• 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 |OT 25| Did you think me defeated?!"

Fuchsdh

Member
Jan 14, 2012
19,575
0
460
USA
Well, the wording doesn't preclude a spinoff or non-Halo 6 reveal, so I don't see the point in being too disappointed.
 

Fata1moose

Banned
Sep 11, 2012
11,679
0
0
Hope they're taking their time on Halo 6, getting campaign right, the art style and arena adjustments. Halo 6 has to bring people back, the franchise has been bleeding too many players
 

Fahzgoolin

Banned
Jun 12, 2014
7,439
0
0
Hope they're taking their time on Halo 6, getting campaign right, the art style and arena adjustments. Halo 6 has to bring people back, the franchise has been bleeding too many players
Yeah I legit don't know if the series can survive another Halo 4/MCC/5 situation. It's become a meme to hate Halo now.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Jan 18, 2015
8,853
1
0
Halo 6 needs to be a masterpiece.

It needs to raise the bar in terms of narrative, mission structure and presentation.
It needs to be accessible and appealing to newcomers, familiar and rewarding to veterans, and deep enough to challenge players at the highest level
It needs to be so feature and content rich (at launch), that the value proposition is unparalleled
It needs to technically sound, devoid of game/experience breaking bugs
It needs a gameplay loop that is unique and distinct amongst its peers- standing out rather than fitting in
It needs to bring something new to the genre so innovative that it inspires its competition to imitate

These are the characteristics that defined Halo's success during the golden years (not a lack of competition as many people so often claim)

Basically, it needs to again be worth of GOTY discussions, instead of being a generally decent game.

However long it needs to take to make Halo6 into the aforementioned game is how long they should spend making it. Just updates and expansions until then would suffice...
 

VeeP

Member
Jan 14, 2013
3,691
0
430
I really hope they take their time with Halo 6. Halo 5, especially today is very solid. But when it launched it was missing some features that I think everyone wished was included when the game launched. So hopefully Microsoft gives them plenty of time and a good budget for Halo 6. And with all the feedback on Halo 4 & 5, I'm hoping they really impress everyone with the best Halo game yet.
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
I've been thinking about how matchmaking has been handled in Halo lately and I came to the conclusion that playlists are actually pretty bad. I'd really like to see 343 drop the playlist model for future titles. I don't think we should use a server browser though (although they need to keep the customs browser).

My idea is a toggle system which kind of melds aspects of playlists, server browsers and matchmaking together.

Basically you've got a list of gametypes, you tick off which gametypes and which maps within that gametype you'd like to play. Then you hit matchmake. When you match a player, the game looks at the toggles you've both enabled and randomly selects one, that then determines what you're playing.

To retain an element of playlists you'd have toggle groups, or gamemode groups. For the UI, you'd have a list of cascading checklists/toggles. At the top level you'd have the toggle groups/playlists, you could then expand a toggle group and see the gametypes available in that group, you can then expand each individual gametype to see the maps on which it is playable. It would look like this essentially:

Team Arena:
- Slayer
- Eden
- Plaza
- Coliseum
- CTF
- Fathom
- Coliseum
- Truth
- Strongholds
- Eden
- Plaza
- Empire
Team Slayer:
- Eden
- Plaza
- Fathom​
SWAT:
- BRs
- maps...​
- Pistols
- Maps...​
etc.

Each of these elements would be separately togglable. So if you only wanted to play "Team Arena - Stongholds - Plaza" OR "Swat - BRs - Truth" then you just toggle both those maps in the respective toggle groups/gamemodes. If you want to just play Team Arena modes but not on Empire, you toggle Team Arena and then uncheck Empire for each gametype. If you didn't care what you play just toggle everything. For those who don't want to bother messing about with toggles they can just select a single toggle group/playlist and it would just as it does now.

To retain the ranking system you'd be ranked on a toggle group/playlist basis, just like now.

This would allow really fine grain control on what you want to play. Shit maps would quickly become rarer because people would untoggle them, however, if you find yourself playing the same map/mode too many times you can just go untoggle that one and match elsewhere.

I don't know how difficult this would be from a tech perspective but I can't imagine it would be that much harder to implement than what we've got at the moment. The biggest problem I can see is how to handle MMR and varying strictness based on different gamemodes...
 

