeline
5 votes
5 votes
6 votes
An unlikely scenario, but it's just for example purposes. Ten people wanted to play CTF, but because they split their vote they're stuck playing something else.
A quote:
"Games that end due to surrender will still count as a win or loss, the same as any other game, except with a reduced Game Complete credit payout for everyone involved."
Winning teams aren't being denied victory, just a few credits because the terribly lopsided game ended early. I should have explained the credit penalty a little more. It's not a big deal.
Normal Game Complete payout for winners: 1000 cR
Surrender Game Complete payout for winners: 800 cR
Normal Game Complete payout for losers: 800 cR
Surrender Game Complete payout for losers: 500 cR
(I'm of the opinion that Game Complete should not scale as you rank up. Just scale the amount of credits required to earn the next rank, that way a 2000 cR challenge has the same value for all players relative to how many credits you earn in a single game.)
If someone is really angry about being betrayed I don't think they'll mind holding a button for two seconds. It's a built-in cooldown time to make them think "Do I really want to punish this person or should I just hit Forgive?"
Booting on the first betrayal is ridiculous. One betrayal could very well be an accident, even if the victim doesn't feel that way.
The tosspots could only betray one person every five minutes, and that's if they don't have any previous strikes. Otherwise they can only betray once every 10 minutes. All while sitting through unusually long respawn times. I don't think that's game-breaking.
http://misriahsolutions.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/booted.jpg
Strike One and Strike two would have similar popups explaining the consequences. I should have explained this in the article.
Some players care about credits. Certainly not everyone (and I state as such in the article) but I even see people on HaloGAF complaining about challenge payouts, jackpots, etc.
Remind me again what Reach's punishment system is...?
Hmm, it wasn't my intention to claim credit for all of these ideas. I was just trying to spread them around a bit more and throw together some pretty pictures to go with them. I'll add in a sentence explaining this.
Thanks for the discussion.
The Henery
Member
What, like chess and Haloball? To be honest, I'm glad they prioritised those who wanted a way of playing a more traditional Halo (zero bloom) in Reach, rather than the mini-game crowd.
FyreWulff said:
Agreed. I haven't even bothered to actively try to get these latest batch of achievements, so absurd are the hoops you have to jump through. It doesn't bother me; I'm not that fussed over gamerscore. What does annoy me is when mm achievements prevent a list becoming dlc required.
ncsuDuncan
Member
- Are there even enough gametype and map combinations to do that?
- Ranking gives more data to the playlist manager, making it easier to figure out which choices really are the most popular. Preventing any duplicate gametypes or maps would give less data than the current system because similar combinations would never be on the same ballot.
I was hoping to find a way to determine the most agreeable gametype for the everyone in the lobby.
If you want to watch a humorous video on why First Past the Post voting sucks, check this out. It has cats. (I don't know or care about the politics in that video, I just think it raises some good points on voting.)
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
If they don't like it, they can stick to twitter. =)
Fair enough, I don't think you should have ranked them in the first place.
1. Players unhappy with the map/gametype picked.
Basically here you're saying the majority of folks quite because they don't like the gametype and map combo. That assertion alone is just silly. There's no way any could ever claim a definitive reason for the majority of quitting in any matchmade game but attributing it to something like this, is wrong.
They only way this could be true would be if the individual playlists would trying to cater to multiple niches at once. Like having Shotty Snipers, 1-Flag CTF, Headhunter and Grifball in a single playlist. It's stupid. Reach has the biggest selection of individual playlists of any Halo game. If anything, the playlists are far too laser focused on specific niches. If I go into ZB Slayer, chances are I'm going to happy with the majority of gametype/map combo's and certainly.
What you are claiming is just very, very unlikely and without actual hard numbers or metrics to back it up, why even bother to mention or claim it?
2. Uneven team skills. (Losing by a large margin.)
This is one of the biggest issues yet you instantly shy away from discussing it. Why?
3. Uneven team sizes due to other quitters. (e.g. 4v2, 8v4)
Is this really a big reason why people quit? The domino effect? It's a contributing factor, sure, but a main reason?
4. Griefing. (e.g. betrayals, teabagging, objective holding)
Griefing is only possible in two situation. The first is where the is massive skills gap between the two teams playing, and the second is griefing coming from your own team against you. So this point is really covered by your other points already.
5. Outside/real-world causes. (e.g. connection drops, house fire, spouse unplugs Xbox)
This is real, biggest reason for quitters. It's the reason why every multiplayer game ever, anywhere, on any format, will have quitters. It is the most consistent and persistent issue and there's nothing anyone can do about it.
Well, you could always do something to mitigate it. Like bots or AI or other such handicaps or aids. But you don't even bother going near this point either.
