-
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 |OT9| One Final Effort Is All That Remains
- Thread starter GhaleonEB
- Start date
I posted on their forums to have a helmet with a beard on it.
bobs...onGaf
Member
You still around? I would love to jump on Halo 3, might do so in half an hour or so. Anyone interested in playing some good maps like the Pit?
.Orochinagis
Member
I wonder what happened to this Helmet
Maybe 343 will put it in Halo 4
Maybe 343 will put it in Halo 4
StalkerUKCG
Banned
I wonder what happened to this Helmet
Maybe 343 will put it in Halo 4
It was a Internal Test for DLC armor, While it never made it into Halo: Reach id say its a pretty strong possibility DLC armor will make it to Halo 4.
That Helmet is not included in base Halo 4 we have already seen the entire armory.
NobleGundam
Banned
IndeedI really hope we see more from the Reach Datapads. Like... I really, really hope so. Loved those things; Old-school Halo mystery right there
I Liked the Council of Forerunners & Monitors within the Terminals of CEA, but lacked abit of depth to the mystery. Hoping Halo 4 will offer more depth within the new terminals and (speculation) devices to access aboard the Infinity. Maybe find an easter egg showing Cortana conversing with the Ships A.I. would be interesting.
Bungie were really good at Mysteries and Cryptic messages with Halo Fiction that would tie with Marathon Terminals.
ViewtifulJC
Banned
Man, Reach Spartan colors are so drab, dull, and BORING after looking at Halo 4
GrimBrother One
Member
I was this close to calling a major bullshit on you...
But you redeemed yourself in the nick of time.
nillapuddin
Member
we were looking for time confirmation right?
GrimBrother One
Member
I would TOTALLY pay for armor packs that added lets say 10 sets for 400msp. I don't care if I'm #partoftheproblem lol.
Halo 4 does look alot better, I'm just not feeling the default colors as they are too pastel for my taste looking just at the red and blue teams. Small complaint because the game does look amazing, colors are amazing, and my spartan will get a darker more contrasted shade anyways.
bobs...onGaf
Member
I finally got around to checking out more of the Forward Unto Dawn stuff, and im pretty hyped for that, looks awesome, I would REALLY love to cruise in the passenger seat of that hog.
I would pay 5000 MS for that beautiful armour.
Funny thing is most people will think I'm joking.
GodlyPerfection
Member
So I threw together a quick paint mockup of the game selection concept I threw down a little bit ago and I thought about it a little more deeply while chillin' in the shower.
During map selection the gametypes would be hidden, votes would be hidden like in arena to avoid real time vote sway that willow was talking about. After the map vote the selection box would disappear and the gametype selection box would appear. The numbers in the corner of the selection boxes are just countdown timers.
In the current system there is a chance for two rounds of voting to happen, while in this system it is guaranteed that two rounds will happen (barring connection issues). None options would be removed because you aren't voting on a combination of two different things, just only on one thing. As with the current system nothing would be pre-selected and order of the maps would be randomized (but the order would be the same for everyone).
This system allows for a possibility of 9 combinations rather than the standard 6 combinations. It also allows data mining to be more narrowly focused. Playlists would focus on gametype "categories". Then the first team to pick (we'll say always Blue team for attackers) picks the map, then the gametype is specified within the playlist based on the map. In terms of data mining maps would be selected based on the confines of the playlist, not based on the gametype that they are paired with. Depending on the person, gametypes can be picked or avoided over maps and vice versa in the current system. So removing this variable helps narrow the analysis. Then the gametype is picked within the confines of the Playlist->Map combination. This system seems to be much more manageable than having to consider all of the map/gametype combinations in the current system within the confines of the Playlist.
This system also has the bonus of promoting diversity when the teams want it and consistency when the teams want it. Sometimes a team wants the option to play on the same map over and over again, and sometimes they would like to avoid a map. When you have the map and gametype paired sometimes you feel forced into picking based on the gametype. This alleviates the feeling and simplifies the decision to the environment that you want to play on.
