I might be a minority here, but it's the most fun I have had with Halo 5's unmodified core (weapons/movement) since launch.
Things I noticed right away:
-Maps are really well designed and look more "Halo" than 343's default maps imho
-Great power weapon spawn position
-Spartan abilities cannot be abused here
-Map size and sight lines allow for proper engagement distances with the pistol (hip fire or zoom)
-Great sense of round to round rhythm--can get pretty pleasantly tense though
I might be thinking this way because it's new and feels good, but so far the gametype seems to fit Halo 5's default weapon sandbox better than anything Halo 5 launched with. And I'm usually pretty negative about Halo 5.
You win games in h5 you gain csr points
You win games in h2 you gain exp
You lose games in h5 you lose csr points
You lose games in h2 you lose exp
In h5 your csr points are converted into a rank gold 1 - onyx
In h2 your exp are converted into a rank 1-50
It's litteraly just different labels applied to the exact same data.
The system in h2 didnt match based on rank, it matched based on your hidden mmr. It just happened that people with similar mmr's often had similar ranks. This was also benefited by party restrictions and large population counts.
You really dont want mmr's to be used for ranks, because the swings would be extremely confusing and it would probably make people feel terrible when it appeared they lost a ton of progress when they really didn't.
Your rank is a progression system. Its an overlay that sits atop the matchmaking system. These are two different, but related systems that every game since h2 has had.
I guess it's the csr that I don't like then. There's too little change in the ranks, so it doesn't feel very rewarding. Now I just feel stuck in one placement category/division forever. Which does little in the way to motivate me to compete. I liked seeing a visible number a la 1-50. The system to place you into divisions in H5 feels arbitrary. Do you actually feel like the placement system in H5 means anything? Cuz I don't.
Maybe, ultimately, what I'm getting at is that I'd prefer everyone just start at rank 1 and start working their way up by playing matches. I don't want some bogus mystery placement system determining where I'm at. It's not motivating or rewarding, and feels completely skewed by circumstances during your placement matches. Happen to be playing with good teammates during your 10 placement matches? Wow look at me I'm ranked really high. Happen to be playing with poor teammates during placement matches? Oh look I'm ranked really low. So some people are starting off higher right off the bat. And then the system remembers where you were originally for the next placement for the next month of placement matches, and takes that into account. So if you started low, you have to do even better the next placement matches to be given any benefit of the doubt. Now perhaps that's not how the system works, but it certainly feels that way. So just give me 1-50 where everyone starts at 1 like in H2. Boom. I'm happy. Starting off at rank 1 and having to work your way up from an even playing field, the same as everyone else, would also eliminate the issue of low player population giving bogus placements. The system wouldn't have to try and determine anything.
I guess it's the csr that I don't like then. There's too little change in the ranks, so it doesn't feel very rewarding. Now I just feel stuck in one placement category/division forever. Which does little in the way to motivate me to compete. I liked seeing a visible number a la 1-50. The system to place you into divisions in H5 feels arbitrary. Do you actually feel like the placement system in H5 means anything? Cuz I don't.
Maybe, ultimately, what I'm getting at is that I'd prefer everyone just start at rank 1 and start working their way up by playing matches. I don't want some bogus mystery placement system determining where I'm at. It's not motivating or rewarding, and feels completely skewed by circumstances during your placement matches. Happen to be playing with good teammates during your 10 placement matches? Wow look at me I'm ranked really high. Happen to be playing with poor teammates during placement matches? Oh look I'm ranked really low. So some people are starting off higher right off the bat. And then the system remembers where you were originally for the next placement for the next month of placement matches, and takes that into account. So if you started low, you have to do even better the next placement matches to be given any benefit of the doubt. Now perhaps that's not how the system works, but it certainly feels that way. So just give me 1-50 where everyone starts at 1 like in H2. Boom. I'm happy. Starting off at rank 1 and having to work your way up from an even playing field, the same as everyone else, would also eliminate the issue of low player population giving bogus placements. The system wouldn't have to try and determine anything.
I think the issue is the misconception that your rank determines who you play against. It's really just supposed to be something to motivate you to keep playing to win.
The point of the placement matches is so that you can more quickly get an idea of what caliber player you are- something that the 1-50 system didn't allow.
But even in Halo 2, the system in the background determined how good your were very quickly (not sure if it was 10 matches, though) - more quickly than your 1-50 rank would suggest.
So if a lvl 50 player created a new account, he'd start out as a level one, but he'd be dominant, so his MMR would rise more quickly than his Rank. So he'd start getting matches against players who would have ranks much higher than his, and he'd gain a ton of exp each match. But he'd also be costing lower skilled players Exp they didn't really deserve to lose.
The placements use your MMR to calibrate your CSR so that the CSR points at stake during each match are appropriate and fair.... makes perfect sense on paper, but I think it struggles to do this- mainly because there is nothing that takes into account parties and smurfing/boosting is rampant.