Fahzgoolin

Banned
Jun 12, 2014
7,439
0
0
I've been thinking about how matchmaking has been handled in Halo lately and I came to the conclusion that playlists are actually pretty bad. I'd really like to see 343 drop the playlist model for future titles. I don't think we should use a server browser though (although they need to keep the customs browser).

My idea is a toggle system which kind of melds aspects of playlists, server browsers and matchmaking together.

Basically you've got a list of gametypes, you tick off which gametypes and which maps within that gametype you'd like to play. Then you hit matchmake. When you match a player, the game looks at the toggles you've both enabled and randomly selects one, that then determines what you're playing.

To retain an element of playlists you'd have toggle groups, or gamemode groups. For the UI, you'd have a list of cascading checklists/toggles. At the top level you'd have the toggle groups/playlists, you could then expand a toggle group and see the gametypes available in that group, you can then expand each individual gametype to see the maps on which it is playable. It would look like this essentially:

Team Arena:
- Slayer
- Eden
- Plaza
- Coliseum
- CTF
- Fathom
- Coliseum
- Truth
- Strongholds
- Eden
- Plaza
- Empire
Team Slayer:
- Eden
- Plaza
- Fathom​
SWAT:
- BRs
- maps...​
- Pistols
- Maps...​
etc.

Each of these elements would be separately togglable. So if you only wanted to play "Team Arena - Stongholds - Plaza" OR "Swat - BRs - Truth" then you just toggle both those maps in the respective toggle groups/gamemodes. If you want to just play Team Arena modes but not on Empire, you toggle Team Arena and then uncheck Empire for each gametype. If you didn't care what you play just toggle everything. For those who don't want to bother messing about with toggles they can just select a single toggle group/playlist and it would just as it does now.

To retain the ranking system you'd be ranked on a toggle group/playlist basis, just like now.

This would allow really fine grain control on what you want to play. Shit maps would quickly become rarer because people would untoggle them, however, if you find yourself playing the same map/mode too many times you can just go untoggle that one and match elsewhere.

I don't know how difficult this would be from a tech perspective but I can't imagine it would be that much harder to implement than what we've got at the moment. The biggest problem I can see is how to handle MMR and varying strictness based on different gamemodes...
I certainly like this style of MM in games. CSGO has something similar, where you pick which gametype you want to play and toggle which maps you want to be queued for. The obvious potential problem is population and MM times, although I think the significance of that is often overstated. I'll gladly wait 5+ minutes to get something I really love. Also, 343 has expressed that they got rid of map voting/vetoing because it created situations where certain maps were consistently ignored. I hope 343 reconsiders this at least, because if they make a poop map, the community should have a right to collectively vote against poop.

Although, I think your suggestion/model could be a really cool feature set that distinguishes Halo 5 and 6 into the future where people can custom tailor their MM experience better. In my mind, it would be a win win, even if it was less robust than what you are suggesting.
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
I certainly like this style of MM in games. CSGO has something similar, where you pick which gametype you want to play and toggle which maps you want to be queued for. The problem is population and MM times. Also, 343 has expressed that they got rid of map voting/vetoing because it created situations where certain maps were consistently ignored. I hope 343 reconsiders this at least, because if they make a poop map, the community should have a right to collectively vote against poop.

Although, I think your suggestion/model could be a really cool feature set that distinguishes Halo 5 and 6 into the future where people can custom tailor their MM experience better. In my mind, it would be a win win, even if it was less robust than what you are suggesting.
I don't think population/MM times would be all that affected, in general I think you could actually see them improve. Because playlists aren't strictly defined you allow players to match across them. If I select both the Team Arena group and the Team Slayer group I'll be matching a larger pool of players than with the current playlist system.

You can match with anyone who has at least one toggle in common with you. If you only select a single map/gamemode you're going to be matching with anyone else who has that as one of their toggles. It will be obviously be slightly slower than selecting the entire toggle group but unless you select a really unpopular map it won't be that much slower because you'll be matching against anyone who has that toggle group checked.

Those who want fine grain control will experience slightly slower matching, those who aren't as bothered and want to play any gamemode in a given playlist will have slightly faster matchmaking. In general each "playlist" will have a higher potential number of players because of cross playlist selection.