This also gets rid of those situations where you don't want to see two of the same map pop up. The main issue though is you don't get as much variety in combinations. Current system allows up to 6 different maps and 6 different gametypes while this system allows for 3 different maps and 3 different gametypes. It surely feels similar however as you don't typically realize how much variety you are offered in each category, just the amount of choices you have overall... which cuts down to always 3 at a time (rather than 3 all the time plus "None" in the first round). So more possible combinations, but less overall variety among the combinations when you look deeper into it.
Again more things need to be considered for how it will work with pure randoms, groups w/ randoms mixed in, free-for-alls, etc. But this is a start.
Matchmaking game selection plays a huge role in quitting and player retaining. I sat here for a bit thinking of a system that may promote more positive feelings on the decisions. Rather than having teams lose a vote and have to play a gametype/map combination, what would happen if we let each team pick either the map or the gametype one after the other? I haven't spent any time fleshing out scenarios or feelings, but wanted to throw it out there for discussion while this topic is still current.
I feel like something like this would result in a more positive reaction to the selection. Losing out would be local to the team which would typically much easier to accept than losing out to opponents in the voting process. One team would pick the map and the other team would pick the gametype on the map so each team would get at least one thing they want. So say we are playing objective... "Well since they picked Swordbase, let's not pick oddball and instead vote for Stockpile." I foresee this creating more reasonable combinations being picked. And in the end each team can be satisfied that at least they got the map/gametype they wanted. Only a few individuals would be disappointed, but it wouldn't be too bad because those they lost out to would be aligned with them not against them.
Now of course other scenarios like free-for-all and randoms need to be analyzed, but it could be a start to something. Another problem with this is a bit more time taken for the selection process, but that may be an acceptable price to pay for a more complimentary and more widely accepted selection. I also haven't taken the time to think about how this would affect the data mining side of things, but it was a quick idea to throw out there for discussion. I may take some time to flesh it out more and tweak it to something that could really work.
Thoughts?
During map selection the gametypes would be hidden, votes would be hidden like in arena to avoid real time vote sway that willow was talking about. After the map vote the selection box would disappear and the gametype selection box would appear. The numbers in the corner of the selection boxes are just countdown timers.
In the current system there is a chance for two rounds of voting to happen, while in this system it is guaranteed that two rounds will happen (barring connection issues). None options would be removed because you aren't voting on a combination of two different things, just only on one thing. As with the current system nothing would be pre-selected and order of the maps would be randomized (but the order would be the same for everyone).
This system allows for a possibility of 9 combinations rather than the standard 6 combinations. It also allows data mining to be more narrowly focused. Playlists would focus on gametype "categories". Then the first team to pick (we'll say always Blue team for attackers) picks the map, then the gametype is specified within the playlist based on the map. In terms of data mining maps would be selected based on the confines of the playlist, not based on the gametype that they are paired with. Depending on the person, gametypes can be picked or avoided over maps and vice versa in the current system. So removing this variable helps narrow the analysis. Then the gametype is picked within the confines of the Playlist->Map combination. This system seems to be much more manageable than having to consider all of the map/gametype combinations in the current system within the confines of the Playlist.
This system also has the bonus of promoting diversity when the teams want it and consistency when the teams want it. Sometimes a team wants the option to play on the same map over and over again, and sometimes they would like to avoid a map. When you have the map and gametype paired sometimes you feel forced into picking based on the gametype. This alleviates the feeling and simplifies the decision to the environment that you want to play on.
This also gets rid of those situations where you don't want to see two of the same map pop up. The main issue though is you don't get as much variety in combinations. Current system allows up to 6 different maps and 6 different gametypes while this system allows for 3 different maps and 3 different gametypes. It surely feels similar however as you don't typically realize how much variety you are offered in each category, just the amount of choices you have overall... which cuts down to always 3 at a time (rather than 3 all the time plus "None" in the first round). So more possible combinations, but less overall variety among the combinations when you look deeper into it.
