Support NeoGAF

[TriStateTryHard]

Oh yeah, the grenade launcher from Reach was so good. Making more unique weapons like that would be a great way to evolve and expand Halo's gameplay. Why don't they try that kind of thing more?

Chasing the modern shooter crowd I would guess. Human weapons that fire bullets are familiar. ADS and Sprint are familiar. Halo's once elegant sandbox is being turned into generic SMG, generic assault rifle, generic burst rifle, generic semi auto rifle, generic pistol. The ability to mix in weapons from alien races, not just human, was one of Halo's most unique aspects and it seems like it is being abandoned in favor of battlefield style weapons.

 

[Overdoziz]

I don't think it is simpler than Halo 4, but less random.


Anecdote time: I lost a game 49-50, and I went 20-10. I lost 25 points in my ranking thing. Next game my team won 50-24 and I went 22-3, but only went up 13 points. To me there's something wonky.

Looking at how the system works, I assume it is something like MMR in Starcraft, where it takes your skill level and your opponent's skill level into consideration. The only way I see my results happening is if in the first game, my opponents were Bronze 3, I was Silver 2, and my teammates were Bronze 1. The game says these are balanced numbers(not necessarily fair), and I was penalized greatly for losing to players that I shouldn't have(but I personally performed as I should -- >1 K/D). This would be a problem with matching players. The second game, the system said "match Karl against Bronze 2 players to gauge skill". I win handily, as I should in Silver 2 and it didn't reward me nearly as much, because it isn't as important of a win. This is also a fault with matching players.

Does the game actually show the rank of the other players at the end of a match?

 

[Hypertrooper]

Furthermore, can I say that 'The Sprint' is damn good? I was kind of disappointed with 'Remaking the Legend' because it did not dive into technical/design material at all compared to the documentary of Halo 2 or Halo 3. The Sprint is doing a much better job. I hope we get something similar for Halo 5's single player or a whole documentary on Blu-Ray.

Hat trick is quench you get three head shot kills in a row I think...

3 kills? It should be more getting 5 headshot kills in a row without dying. Well.

 

[MrGreencastle]

I really enjoyed the first two episodes of The Sprint. Really cool to see the inner-workings of 343. Looks like a very, very stressful job. But it also looks like a ton of fun, too. I love seeing different core teams working together back and forth on a map for it to be "perfect". I couldn't imagine being a pro player and testing out map playability on that pre massout mesh at like 20fps. Looks thankless and tough. But you can really tell the passion everyone has at 343 to get things "right".


So what happens after these 2 week "sprints" are each completed? Does everyone move on to something else?

Halo 5 is looking to be really cool. And I wasn't even the slightest bit hyped until I played the beta and watched this mini series.

I vote "The Sprint" replacing the Bulletin. Way more interesting

 

[jem0208]

Chasing the modern shooter crowd I would guess. Human weapons that fire bullets are familiar. ADS and Sprint are familiar. Halo's once elegant sandbox is being turned into generic SMG, generic assault rifle, generic burst rifle, generic semi auto rifle, generic pistol. The ability to mix in weapons from alien races, not just human, was one of Halo's most unique aspects and it seems like it is being abandoned in favor of battlefield style weapons.

What? Halo has always had a pretty generic weapon set.

CE's weapon set was basically a bunch of generic human weapons and some pew pew alien guns. The Needler was pretty cool I guess. It never really expanded beyond that for the later titles.

There are some pretty cool things but the majority have stayed pretty true to the formulaic ideas of human and alien weapons.

As for the lack of alien weapons in the beta, we already know they're coming it's just they're not finished. The new light rifle looks pretty interesting. Seems to have a 3 shot which is spread horizontally.

 

[lybertyboy]

So what happens after these 2 week "sprints" are each completed? Does everyone move on to something else?

You move onto the next sprint. It's really just a way of managing tasks over a large scale over the course of the entire project.

 

[Granadier]

343 please dont put a voting option in H5, Vetoing is the superior method.

1000x this. Please please please!!!

Oh, hold-jump is already clamber? Hmm.

By default it is. There's an option to set it to "press jump again to clamber"

 

[Akai__]

Yeah, no...

 

[Forerunner]

Yeah, no...

At least your tag is relevant. lol

 

[Madness]

Yeah, no...

I wonder why it's taking them so long to fix emblems and logos in game? Surely this is something that wasn't connected to the overall problems? It's the same in Halo 2 as well. Your emblem in the menus and on your armor, doesn't match what you've selected.

 

[User 73706]

What? Halo has always had a pretty generic weapon set.