6. Player can earn credits faster elsewhere.
Nobody quits a game of Halo because they could earn credits faster in another game. I mean... seriously? I've played more Halo than most other folks and come across the spectrum of players and quitters, everything. I've never, once ever heard of this reason and I honestly do not believe it.
It's not about presentation. You are suggesting replacing a simple, elegant system with a convolution system for reasons you can't even prove exist.
I'm not even convinced you've argued a strong point for the need of this system. There's no point in adding this additional complexity if it's only going to have a negative impact. The majority of players won't care to learn how to use something. Players should have to learn anything in the first place.
I'd think you'd see an increase in quitting just from frustrated newer players that can't figure how to vote for a map they want to play.
See You Next Wednesday
Banned
Wasn't there supposed to be a playlist where they removed reticule bloom & negated shield defense when getting headshots?
Is that in the Anniversary playlist only?
Is that in the Anniversary playlist only?
Tha Robbertster
Member
There is a TU beta playlist where all the TU settings apply: Zero bloom, armor lock and camo tweak, damage bleed through and sword block.
And in most playlists, 343 changed the settings to the TU settings with 85% bloom instead of the regular 100%.
And then, in the anniversary playlist, there is a gametype called anniversary classic with a zero bloom, 3 shot pistol.
That's why there were people clamoring for new maps, even if they had just been Forge World. Boneyard and Spire just aren't BTB material, even if they're jammed down our throats as one. Bungie's first mistake was making an Invasion area and built it as a BTB map afterwards, rather than making a straight BTB map, and turning it into Invasion. Now instead of getting bad Forge variants, you'll get straight up horse manure in Spire/Boneyard. The change to this setting doesn't really solve any issues, at all.
As for Heavies, wait and see approach. I assume they're adding tanks, and the Scorpion has no business in Halo MM unless it is on a map like Containment. That map's hill in the center and its sight-lines from the center-base worked pretty dang well. On topic if that: while I wasn't a massive fan of Containment back in the day, in hindsight, it's probably the best BTB map we've gotten since. The BTB map set has been so poor in these past two games, and that upsets me almost as much as them dropping the ball consistently in Team Objective in both games.
Also the fact that Heavies has sucked major balls in 3/Reach, it's not a type of thing that's going to excite me. Just putting more heavy weapons, tanks, and other material on the map doesn't simply make it more fun or chaotic. The map has to be good, and there's only one in the BTB playlist that's even remotely fun in general; and I have a feeling we'll be seeing it ruined in some manner.
I'd like to see some stats on that one, because I doubt it's the #1 reason people quit while playing Halo MP.
Undoubtedly every multiplayer game has to deal with it, etc. but for Halo in particular, I'd say people quit more often because they aren't having fun (due to uneven teams) than because of real world problems.
Slightly Live
Dirty tag dodger
Uneven teams? What cause the first person to quit to create the uneven teams? I doubt we'll have definitive answers to these things any time soon. =/
One thing though, Reach is plagued with quitters. Much, much more so than Halo 3. Why? I could offer up many possible reasons. I just hope Halo 4 doesn't suffer from Reach's quitting problems. I mean Reach specifically. Reach has more players quitting per match and more players leaving Reach entirely and sooner, than Halo 3 did.
No amount of system adjusting is going to bring players back when they swap out the Reach disc for the last time.
squidhands
Member
- Didn't get his/her way with the voting.
- gets constantly shield-stripped by random asshole teammates
- getting dominated by a good team and isn't having fun
- at least two more things I can't think of here at work
- power outage at the trailer park.
ncsuDuncan
Member
Picking and choosing quotes for brevity:
ranking list of the major reasons people quit would look something like this:"
Happy?
What else is there to say? I don't have the math degree required to come up with a new algorithm.
I think a good community idea I failed to mention was allowing dropped players to rejoin the game once they reconnect to XBL.
Why are the ten CTF fans idiots? They can't see the numbers if the votes are hidden...
In Reach you have to constantly watch the numbers to see which two options are the frontrunners. If you just ranked your preferences you wouldn't need to do that.
Good point on communication, the number of strikes the betrayer has should be displayed to the victim so he knows exactly what punishment is being handed out.
And I think you're overstating how long it would take to hit "punish". It should be easy to do before respawning, I just wanted to make sure you couldn't simply tap the button and boot someone from the game like you can in Reach.
-------
I'm enjoying this discussion, Dani. We've talked about quitting issues before but not at this level of detail.
*insert overused joke about lack of Halo 4 news here*
Ninja Edit: "I'd guess a
Happy?
"The skill-based matchmaking algorithm needs to be improved to reduce the number of games with uneven team skills." (paraphrasing)
What else is there to say? I don't have the math degree required to come up with a new algorithm.
True, but I'd rather not have bots in Halo. They take too much development time and I'd rather that be spent on finding a way to keep humans playing the game.