I don't want to keep beating the dead horse but I played my first game of Halo 5 in a month after playing Mass Effect Andromeda almost exclusively and I was immediately put off by how weird aiming feels in H5. I've been looking for the right settings for over a year but nothing clicks for me.
Extermination was fun though and it has great maps, I loved the Citadel inspired one! I did not win any of the two games I played thanks to my randoms but I still managed to get a KDA of around 25 in the second so I still got it in me ( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Ok, so my console is set as my friends home account. He has gold. I tried to add an account, but once setting one up it says that account needs a live subscription. Not sure what I'm doing wrong?
Well we've got less than a month's worth of time left to finish them all off now.
I get what you mean, though. I think at this point most of the strategies for each map have been calcified and everyone knows the best REQs to call it that it's a bit more frustrating than it needs to be.
Having max caps for power weapons and vehicles (at least the latter) would probably help a great deal, as would scaling back req energy regeneration. At this point it's too easy for guys to steamroll in Banshees and call in another one immediately after they die (then again, if they actually properly nerfed Banshees fighting against three of them at once wouldn't be as frustrating.)
In the 5 or so matches played i think i spent most of my time just running around looking for the last player alive on their team. Not exactly tons of fun.
The HCS settings though, holy shit these are amazing.
But it's also nice to have a new gametype that doesn't completely alter the way the Halo sandbox itself functions.
It has the gunfights that halo is known for, with the added tension you typically only get from round based extermination gametypes.
It could certainly use some tweaks to the scoring system- to limit the effectiveness of hiding, but there's only so much for scripting can do on that front.
Well we've got less than a month's worth of time left to finish them all off now.
I get what you mean, though. I think at this point most of the strategies for each map have been calcified and everyone knows the best REQs to call it that it's a bit more frustrating than it needs to be.
Having max caps for power weapons and vehicles (at least the latter) would probably help a great deal, as would scaling back req energy regeneration. At this point it's too easy for guys to steamroll in Banshees and call in another one immediately after they die (then again, if they actually properly nerfed Banshees fighting against three of them at once wouldn't be as frustrating.)
Of course, there is a vehicle cap. It's just memory/cpu/server resource based instead of balancing based. We've hit it a few times and that when you know the other team is boned.
But it's also nice to have a new gametype that doesn't completely alter the way the Halo sandbox itself functions.
It has the gunfights that halo is known for, with the added tension you typically only get from round based extermination gametypes.
It could certainly use some tweaks to the scoring system- to limit the effectiveness of hiding, but there's only so much for scripting can do on that front.
bold - that's how i felt when i first played the breakout arena on regular maps. then i realized it was crap like regular breakout lol. things can change
bold - that's how i felt when i first played the breakout arena on regular maps. then i realized it was crap like regular breakout lol. things can change
Yeah. I think this improves on arena breakout's main problems...
The dev maps are too big. And with death being final, there's no comeback potential. With full shields, winning when outnumbered became impossible, so people just exploited the various hiding spots.
With, extermination, the maps are so tight that hiding is much less effective. The lengthy spawns heavily punish death, without making comebacks impossible. And the tight quarters actually enable more multi-kills when out numbered, so being man down isnt a death sentence.
The remaining issues imo are the fact that there is no benefit to being the aggressor if a round ends in a tie. I think score should be kept based on kills and the team with the most wins the round of no extermination occurs. I wonder if the scripting would allow this
At any given moment, your no more than 4 kills from winning/losing. I'm not sure how your actions can feel 'inconsequential' in that scenario. Sure sometimes you don't get the last guy, but 15 seconds is an eternity on these tiny maps. how many rounds typically end in a tie?
TV show would be cool, but I'd cream my pants for an ODST game, featuring Kilo-5, that hit the story beats that HTT laid out- The insurrectionists, the anti-truce terrorists,the ONI espionage bullshit, the ex-Human v Covenant war factions, BB as the AI companion, the 'anamolies', the Spartan program being uncovered, the devestation of a guardian being activated etc... you know the interesting stuff going on in the universe before Cortana reveals herself.
TV show would be cool, but I'd cream my pants for an ODST game, featuring Kilo-5, that hit the story beats that HTT laid out- The insurrectionists, the anti-truce terrorists,the ONI espionage bullshit, the ex-Human v Covenant war factions, BB as the AI companion, the 'anamolies', the Spartan program being uncovered, the devestation of a guardian being activated etc... you know the interesting stuff going on in the universe before Cortana reveals herself.
Ah, yes. You are technically correct, which is, of course, the best kind of correct. At first I was like, "wait, is it different in the show than the book?" but then I remembered that's one of the awesome scenes that is pure show-only adaptation since no character in the room has a POV at that point in the novels.