CE's weapon set was basically a bunch of generic human weapons and some pew pew alien guns. The Needler was pretty cool I guess. It never really expanded beyond that for the later titles.

There are some pretty cool things but the majority have stayed pretty true to the formulaic ideas of human and alien weapons.

As for the lack of alien weapons in the beta, we already know they're coming it's just they're not finished. The new light rifle looks pretty interesting. Seems to have a 3 shot which is spread horizontally.

Why do you defend everything? We could complain about the addition of Sprint and your response would be "Spartans have been shown to run quickly since The Fall of Reach, and that came out before Combat Evolved."

By default it is. There's an option to set it to "press jump again to clamber"

Oh, really? It might be assigning too many commands to a single button, but I'd wager:
- Press LB to Jump
- Press LB to Clamber (contextual; only works while airborne)
- Hold LB to Stabilize (works grounded or aerial)

Would be an optimal setup. You'd also be able to divide the jump / clamber functionality because they still operate within two separate contexts: jumping only works when there's ground under your feet, while clamber only works while you're already in the air.

You'd only really run into problems if they decided to add a double-jump.

 

[HTupolev]

Yeah, no...

As much as I wish Microsoft would talk more about graphics tech.

What I really hope is that one day they'll do a postmortem on MCC's infrastructure that explains the challenges, solutions, and why the game fails at these "basic" things like even teams, "9/8" players in lobby, and trying to start a game of 10-player Pillar of Autumn, etc.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

Yeah, no...

oh they all have 117 tags

I bet they thought that was clever right

cuz like

master chief is spartan 117

get it

thats cute

 

[Granadier]

Why do you defend everything? We could complain about the addition of Sprint and your response would be "Spartans have been shown to run quickly since The Fall of Reach, and that came out before Combat Evolved."



Oh, really? It might be assigning too many commands to a single button, but I'd wager:
- Press LB to Jump
- Press LB to Clamber (contextual; only works while airborne)
- Hold LB to Stabilize (works grounded or aerial)

Would be an optimal setup. You'd also be able to divide the jump / clamber functionality because they still operate within two separate contexts: jumping only works when there's ground under your feet, while clamber only works while you're already in the air.

You'd only really run into problems if they decided to add a double-jump.

Nah, this is exactly what I was thinking control wise for stabs.

 

[User 73706]

I wonder why it's taking them so long to fix emblems and logos in game? Surely this is something that wasn't connected to the overall problems? It's the same in Halo 2 as well. Your emblem in the menus and on your armor, doesn't match what you've selected.

There aren't individual emblem selections per game though, are there? There's just your emblem as it appears in the Master Launcher. I don't know that it wouldn't be a relatively easy adjustment, per se, but I wasn't expecting our new emblems to translate to all the old games.

 

[Fahzgoolin]

Yeah, no...

the only thing I see wrong with this is that it's Halo 3.

 

[Karl2177]

Does the game actually show the rank of the other players at the end of a match?

You can hover over their name, select their tag, then select Service Record, and scroll down to "Slayer" and it shows their rank for that playlist. Otherwise it will sometimes show it in the Intermission section, but it's kinda random when it does that(it might show a black box, it might show their rank).

 

[jem0208]

Why do you defend everything? We could complain about the addition of Sprint and your response would be "Spartans have been shown to run quickly since The Fall of Reach, and that came out before Combat Evolved."

I'm not defending anything. I don't think generic weapons is a good thing. However it's always been a bit of a problem. It's not something that's only recent.

 

[Granadier]

Performance decrease when I go 14 - 5 and our team loses by 7.

Love it.

 

[jem0208]

Performance decrease when I go 14 - 5 and our team loses by 7.

Love it.

I got -85 when I went something like 20 for 5 and we lost by 4...

The ranking system definitely needs some major tweaking.

 

[ElzarTheBam]

The best player on the losing side never gets any decrease or increase to their rank progression.

How about that?

 

[CliQ]

I got -85 when I went something like 20 for 5 and we lost by 4...

The ranking system definitely needs some major tweaking.

I agree that the amount of points you gain and lose needs tweaking but ranking up should be difficult. What you don't want though is a system where everyone can eventually be the highest rank. It needs to be very hard to be at the top. Probably should be the most difficult thing you can do in the game.

 

[Overdoziz]

You can hover over their name, select their tag, then select Service Record, and scroll down to "Slayer" and it shows their rank for that playlist. Otherwise it will sometimes show it in the Intermission section, but it's kinda random when it does that(it might show a black box, it might show their rank).