I think a good community idea I failed to mention was allowing dropped players to rejoin the game once they reconnect to XBL.
Yes, that's a more realistic example. I was being silly to drive home the frustration of seeing your last choice, your most detested one, being picked over your second choice.
Why are the ten CTF fans idiots? They can't see the numbers if the votes are hidden...
In Reach you have to constantly watch the numbers to see which two options are the frontrunners. If you just ranked your preferences you wouldn't need to do that.
Yep. If your team wants to end the game early I say let them do it. The faster you can get into a close, enjoyable game of Halo the better.
*sigh* Look at the other side of the equation. You have the rocket launcher and you're playing nice but your teammate decides to be a tosspot. He deliberately steps in front of you as you're firing and gets killed. In default Reach, you're instantly booted. In the system I'm describing you have Strike One. Annoying? Yes, but at least you're still in the game.
Good point on communication, the number of strikes the betrayer has should be displayed to the victim so he knows exactly what punishment is being handed out.
And I think you're overstating how long it would take to hit "punish". It should be easy to do before respawning, I just wanted to make sure you couldn't simply tap the button and boot someone from the game like you can in Reach.
I don't trust the Xbox to determine a betrayer's intentions. Maybe you're lucky - I've been booted plenty of times where it was an honest mistake. On the flipside, I've been intentionally and maliciously betrayed many, many times without getting the option to boot a player. Anecdotal evidence, but oh well.
Exactly.
-------
I'm enjoying this discussion, Dani. We've talked about quitting issues before but not at this level of detail.
*insert overused joke about lack of Halo 4 news here*
2 Flag Slayer :|
For variety, sure. Practically, though, I would rather they dedicate whatever resources they'd use to make that gametype to fixing the weightings of the existing gametypes in the playlist and improving the gametype/map variants that are already there (can we please get a decent remake of Sanctuary already and throw Asylum in the garbage?). The variety then comes from better DLC integration in the 'hardcore' playlists and the occasional novel gametype showing up due to relatively low weighting. With something like Objective, the new gametypes have been pretty soundly rejected so far, and there was such an emphasis on them that the core experience was left by the wayside. I'd rather they establish a good base of normal gametypes, as boring as that may sound, before branching out in a risky venture to create something that may not end up being particularly good. Like Headhunter. Or asymmetric Stockpile.
I don't really get Action Sack, so I don't think I'm qualified to comment on what that playlist needs.
That's actually a really good point about improving the existing problems. It's a real shame that a lot of people have just given up that hope and gone for a whole new revamping instead. Reach is a fun game, I'm not afraid to say that. They have a lot of cool things in that game but as everyone else will echo, those few things are vastly outweighed by a slew of poor, broken decisions. Seriously. Asylum is still a thing. WHY. They already use a pretty nice version of Sanctuary in MLG and I don't know why they can't just make a global switch. Blerg.
And Action Sack is what I play when I just want to goof off and play games where everyone is in it to have fun and not be ultra-competitive. Reach brought a lot of innovation with HaloBall and Hot Potato, etc, but Halo 3 took basic mechanics and made them into something new but with the realization that those gametypes would never be accepted widely into a competitive hopper (I'm looking at you Headhunter).
ncsuDuncan
Member
Updated the article:
thezerofire
Banned
I guess you missed the basically part in my post. Reading comprehension. Now class really is dismissed.
Also, I really love how whenever I criticize the nerf of the grenade launcher the only responses are "You suck get better fucking noob." I'm not bad with the grenade launcher. It just isn't as useful.
LOL it's useful if you aren't bad at it. Get better noob.
My take on the quitting problem - and I [edit] am inclined to agree with the premise that it's more of an issue in Reach than in past games in my anecdotal evidence, but I'd like to see stats - is that the underlying game itself just isn't as fun. Or more precisely, it takes a more narrow set of circumstances to make it fun than in past Halo games. A poor map/gametype combination in Halo 3 never resulted in the agony of a lopsided BTB slayer game on Hemorrhage, in my experience. Reach has a much more narrow needle to thread, with so many more ways things can go wrong. And to be blunt, Bungie and 343 have been very slow to address a lot of the problems, though there has been improvement.
I can only speak for myself, but I could have fun losing in Halo 3, because I felt like I was losing fair and square. I lost because the other players were better than I was. They could strafe and juke well and just plain out gun or out flank me. The game was still fun to play, and I'd try to tough it out and have fun in the meantime. There were exceptions with games like BTB Heavies where balance was far out of whack and I'd quit, but those were the exception.
With Reach, I don't feel like I lose due to skill as often. Rather, I find myself blaming the game, and more specifically what I scientifically call, bullshit. When I walk around a corner on Countdown and someone uses evade with the sword to lunge across the room and nail me before I could take him out, I don't think, wow great player. I think, that's bullshit and I'm out of here.