Quick example: There are 10'000 players and two playlists, let's imagine with the current system they're evenly split between the playlists:

- Team Arena: 5000 players
- Team Slayer: 5000 players

Let's say 10% of that 10'000 don't really care which playlist they match with so with the toggle system you'd have this:

- Team Arena: 4500 who only toggle Team Arena + 1000 who toggle both = 5500 total
- Team Slayer: 4500 who only toggle Team Slayer + 1000 who toggle both = 5500 total

So each playlist actually has more people trying to match in it than before.
 

Poodlestrike

Banned
May 28, 2014
30,358
1
0
.

Sounds pretty workable to me, tbh. Or it's worth a shot at least.

The one big obvious downfall is if people end up being suuuuuper picky about their toggle preferences and there's not enough "eh whatever" players to make up the numbers.
 

Ozzy Onya A2Z

Member
Apr 16, 2012
7,425
0
0
Melbourne, Australia
I've been thinking about how matchmaking has been handled in Halo lately and I came to the conclusion that playlists are actually pretty bad. I'd really like to see 343 drop the playlist model for future titles. I don't think we should use a server browser though (although they need to keep the customs browser).

My idea is a toggle system which kind of melds aspects of playlists, server browsers and matchmaking together....
It's like we've gone back in time :)

http://www.neogaf.com/forum/showpost.php?p=178038128&postcount=4412

I understand the developers and your concern for wait times but factor in the following:

1. Quitting, dashboarding, team killing etc based on players not getting to play what they want. Toggles increase player retention in game providing an improved experience by keeping player numbers in games.

2. Skill matching parameters could be wider as players have more experience with maps/gametypes of their choice. This increases over time as well, players get better at what they practice or choose to play with their friends.

3. By default all toggles would be on e.g. all maps and all gametypes. Most players or casuals or first timers etc would never even alter the widest possible set of toggles, this is basically what matchmaking is now e.g. run by developer choice of maps/gametypes per playlist with weights on votes/veto variants. If matching times were slow players can simply have everything on, again player choice and immediate search parameters based on real time reactions to search times e.g. not waiting on developer actions.

4. The vote/veto variants presented are based on matches within toggles, this translates to developers not having to spend so much time on playlist selections and variants. The data is driven by player/party choice more so than incorrect developer assumptions or selections. How many maps in MCC have you really played? How many gametypes in MCC have you really played?

5. Minimum toggles required. Players would be forced to have a strict amount of maps or gametypes turned on e.g. you can't just toggle only one map and gametype on. This translates to keeping search times and player/playlist pools wide enough to be quick.

6. PC games with similar populations do just fine with server browsers. Toggles are a hybrid system taking the best of both server browser and developer based matchmaking systems.

7. At any time a player could choose all on quick search or match based on my toggles e.g. a toggle on/off for toggles. Simple and efficient.

8. Certain playlists could ignore toggles e.g. action sack. Playlists could also have minimum population thresholds and dynamically display if toggles are allowed or not e.g. population drops below 1,000 or 10,000 in a playlist and toggles are defaulted to off for fast games. When the population returns to that playlist toggles can be on again. Again a real time system.

9. Perhaps a minimum number of games are to be played before you can use toggles. Similar to Super Mario Maker unlocks.

10. No junk or unfinished/untested maps/settings like a server browser only system.


To me so much of why players don't stick with a game is gaining the experience to enjoy the game, getting to choose what you play and not having their experience ruined by others. Having toggles at launch of a Halo game hits all these key indicator points to retaining the largest population you can.

Take a small subsection of the community, say MLG/HCS. Pro and semi-pro players find a developer sanctioned map or setting to be great, they all will gravitate to toggling it on. Say they find the opposite so they gravitate to switching the bad ones off. Matchmaking automatically shape shifts and the vote/veto options help keep players coming back to play what they actually want to play. The developer didn't have to sustain anything, the systems are dynamic in nature and deliver in real time.

The thing I don't get is not trying this sort of system once in the life of Halo matchmaking. It's basically just queries/queue work around systems that have existed and iterated over the years. Why not layer this on top so it's all there at launch? Why not increase population by releasing multiplayer only on Windows 10 and allowing cross play with the X1? Just some ideas anyhow.
 