Hopefully in the final game they'll just show it consistently at the end. It makes it easier for people to understand why their performance went up or down a certain amount if they can see who they were up against. I'm honestly kind of surprised they even show you the exact number you went up or down. I figured they would just only show you your rank.

I agree that the amount of points you gain and lose needs tweaking but ranking up should be difficult. What you don't want though is a system where everyone can eventually be the highest rank. It needs to be very hard to be at the top. Probably should be the most difficult thing you can do in the game.

Aren't the ranks based on what top % of the population you're in? Like the highest rank is the top 1% the second highest rank is the next 5%, etc. That means that being at the highest rank will always mean something,

 

[dwells]

I can't shoot at longer ranges accurately without scoping the BR/DMR/Pistol/Sniper/Rifle.

The gun performs worse without ADS (or classic scope).

How is this any different?

Those weapons aren't intentionally crippled when unscoped. I rarely scope my BR, pretty much only when a target is too far away to see. That's all a scope should be - a zoom.

 

[NobleGundam]

You move onto the next sprint. It's really just a way of managing tasks over a large scale over the course of the entire project.

For someone like me that can't access halo channel to watch these, where else can I?

 

[Jellycrackers]

Is anyone else unable to get past the main menu splash screen in the beta?

I played one match this morning but ever since I always get "There was an unexpected issue with Halo Servers" message after pressing start at the initial screen.

 

[Fuchsdh]

Hopefully in the final game they'll just show it consistently at the end. It makes it easier for people to understand why their performance went up or down a certain amount if they can see who they were up against. I'm honestly kind of surprised they even show you the exact number you went up or down. I figured they would just only show you your rank.

Aren't the ranks based on what top % of the population you're in? Like the highest rank is the top 1% the second highest rank is the next 5%, etc. That means that being at the highest rank will always mean something,

Yeah considering who were behind designing the system I don't think it's possible for anyone to be off the curve, at least in a general release.

 

[jem0208]

Is anyone else unable to get past the main menu splash screen in the beta?

I played one match this morning but ever since I always get "There was an unexpected issue with Halo Servers" message after pressing start at the initial screen.

It seems the servers are down at the moment.

 

[CliQ]

Hopefully in the final game they'll just show it consistently at the end. It makes it easier for people to understand why their performance went up or down a certain amount if they can see who they were up against. I'm honestly kind of surprised they even show you the exact number you went up or down. I figured they would just only show you your rank.

Aren't the ranks based on what top % of the population you're in? Like the highest rank is the top 1% the second highest rank is the next 5%, etc. That means that being at the highest rank will always mean something,

I wasn't aware of that. Good to know.

 

[Madness]

There aren't individual emblem selections per game though, are there? There's just your emblem as it appears in the Master Launcher. I don't know that it wouldn't be a relatively easy adjustment, per se, but I wasn't expecting our new emblems to translate to all the old games.

Hmmm, you're right about this. It's only changeable in the master launcher, and even though my emblem has been available for every Halo game, I do think it would be tough to get the same matching logo and color variant in the games, especially since MCC has new emblems that just aren't available in H2, H3 or H4.

 

[Overdoziz]

The best player on the losing side never gets any decrease or increase to their rank progression.

How about that?

I think it's funny that people complain about this at all. How does it make any sense to give losing players a performance increase? Sure, you might've carried your teammates and went positive but this isn't free for all, it's a team match and whichever teams wins is what matters. Something can be said about making people who perform better lose less performance than the people on the team who did the worst, but that's about it. I don't think automatically not changing the performance of the best person on the losing team is a good solution though because that could mean that Mr. Butt McAssaultrifle could be going 1-15 and not be punished for that only because he was the only one on his team to get a kill.

In the end if you don't want to lose performance because of randoms in your team maybe you should look into playing with good teammates. Or play Rumble.

I wasn't aware of that. Good to know.

Not sure if it's actually true but I vaguely remember hearing about it.

 

[ViewtifulJC]

>have individual ranks
>make individual performance almost totally irrelevant to team w/l record

gg

 

[biosnake20]

Is the flinch just a visual thing or is it actually messing with my aim?

 

[Granadier]

The best player on the losing side never gets any decrease or increase to their rank progression.

How about that?

Why isn't it just weighted for individual skill over game outcome?

Take both into account for the ranking change, but individual skills effects it more than losing/winning.

 

[IHaveIce]

The best player on the losing side never gets any decrease or increase to their rank progression.

How about that?