When I lose a close range DMR spamfest, I blame the mechanics, not the player's skill. Every time I have hell rained down on me from a jetpacking guy I can't spot in time, or die to a nuclear grenade when I was just shot once, or try to move out of the way in time and can't because I'm made of lead, or get pinned in my base because there's a camo sniper on the cliff wall across the map on Hemorrhage, or my vehicle blows up from a couple DMR rounds when I'm in good health, I call bullshit. I call bullshit a lot in Reach, and that makes me want to quit games. (And, now that I have another mainstay game, has kept me from starting them.)
And when I find myself blaming the game, my instinct is, fuck this shit I'm out of here, hoping to land on something that feels more fair. Again, this is just my experience. But I wouldn't be surprised if this was behind a lot of the quitters.
tl;dr version: make a better, more fair game, and people won't quit as often.
I think 'uneven' here means not just numbers on the team... but ability. (This is by FAR the more common reason *I've* seen for people quitting. Someone gets to a 1.0 K/D in the game, quits out. Or the team is down 15 points, someone quits out. And so on.
I'd love to see stats on this - I don't believe this is the case. (It's been well over a year since I played Halo 3 regularly, but my RECOLLECTION is that there were just as many quitters there as I see now in Reach.)
I can remember this happening to me ONCE, in all my games of Reach multiplayer. (It's far, far, FAR more likely that someone steps in the way accidentally.) There just aren't a lot of people being tosspots, relative to the total number I've played with. I've been booted for accidental betrayals (well, ANY betrayals) maybe a dozen times, total, in more than 3000 matchmaking games. It's just not a real problem.
Steelyuhas
Member
Semester just started today.
It's going to take me a few days to come to terms with the fact that I actually have to get back to work lol.
I agree with you on this. I don't feel that I experience more quitters in Reach than in Halo 3.
The Librarian
Banned
Just sent in my resume/application for a position at Bungie. Wish me luck.
Break a leg!
Captain Blood
Member
I feel the exact same way. That god damn bullshit factor.
2,310 Halo 3 ranked/social games, -216 EXP in penalties (quits), which equals to roughly 11% of your career games.
Let's not throw stones.
Bullshit deaths.
Halo MP 2007-present day
xxjuicesxx
Member
Maybe if it was H2...
Captain Blood
Member
I know it is all personal opinion so a lot of people probably feel differently. I certainly feel like I get cheated a lot more in Halo Reach than I did in Halo 2 or 3. And there were actual cheaters in Halo 2. Which is why I played an obscene amount of Halo 2 and 3 compared to very little Reach.
Steelyuhas
Member
As an aside, any Halo schtuff collectors, worth getting this signed by Bungie/MS employees for my own personal collection, or is it pretty much like getting a normal box signed?
I didn't change the label in any way, it just came like that.
I tried to take one of those stickers off once. MS wasn't joking, that thing does not come off.
Curious, what position did you apply for?Just sent in my resume/application for a position at Bungie. Wish me luck.
The Librarian
Banned
There weren't any bullshit deaths in Halo 2? What, so modders, stand-byers, and people who used the assortment of weapon glitches don't count?
Oho!
Oho!
Watching streams of the Pit and stuff really makes me wish you could actually jump onto things in most of Reach. The depth of play in the pit really makes a lot of other maps seem really shallow.
Also, we should really kick asylum to the curb and get the other remake of Sanctuary in there.
Also, we should really kick asylum to the curb and get the other remake of Sanctuary in there.
Captain Blood
Member
According to Jeremiah, we can't get the good Sanctuary because of split screen perf. As if Asylum is any better...
Wow, seriously?
Zooming on Asylum in certain places still gives me mad framerate hiccups solo.
Why can't we have the Pit then? Same reasoning? There are already plenty of other way worse forgeworld maps in rotation.
The Librarian
Banned
That comment wasn't directed at you, just a general statement. There were plenty of BS deaths in Halo 2.
Steelyuhas
Member
Yeah because Asylum has very little actual forge pieces, its better in 4-way split than any of the Sanctuary maps that I've seen (sent him a few last year and that's what Jeremiah told me).
Which is the ironic part of it. Looking snipe to snipe creates lag, where you can't even look snipe to snipe on Sanctuary. As far as I know, the only slowdown on Mac's version is looking from rock garden to snipe. MLG's version has none(that I know of).
squidhands
Member
That's because you get framerate drops from the blank canvas of The Quarry. I never would have believed that Forgeworld would be worse than Sandbox, despite all of the 'advancements' in Reach's Forge. I hope the next Halo takes a new approach to Forge; building blocks are for infants.
Well shit we will never get the Pit then, as it is totally comprised of a ton of forge objects from the looks of it.
Very sad.