Again more things need to be considered for how it will work with pure randoms, groups w/ randoms mixed in, free-for-alls, etc. But this is a start.
nillapuddin
Member
JohnOfMars
Banned
THANK YOU! And to everyone else who replied, like Rickenslacker. Why MS couldn't have explained that, I have no idea.
The Real Napsta
Member
I'm a huge MGS fan but I really thought it when down hill after act 1.
Orochinagis
Member
That's....sad, maybe they will include armor dlc this time
Domino Theory
Crystal Dynamics
Call her maybe.
Free with map packs, unlocked with map-pack specific achievements sounds good.
Well, as long as they don't make them as stupidly awful as Reach's DLC achievements.
Also, if there's one thing Reach did brilliantly, it was the ingame lobby. Sure the Spartan pose was weird and the card could have used more stats, but it was simple, and it worked.
Tha Robbertster
Member
It seems much longer ago than 2 years that Reach was released. And the opinions about the game have drastically changed after a few months of its release.
I think we're in a really interesting period for Halo now. Reach obviously wasn't loved by large parts of the community (I do wonder whether the people who buy Halo games and then move to another popular game after a few weeks/months hated the game as much as many people here did) and Halo 4 is in a position to either have the people who didn't like Reach fall in love again with a Halo game or distance them from the games they used to love even further. It's also interesting that Black Ops 2 is releasing a week later and I fear that a significant amount of people will move away from Halo 4 around that time. If that happens, the population of Halo 4 will largely exist out of hardcore fans who'll either love or hate the new things added to the game.
The base gameplay looks good but I think that things like armor mods, AA's and random weapon drops will make the game less enjoyable after the game is released for a few months. I'm not really convinced Halo 4 will be able to bring back the feeling I had when I played Halo 3. With some of the randomness and unpredictable things added to the game, I don't feel like I'll be able to enjoy the game as much as I loved Halo 3 on a competitive level (granted, Halo 3 had some horrible gametypes and maps in its playlists but at least, the good games where really good). Even if Halo 4 has playlists that are competitive and somewhat ranked, I feel that the things I just mentioned (of course, if they're there in those ranked playlists) will take away from the experience I loved in Halo 3.
A lot if the enjoyment also depends on how 343 will handle playlists updates and TU's. If Reach's matchmaking management is anything to go by, things don't really look positive. And if stuff like being able to drop the flag has to be patched in, I do hope those title updates will be more frequent than the one update we got with Reach but since 343 actually did update Reach, I do have hopes that they will have updates for their game more frequent than Bungie had.
Don't really know why I typed this post, I guess Reach's birthday got me thinking about Halo's future again.
I think we're in a really interesting period for Halo now. Reach obviously wasn't loved by large parts of the community (I do wonder whether the people who buy Halo games and then move to another popular game after a few weeks/months hated the game as much as many people here did) and Halo 4 is in a position to either have the people who didn't like Reach fall in love again with a Halo game or distance them from the games they used to love even further. It's also interesting that Black Ops 2 is releasing a week later and I fear that a significant amount of people will move away from Halo 4 around that time. If that happens, the population of Halo 4 will largely exist out of hardcore fans who'll either love or hate the new things added to the game.
The base gameplay looks good but I think that things like armor mods, AA's and random weapon drops will make the game less enjoyable after the game is released for a few months. I'm not really convinced Halo 4 will be able to bring back the feeling I had when I played Halo 3. With some of the randomness and unpredictable things added to the game, I don't feel like I'll be able to enjoy the game as much as I loved Halo 3 on a competitive level (granted, Halo 3 had some horrible gametypes and maps in its playlists but at least, the good games where really good). Even if Halo 4 has playlists that are competitive and somewhat ranked, I feel that the things I just mentioned (of course, if they're there in those ranked playlists) will take away from the experience I loved in Halo 3.
A lot if the enjoyment also depends on how 343 will handle playlists updates and TU's. If Reach's matchmaking management is anything to go by, things don't really look positive. And if stuff like being able to drop the flag has to be patched in, I do hope those title updates will be more frequent than the one update we got with Reach but since 343 actually did update Reach, I do have hopes that they will have updates for their game more frequent than Bungie had.