Good Idea


Thoughts on Halo 5 so far:
-Automatics are way too powerful especially their range is way too far.
-It seems like I'm punished for using Scope weapons all the time (Unscoped - flinch when shot, Scoped - Hit out of scope when shot), seems like I'm only able to be relevant with the BR when the enemy is not aware I'm there.
-The controls are awful, half of the time I accidently go into a ground pound start, because I forgot jumping + crouch is not there anymore.
-Grenades still seem to powerful for my taste
- Spawns are terrible, it seems like this is because everyone is just too fast around the map, half of the time there is someone next to me spawning.
-Thruster feels great and the speed of the game is really good.
- Sprint penalty of no shield recharge works pretty well
-Graphics are at beta levels very good
-ADS is not too annoying as thought.

I honestly have a lot of fun with the game, it is way better than Halo 4 and Reach IMO, I would love to play breakout already though

 

[Akai__]

At least your tag is relevant. lol

lol

I wonder why it's taking them so long to fix emblems and logos in game? Surely this is something that wasn't connected to the overall problems? It's the same in Halo 2 as well. Your emblem in the menus and on your armor, doesn't match what you've selected.

I really don't mind it. They should fix more important issues, like loading into post-game screen before the match even starts. You can't even go past the screen, unless you quit the game completetly.

As much as I wish Microsoft would talk more about graphics tech.

What I really hope is that one day they'll do a postmortem on MCC's infrastructure that explains the challenges, solutions, and why the game fails at these "basic" things like even teams, "9/8" players in lobby, and trying to start a game of 10-player Pillar of Autumn, etc.

Postmortem would be great. Don't see it happening until a year has passed, though. I wonder if the MCC will implode, when they add ODST.

oh they all have 117 tags

I bet they thought that was clever right

cuz like

master chief is spartan 117

get it

thats cute

Imagine somebody giving call outs.

"Hey, 117, behind you! Turn arround!"

*everyone turns arround*

Noticed this since Halo Reach. These people usually don't know what the purpose of that service tag is...

But they are so 1337 and established a Halo clan. That must count for something, right?

the only thing I see wrong with this is that it's Halo 3.

Yeah, nothing wrong with 1vs3

Spoiler

and AR starts

...

Also, I really don't care if you like Halo 3 or not. It's my favourite Halo game and you don't have to agree with me. It's not perfect, but I have the most fun with it.

 

[Fracas]

Spawns can be pretty rough. Hoping that's on the to-do list.

 

[NobleGundam]

Is the flinch just a visual thing or is it actually messing with my aim?

It messes with your aim

 

[Granadier]

It messes with your aim

I thought they said they learned from Halo 4?

So buffs to automatics so far include:

• Damage increase
• ADS decreases spread
• Flinch included for precision weapons

 

[User 73706]

Spawns can be pretty rough. Hoping that's on the to-do list.

343 thought people wanted the playstyle to hearken back to CE

 

[tootsi666]

There is no way someone thought aim punch/flinch when un-scoped is good design. Tashi must have added it as a joke while no-one was watching.

 

[Akai__]

Elzars curse killed the Halo 5 feedback thread. Hope it gets some attention during the official Beta duration.

 

[jem0208]

I think it's funny that people complain about this at all. How does it make any sense to give losing players a performance increase? Sure, you might've carried your teammates and went positive but this isn't free for all, it's a team match and whichever teams wins is what matters. Something can be said about making people who perform better lose less performance than the people on the team who did the worst, but that's about it. I don't think automatically not changing the performance of the best person on the losing team is a good solution though because that could mean that Mr. Butt McAssaultrifle could be going 1-15 and not be punished for that only because he was the only one on his team to get a kill.

In the end if you don't want to lose performance because of randoms in your team maybe you should look into playing with good teammates. Or play Rumble.

I don't actually like basing it entirely off of winning. Yes it's a team mode, however its team slayer. If someone gets 15 deaths and 1 kill yet their team manages to win, why should they rank up? I think there should definitely be a bonus for winning and the opposite for losing, however if you play exceptionally well and still lose I don't think you should rank down. It's not your fault if your team sucks.

My preferred system would be:

Win = +25
Loss = -25

This is added to the amount of points you get for how well you played.

If your skill nets you 30 points but your team lose you only get 5 points.

I would also make it so those who do really badly get negative skill points. If someone gets -30 skill points but their team still loses they are still punished for being awful.

 

[Madness]

I think it's funny that people complain about this at all. How does it make any sense to give losing players a performance increase? Sure, you might've carried your teammates and went positive but this isn't free for all, it's a team match and whichever teams wins is what matters. Something can be said about making people who perform better lose less performance than the people on the team who did the worst, but that's about it. I don't think automatically not changing the performance of the best person on the losing team is a good solution though because that could mean that Mr. Butt McAssaultrifle could be going 1-15 and not be punished for that only because he was the only one on his team to get a kill.