Finaj

Member
Jul 10, 2013
2,073
1
0
Replacing Bonnie Ross? Was/isn't she studio head? Wait Dan was a studio head as well but not a direct replacement? How many heads 343 got.
Hail Hydra
Chris is becoming studio head of 343's FPS division, which Dan did not lead.
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
In more 343 news, Quinn DelHoyo seems to have been promoted to lead designer rather than just MP designer.

Beyond is gunna love that.
 

psyfi

Banned
May 21, 2016
5,945
1
0
In more 343 news, Quinn DelHoyo seems to have been promoted to lead designer rather than just MP designer.

Beyond is gunna love that.
Is the Beyond comment sarcasm? As far as I can tell, Quinn's brought a lot of vital perspective to the franchise, but that's mostly based on what I know from the Sprint videos.
 

CyReN

Member
Jul 29, 2010
10,774
0
790
Is the Beyond comment sarcasm? As far as I can tell, Quinn's brought a lot of vital perspective to the franchise, but that's mostly based on what I know from the Sprint videos.
While Quinn is a competitive person (from what I've seen), people around the competitive community don't exactly agree with some of his vision like 2 binary rifles on Coliseum and pushing Breakout. It took 500+ days for them to finally remove auto's from the HCS too.
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
Is the Beyond comment sarcasm? As far as I can tell, Quinn's brought a lot of vital perspective to the franchise, but that's mostly based on what I know from the Sprint videos.
Very much so.


The Beyond community as a whole don't agree with a lot of what he has to say.7

Yep, only one community has ever had an issue with Halo.
Yup, that's exactly what I said.
 

psyfi

Banned
May 21, 2016
5,945
1
0
While Quinn is a competitive person (from what I've seen), people around the competitive community don't exactly agree with some of his vision like 2 binary rifles on Coliseum and pushing Breakout. It took 500+ days for them to finally remove auto's from the HCS too.
Gotcha. As long as the competitive core stays intact, I can tolerate some dumb decisions. Halo 5 has been so good that I don't sweat the small stuff so much.

Breakout was definitely a mistake though, lol.
 

VincentMatts

Member
Aug 21, 2014
5,870
233
430
Gotcha. As long as the competitive core stays intact, I can tolerate some dumb decisions. Halo 5 has been so good that I don't sweat the small stuff so much.

Breakout was definitely a mistake though, lol.
Breakout needed maps that werent built in forge and maybe some gameplay tweeks. The gametype felt half assed just like BTB did. Beating a dead horse.
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
Breakout needs a scoring system which basically prevents ties.

I've mentioned it before but I'd like to see a version of Breakout which changes how scoring works when the time limit is up. My idea is that when the timer is up:

- Whichever team has less players alive loses.
- In the event that both teams have the same number of players alive, the last team to get a kill wins.

This way the only way to tie would be for neither team to get a kill throughout the round.
 

Trup1aya

Member
Jan 18, 2015
8,853
1
0
In more 343 news, Quinn DelHoyo seems to have been promoted to lead designer rather than just MP designer.

Beyond is gunna love that.
I can't..

Wow...

All I know is the guy tried to explain to me the merits of grenade hitmarkers and waypoints that broadcast when enemies pickup powerweapons...

So yeah... I'm nervous
 

jem0208

Member
Jul 17, 2013
11,386
0
395
I can't..

Wow...

All I know is the guy tried to explain to me the merits of grenade hitmarkers and waypoints that broadcast when enemies pickup powerweapons...

So yeah...
All I really have to say is:

343 without Quinn = Halo 4
343 with Quinn = Halo 5


I'm not saying he's wholly responsible for the changes between 4 and 5 but he definitely had an impact.
 

belushy

Banned
Mar 21, 2013
5,060
0
0
Hopefully French still has a lot of say. I still look forward to the future game. Idk if its a H5-era game or original style. I just want it on PC.
 

Juan

Member
Sep 3, 2013
625
1
405
28
Paris
www.halodestiny.net
All I really have to say is:

343 without Quinn = Halo 4
343 with Quinn = Halo 5
And I, personally, definitely enjoyed Halo 4 way more than Halo 5 (when they took abilities and kill-streaks out of matchmaking with Legendary Slayer) after they patched the game with a 4 sk BR.

Maybe not the Infection part, but in the end, I had way more fun (as a casual player which only go some time to time into hardcore playlists) on Halo 4 (BTB love), and the maps weren't that bad.