• 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 |OT5| Believe, Again

Status
Not open for further replies.
B

BigShow36

Member
Louis Wu said:
This actually made me chuckle.

In every Halo game I've ever played, people are always looking for ways of playing people they can poop on - from deranking in Halo 2, through playing on the guest account when logged in with a second person, to simply suiciding over and over again. It happens all the time. Folks don't WANT a win they've earned - they want to kick some ass.

(The Halo 3 sniper had WAY less aim assist than the Halo 2 sniper. And I know that I, for one, stopped even picking the damn thing up. (It comprised 550 of my nearly 50,000 kills in Matchmaking.) Why? Because it was frustrating to try and get a kill with it. Aim assist is back with a vengeance in Reach, and my use of it is way up, too - 2000 kills (of 45,000 - a nearly fivefold increase).)

Anectodal evidence? Yep. But I bet it's way more common than yours.
Click to expand...



That's fine; so you're not a good sniper. Why is that a problem? Why should the entire game be dumbed down to the point where you can be good with the sniper rifle? What is the benefit of that? As Risen pointed out, matchmaking would ensure that the vast majority of your games would be fine. You can't compromise the entire game because there might be some derankers out there; there are much better ways of dealing with that.

The only way we can objectively make the game fair for everyone playing is to say, okay, you're going to be rewarded based on your own personal skill as much as possible.

Just out of curiosity, which Halo game did you feel had the most fair aiming?
 
L

Louis Wu

Member
Risen said:
Wu... he said "I also believe that in a competitive setting, which is what VS matchmaking is, players get enjoyment when they feel they've earned success rather than have it handed to them."

That does not exist to the exclusion of all else. Your example does not negate his statement. Everyone playing wants to "kick some ass", and many don't want a difficult match at all - true. Many... even if you said MOST love kicking ass, as you say - this doesn't mean folks don't get enjoyment by earning their success.

One can both like instant and easy gratification and enjoy earning success.

If matchmaking worked well, and you were in a room full of "you's" would you have stopped picking up the sniper? In that room full of "you's", I bet you would have had more success, which would mean you pick it up more.
Click to expand...
Oh, I think most of us get enjoyment from earning our success - but I don't think that's the primary reason for people playing online. And his original argument was that making it harder (making people work more for their success) would increase the enjoyment of highly competitive players, without decreasing the enjoyment of everyone else - and I strongly disagree with that. (I'll buy the first part - it's the second part that doesn't work for me.)

In answer to your final question - I didn't stop using the Halo 3 sniper because I was fighting against people who were way better than me - I stopped using it because I couldn't hit anything with it. You could have set up STATIONARY targets, and I would have missed. :) In a room full of "mes", I STILL would have sucked with it, and STILL would have left it for other weapons. :) (Did, in fact.)

BigShow36 said:
That's fine; so you're not a good sniper. Why is that a problem? Why should the entire game be dumbed down to the point where you can be good with the sniper rifle? What is the benefit of that?

The only way we can objectively make the game fair for everyone playing is to say, okay, you're going to be rewarded based on your own personal skill as much as possible.

Just out of curiosity, which Halo game did you feel had the most fair aiming?
Click to expand...
But you've even admitted that there's a balance - you had an example of why basketball hoops aren't one centimeter wider than the ball. As Hiredn00bs said, it's all indexed, and the only disagreement you and I have is where that indexing is. (I'm happier with the existing levels in Reach than you are, for example.)

I don't know that I can answer your last question - I don't think I've ever played a Halo game and thought about 'fair aiming'. I play the game, I either have fun or I don't. (Mostly I have fun.) I've liked them all, to one degree or another. I play Reach more than any game that came before it... so I suppose on some level I must enjoy it the most. Probably doesn't really answer your question, though. :(
 
E

electricpirate

Member
BigShow36 said:
I wrote a thread on multiplayer balance and skill over at MLG. Its here if you want to read it.

Basically, balance and skill are synonymous; a balanced game is one that proportionally rewards a players skill.
Click to expand...


This is interesting, and apologies if I"m retreading over familar ground here, as you posted that a long time ago.

So it seems your approach to weapon balance falls along 3 axes Ease to obtain, ease of use and effectiveness, and in your ideal world, Ease of use and effectiveness are kind of the two main levers to adjust. So in the idealized game, as everyone gets better they kind of congregrate towards the few strongest/hardest to use weaponry.