In the end if you don't want to lose performance because of randoms in your team maybe you should look into playing with good teammates. Or play Rumble.

Not sure if it's actually true but I vaguely remember hearing about it.

But that's just it don't you think it makes sense for a players rank to reflect how good he actually is, as opposed to if he plays with better players or was screwed by crappier players or quitters? Meaning, what's better from a rank perspective? Let's say we play together, and you basically carry me to Onyx tier. I've gone 5-13 in almost all the matches, I play like shit, but I'm showing as Onyx level, whereas someone who is a ten times better player than me, routinely goes 20-4, is always #1 or #2 player in the match, but because he plays more with randoms or gets put on worse teams, his rank is bronze 3? We finally have the chance to move beyond rudimentary win/loss to have ranks actually mean something. Team Slayer shouldn't mean, what kind of overall team it was, as opposed to how good of a team slayer player you are no? I'm not saying people should be rewarded for losing, but take into account other factors.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

For someone like me that can't access halo channel to watch these, where else can I?

I think it's exclusive to the Channel for now, exclusive content and all that.

 

[Tawpgun]

I think it's funny that people complain about this at all. How does it make any sense to give losing players a performance increase? Sure, you might've carried your teammates and went positive but this isn't free for all, it's a team match and whichever teams wins is what matters. Something can be said about making people who perform better lose less performance than the people on the team who did the worst, but that's about it. I don't think automatically not changing the performance of the best person on the losing team is a good solution though because that could mean that Mr. Butt McAssaultrifle could be going 1-15 and not be punished for that only because he was the only one on his team to get a kill.

In the end if you don't want to lose performance because of randoms in your team maybe you should look into playing with good teammates. Or play Rumble.

Not sure if it's actually true but I vaguely remember hearing about it.

But what if you don't have anyone to play with? Unfortunately, matchmaking doesn't force people to have mics.

I think Elzar's idea is good. If you are significantly better than the rest of your team it sucks to be punished for doing your job but your team refusing to communicate.

I think you should either NOT lose any performance, or you lose a small amount.

 

[Tha Robbertster]

It's the same in team sports. You can play a really well but if your team sucks, you're gonna go down on the ladder. If you don't like that, find a new team, or play FFA.

 

[Karl2177]

The best player on the losing side never gets any decrease or increase to their rank progression.

How about that?

Nah. Like Over says below, the top player on a team can still do terribly.

I think it's funny that people complain about this at all. How does it make any sense to give losing players a performance increase? Sure, you might've carried your teammates and went positive but this isn't free for all, it's a team match and whichever teams wins is what matters. Something can be said about making people who perform better lose less performance than the people on the team who did the worst, but that's about it. I don't think automatically not changing the performance of the best person on the losing team is a good solution though because that could mean that Mr. Butt McAssaultrifle could be going 1-15 and not be punished for that only because he was the only one on his team to get a kill.

In the end if you don't want to lose performance because of randoms in your team maybe you should look into playing with good teammates. Or play Rumble.

Not sure if it's actually true but I vaguely remember hearing about it.

Like you say, penalizing less based on performance. I lost, and there is a penalty to losing. I wasn't the cause of the loss, so it shouldn't penalize me greatly.

But that's just it don't you think it makes sense for a players rank to reflect how good he actually is, as opposed to if he plays with better players or was screwed by crappier players or quitters? Meaning, what's better from a rank perspective? Let's say we play together, and you basically carry me to Onyx tier. I've gone 5-13 in almost all the matches, I play like shit, but I'm showing as Onyx level, whereas someone who is a ten times better player than me, routinely goes 20-4, is always #1 or #2 player in the match, but because he plays more with randoms or gets put on worse teams, his rank is bronze 3? We finally have the chance to move beyond rudimentary win/loss to have ranks actually mean something. Team Slayer shouldn't mean, what kind of overall team it was, as opposed to how good of a team slayer player you are no? I'm not saying people should be rewarded for losing, but take into account other factors.

Someone who is going 5-13 and is on the winning team will NOT be placed in Onyx. I know there are other metrics than win/loss going into placement. Win/loss matters the most after placement in the direction of the performance. It's this way in every competitive game with online rankings.

 

[Welfare]

My notes for feedback is getting to 2 pages in length. This will not be fun to type.

 

[biosnake20]

It messes with your aim

They really need to take this out.