Don't really know why I typed this post, I guess Reach's birthday got me thinking about Halo's future again.
What it actually looks like:
Was just about to mention that.
We have a forum guy throw together a better UI in 5 minutes on MS Paint than 343 can put together over 2 years.
I'm in tears.What it actually looks like:
Ew. If the achievements are simple fine, but if they're annoying pass.
Poker Face
Member
probably the same reason the jackals look so odd.
Bregmann Roche
Member
Why is it that when I have a good idea people either think I'm joking or they are surprised? This is making me reevaluate my whole life.
I had this thought as well. It wouldn't take many additional armor sets to make $3.33 maps look more appealing to the "aesthetic customization" crowd, and it's a win for everyone. That's not what will happen though. We'll get 3 maps for $10 followed by multiple new sets of armor at 100 MSP each.
I know, just things like Winning X games on X Map Pack, or Capturing X flags. Encourage some people to play the DLC playlist a little more.
GrimBrother One
Member
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
ncsuDuncan
Member
GodlyPerfection, I think the end result of your system would be that players feel like they have less control over the gametypes/maps they have to play. Some players are very picky about what maps they want to play on. Other players are picky about gametypes. Some players (myself included) only care about specific combinations of the two. Players fluctuate between their preferences all the time, so you can't just split up the population into what they're picky about and be done with it.
Player Red: "The last four games I've played on have been Sword Base. I'm sick of it."
Matchmaking: "You get to vote on gametype! The other team gets to pick the map."
Player Red: "Fuck."
Player Blue: "I don't care what map I play, I just want to vote for DMR starts."
Matchmaking: "LOL. Pick a map. Red team picked AR starts."
Player Blue: "Anyone want to play Reach?"
Player Red: "The last four games I've played on have been Sword Base. I'm sick of it."
Matchmaking: "You get to vote on gametype! The other team gets to pick the map."
Player Red: "Fuck."
Player Blue: "I don't care what map I play, I just want to vote for DMR starts."
Matchmaking: "LOL. Pick a map. Red team picked AR starts."
Player Blue: "Anyone want to play Reach?"
You're projecting Reach's issues onto Halo 4, which I'll admit may end up being accurate. However, at this point I'm going to assume that those issues present in Reach will be somewhat cleared up in Halo 4.
What you're pointing out is the result of terrible maps combined with a confusing array of mixed gametypes in Reach. People are particular about maps because there are about 2 that are actually decent. People are particular about gametypes because there's about 2 that they actually know what they entail. Half the time I don't even know what weapon I start with in 2 out of the 3 gametypes or what loadouts are available.
Hopefully Halo 4 will have more good maps and less confusing playlist blends.
I think it's actually a marketing technique; they make you stare at shittacular armor in every lobby so you eventually pony up cash for their future DLC armor.
The Real Napsta
Member
In Halo 3 I'd rather play BR start on the worst map in the game than AR start on the best map in the game.
That said, it would be less of an issue in Halo 4 since we can choose our starting weapon now.
That said, it would be less of an issue in Halo 4 since we can choose our starting weapon now.
bobs...onGaf
Member
What it actually looks like:
Looks like he's in prison. I take that to mean playing Halo 4 is worse/ on par with being incarcerated.
K
kittens
Unconfirmed Member
Same, but for me the situation flip flops in Reach. I'd rather play AR starts on Zealot than DMR starts on Uncaged.
Also: the fact that Zealot is one of the better maps in Reach shows how awful Reach's maps are.
Probably will be Campaign stuff ;/
Orochinagis
Member
What it actually looks like:
Baseball cards !
The Real Napsta
Member
Agreed. Zealot is my favorite Reach map. It wouldn't be top 5 in any other Halo game.
AllIsOneIsNone
Banned
What it actually looks like:
This is kinda silly...its the one thing Reach did better than any other game, I believe.
Nonsense, can't you see he's jumping for joy?
Especially when you consider that it had the no-kill-zone space section at release. What a terrible design.