While I can see the appeal of that, there's a reason that FPS' kind of moved away from that philosophy, which was pretty dominant in the Quake days (Rocket launcher and Railgun being the two main weapons, both being very hard to use, but very effective). Instead, Halo has always strived for a view of weaponry where every weapon has the potential to be awesome if you use it in the right situation.

I like that definition, I think it leads to weapons with more variety, and it's easier to turn that into a competitive situation by just subracting out the weapon you don't want. A game that follows really strictly to that ideology I find get stale very quickly. That's part of the reason something like Shoot Mania (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNflXp1CcU) doesn't really interest me, or why I stopped playing quake. It also moves away from role playing in a team game; having your guy with a shotgun clearing out the base, or getting midrange cover for a flag run.

As for the basic tenets of movement, as an extremely average player, I'd say the place where movement speed/AA is pegged at in Halo 3 is just about right for me. I'd add a bit faster strafe and crouch but that's about it.
 
C

CyReN

Member
I think Louis Wu, Bigshow, and Risen should have a civil debate on these topics via Skype Video so I can watch.

Love you all<3
 
O

Overdoziz

Banned
This discussion reminds me that 343 is seemingly making the Grenade Launcher (Or Sticky Detonator) easier to use while making the Sniper harder to use similar to the one of Halo 3.

;_;
 
C

CyReN

Member
Overdoz1z said:
This discussion reminds me that 343 is seemingly making the Grenade Launcher (Or Sticky Detonator) easier to use while making the Sniper harder to use similar to the one of Halo 3.

;_;
Click to expand...

Am I crazy or does the stick detonator seem harder to use? You have to predict where they go (I believe there is no zoom in) with a pretty small reticule. Of course you could plane it but I don't think you would have enough time in game to do it over and over again.
 
B

BigShow36

Member
electricpirate said:
This is interesting, and apologies if I"m retreading over familar ground here, as you posted that a long time ago.

So it seems your approach to weapon balance falls along 3 axes Ease to obtain, ease of use and effectiveness, and in your ideal world, Ease of use and effectiveness are kind of the two main levers to adjust. So in the idealized game, as everyone gets better they kind of congregrate towards the few strongest/hardest to use weaponry.

While I can see the appeal of that, there's a reason that FPS' kind of moved away from that philosophy, which was pretty dominant in the Quake days (Rocket launcher and Railgun being the two main weapons, both being very hard to use, but very effective). Instead, Halo has always strived for a view of weaponry where every weapon has the potential to be awesome if you use it in the right situation.

I like that definition, I think it leads to weapons with more variety, and it's easier to turn that into a competitive situation by just subracting out the weapon you don't want. A game that follows really strictly to that ideology I find get stale very quickly. That's part of the reason something like Shoot Mania (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRNflXp1CcU) doesn't really interest me, or why I stopped playing quake. It also moves away from role playing in a team game; having your guy with a shotgun clearing out the base, or getting midrange cover for a flag run.

As for the basic tenets of movement, as an extremely average player, I'd say the place where movement speed/AA is pegged at in Halo 3 is just about right for me. I'd add a bit faster strafe and crouch but that's about it.
Click to expand...

At its core, yes. However, I am a huge proponent of unique, role-specific weapons ala Halo CE. Every weapon in that game was useful and deadly in certain instances (aside from the Needler), and using them all effectively was another layer of skill. They still maintained the core aspect of ease of use vs. effectiveness that I outlined above, but they were very powerful and useful weapons in their own right.

The big problems I have with Halo 2/3/Reach is that while we can certainly subtract the weapons we don't want or which aren't competitive, but that would leave us with 0 weapons. There aren't any weapons with a large skill-gap and there aren't many unique weapons to build out the sandbox with that aren't just dumbed down to the point of being overpowered.

Conversely, it would make sense to me to have high-skill, powerful weapons that are removed for the lower tiers of matchmaking.
 
T

thezerofire

Banned
Overdoz1z said:
This discussion reminds me that 343 is seemingly making the Grenade Launcher (Or Sticky Detonator) easier to use while making the Sniper harder to use similar to the one of Halo 3.

;_;
Click to expand...
I think making the sniper more like Halo 3 is a good thing. It's way too easy in Reach.

On the other hand the Grenade Launcher is basically perfect.
 
O

Overdoziz

Banned
CyReN said:
Am I crazy or does the stick detonator seem harder to use? You have to predict where they go (I believe there is no zoom in) with a pretty small reticule. Of course you could plane it but I don't think you would have enough time in game to do it over and over again.
Click to expand...
How does no zoom (not sure what you mean because the GL didn't have a scope either) and a smaller reticule make it harder to use? Can't imagine that mattering much for the GL/SD.
thezerofire said:
I think making the sniper more like Halo 3 is a good thing. It's way too easy in Reach.

On the other hand the Grenade Launcher is basically perfect.
Click to expand...
I'm fine with the return of the Halo 3 Sniper but it would be weird to make the GL easier to use while going back to a Sniper Rifle that is harder to use (except for Fyrewulff, he claims).
 
S

Steelyuhas

Member
CyReN said:
Am I crazy or does the stick detonator seem harder to use? You have to predict where they go (I believe there is no zoom in) with a pretty small reticule. Of course you could plane it but I don't think you would have enough time in game to do it over and over again.
Click to expand...

It looks like to me that they have removed the attacking component of the Grenade Launcher and just left the defensive functionality of it (place a grenade and detonating it when an enemy player walks into it).

Removing the best functionality of weapon to replace an "objectively underused" weapon. I'm hoping there is more to the weapons functionality that we just aren't seeing in the limited use it's gotten because that makes little to no sense.
 
T

Tawpgun

Member
Overdoz1z said:
How does no zoom (not sure what you mean because the GL didn't have a scope either) and a smaller reticule make it harder to use? Can't imagine that mattering much for the GL/SD.

I'm fine with the return of the Halo 3 Sniper but it would be weird to make the GL easier to use while going back to a Sniper Rifle that is harder to use (except for Fyrewulff, he claims).
Click to expand...

I have yet to see anyone get a kill with it. MLG players familar with the GL should have donged with it.

To me, the weapon seems useless unless in a defensive role.
 
B

BigShow36

Member
Louis Wu said:
I don't know that I can answer your last question - I don't think I've ever played a Halo game and thought about 'fair aiming'. I play the game, I either have fun or I don't. (Mostly I have fun.) I've liked them all, to one degree or another. I play Reach more than any game that came before it... so I suppose on some level I must enjoy it the most. Probably doesn't really answer your question, though. :(
Click to expand...

You answered many questions; you plainly stated that you're not conciously aware of what you consider "fair aiming." You play the game and you have fun or you don't.

I find it odd that you are against lowering the aim assist, despite the fact that Reach has lower aim assist than Halo 2 and probably less than Halo 3 as well. Your enjoyment went up desite a decrease in aim assist. I don't see how you can turn around and tell me your enjoyment would go down now if the aiming was made more difficult for a couple of precision weapons (which you could remove).

For clarity's sake, I'm not saying every weapon in the game should be really hard to use. What I am saying, as my theory on game balance states, is that weapons should reward players proportionally to how easy they are to use. There should be a broad spectrum of weapons; there should be easy, spam weapons that have some utility like the AR just as there should be difficult, powerful precision weapons.
 
R

Risen

Member
CyReN said:
I think Louis Wu, Bigshow, and Risen should have a civil debate on these topics via Skype Video so I can watch.

Love you all<3
Click to expand...

I'd be the Moderate, Big Show the Right Winger, and Wu the flaming Liberal...?


kylej said:
I think Risen just needs to poop on HBO kids and upload it to Youtube.
Click to expand...

The internetz would crash with the weeping and gnashing of teeth from 14 yr old, Ritalin-filled, angst-ridden, d-bag comments.
 
L

Louis Wu

Member
BigShow36 said:
You answered many questions; you plainly stated that you're not conciously aware of what you consider "fair aiming." You play the game and you have fun or you don't.

I find it odd that you are against lowering the aim assist, despite the fact that Reach has lower aim assist than Halo 2 and probably less than Halo 3 as well. Your enjoyment went up desite a decrease in aim assist.

I don't see how you can turn around and tell me your enjoyment would go down now if the aiming was made more difficult for a couple of precision weapons (which you could remove).
Click to expand...
When you say Reach has lower aim assist - are you talking across the board, or on specific weapons, or what?

(Because I'm POSITIVE that's false for the Sniper Rifle - I haven't looked at it for other weapons.)

I hold the position I hold because the one weapon I've NOTICED aim assist on - the Sniper - has become far more frustrating to use when aim assist is turned down, and 'fun again' when it's turned back up. I'm not sure how to look at other weapons; there is no BR in Reach, no DMR in Halo 3. They were my top-used weapons in their respective games - but I tailored my gameplay to the weapon, rather than the other way around (I played a much closer game in Halo 3 than I do in Reach). I guess I'm not sure how to answer your question. :(
 
K

Karl2177

Member
BigShow36 said:
You answered many questions; you plainly stated that you're not conciously aware of what you consider "fair aiming." You play the game and you have fun or you don't.

I find it odd that you are against lowering the aim assist, despite the fact that Reach has lower aim assist than Halo 2 and probably less than Halo 3 as well. Your enjoyment went up desite a decrease in aim assist. I don't see how you can turn around and tell me your enjoyment would go down now if the aiming was made more difficult for a couple of precision weapons (which you could remove).

For clarity's sake, I'm not saying every weapon in the game should be really hard to use. What I am saying, as my theory on game balance states, is that weapons should reward players proportionally to how easy they are to use. There should be a broad spectrum of weapons; there should be easy, spam weapons that have some utility like the AR just as there should be difficult, powerful precision weapons.
Click to expand...

Back this with data. Because I can back the counter.
 
B

BigShow36

Member
Louis Wu said:
When you say Reach has lower aim assist - are you talking across the board, or on specific weapons, or what?

(Because I'm POSITIVE that's false for the Sniper Rifle - I haven't looked at it for other weapons.)

I hold the position I hold because the one weapon I've NOTICED aim assist on - the Sniper - has become far more frustrating to use when aim assist is turned down, and 'fun again' when it's turned back up. I'm not sure how to look at other weapons; there is no BR in Reach, no DMR in Halo 3. They were my top-used weapons in their respective games - but I tailored my gameplay to the weapon, rather than the other way around (I played a much closer game in Halo 3 than I do in Reach). I guess I'm not sure how to answer your question. :(
Click to expand...

Across the board, aside from the sniper, I believe Reach has lower aim assist. It may actually just have ridiculous headshot hitboxes on the sniper while still having lower aim assist. Also, there's a lot more that goes into how easy a weapon is to use or how fun it is than just aim assist levels.

Regardless, my point still stands that your enjoyment of the games is not dependent on the level of aim assist. Obviously there are limits to this at the extreme edges, but we're nowhere near those.
 
D

Demoncarnotaur

Member
Risen said:
"buy t-shirts and mugs" lol yes please?
Click to expand...

3Omm3.png
 
R

Risen

Member
CyReN said:
Cyren



Can't argue with that.
Click to expand...

This fit better:

Cyren

A cyren is any girl who appears very attractive on her online social networking page (e.g. Facebook, Myspace, etc.), but in reality is mediocre, at best. The word is a hybrid form of the words "cyber" and "siren."
 
C

CyReN

Member
Risen said:
This fit better:

Cyren

A cyren is any girl who appears very attractive on her online social networking page (e.g. Facebook, Myspace, etc.), but in reality is mediocre, at best. The word is a hybrid form of the words "cyber" and "siren."
Click to expand...

:(

I thought I was cleavr when I was younger combining Cyclopes and Siren.

---
YAY8G.png
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Halo Infinite Firefight Announced - December 5th
News 2
98
8K
twilo99 replied
LTTP: Call of Duty Infinite Warfare (Via PS5)
4
388
wipeout364 replied
IGN: Phil Spencer Has Now Been Head of Xbox for 10 Years; We Look Back at His First Decade
Opinion Analysis 2 3
130
9K
ZehDon replied
Forbes: Steam reviews are a weapon, but one of the only ones players can wield
35
1K
Bkdk replied
Forbes: Does Microsoft Need To Give 'Halo' To Someone Besides 343?
Opinion Game Dev 2 3 4 5
209
19K
Hawking Radiation replied
Top Bottom