• 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 Reach Reveal Thread - Matchmaking/Multiplayer Details Revealed

Kapura

Banned
dslgunstar said:
Does anyone have a link to confirmation of this fact.

That's really disappointing if true. Asymmetry does imply imbalance, but you can still try and make things as close to balanced as possible. More over, by giving Elites one kind of advantage (perpetual strengths like better health, shields, foot speed) and Spartans another (armor abilities that give them unique strategic advantages), you encourage two completely different types of play for each species, which would add depth and variety.
In the latest BWU, it gives overviews of all of the revealed AAs. Sprint's says: "Sprint is Spartan only." None of the other abilities save Evade explicitly restrict race. Therefore, it would be logical to infer that the others are for both.

As to trying to balance asymmetry, Sage said essentially "Bungie tried that with elites in Halos 2 and 3. It didn't work. Now we're embracing change." Good. Separate but equal doesn't work. In Halo: Reach, the Covenant wins. Given infinite time in a game of Invasion, surely the Elites would be victorious. But it will be about defending objectives for as long as humanly possible before needing to fall back again. My hope is that score of Invasion will have to do with the number of objectives taken/destroyed, combined with the time taken to do these. Hopefully, there won't be a tie, because two separate teams will have different amounts of success. If both teams can take two objectives, one team killed more than the other. They should win. Or if that were equal, the team that captured the objectives the fastest should win. If I were designing gametypes, there would never be a tie. In a tie, nobody wins.

Also @ squid: My guess is that would be a terrible tactic. It will take down the enemy's shield with the EMP, but they won't be dead. Additionally, during that camp time you wouldn't be able to shoot or change weapons, what with the holding down the trigger bit. Melees to be seen. You'd be camping with a shotgun, but you wouldn't be able to kill in one shot. I'd rather just shill in a corner, if anything.
 

Gui_PT

Member
xDangerboy said:
I would expect that you can shoot cooking grenades. Just gotta be more careful when walking into a suspiciously empty flag room.

It'll most probably be used the same way as the tripmine

Wonder if we'll get some sort of visual help to identify planted grenades or if they'll undetectable
 
Dani said:
Take a few seconds to look at the OP once in a while. It's been constantly updated over the lifetime of this thread.

I'm working on one final update before the Beta thread is created.

Also;

Folks, please refrain from any more Halo 3 / ODST picture dumps.

If you must, post text links of pictorial examples, but please don't be spamming this thread up with any more gallery posts with a wall of pictures.

Or create a separate thread or bump up the old Halo 3 Gallery thread for the purpose.

It's not fair on other folks coming in here expecting to see Reach media and being presented with Halo 3/ODST assets.

Thanks guys.

:lol I just realized you made the OP - and no disrespect meant to you Dani, I honestly havent checked the OP... ever - but based on experience people generally dont bother updating them (on other threads). My point was that he shouldnt be using this place as a newsfeed. He can check the OP if he wants too see if theres any new info.

Sorry Dani!
 

Dirtbag

Member
Church RvB said:
So does anyone think they know what Invasion is?

Yeah, I think it's a multi-objective gamemode of Spartans vs. Elites with one team on defense, the other on offense. Different loadouts become available as the match goes on, or certain criteria are met given the completed objectives. Race specific spawn-weapons obviously (given Repeater=AR, Needlerifle=DMR, Grenade launcher=Plasma Pistol, Sword=Shotgun, Needler=Magnum). Weapons still appear on the map to be picked up, but perhaps only the power weapon type. Vehicle spawns will be placed to attempt keeping the covenant in covie vehicles and vice versa. After a match is completed, sides switch. Only two rounds, ties decided by time, fastest wins.
 

chess

Member
xDangerboy said:
I would expect that you can shoot cooking grenades. Just gotta be more careful when walking into a suspiciously empty flag room.

Plus I doubt you could hold the trigger too long waiting without needing to engage or be engaged from others.
 

Dirtbag

Member
squidhands said:
Cannot unsee the screaming face.

As far as AA goes, I'm really curious to see how things like the grenade launcher is going to work in objective games. I can see people (like me) dumping a grenade on the flag spawn and just waiting to hear "Flag Taken".

You have to hold the trigger down the entire time you have the grenade cooked, meaning you can't shoot another weapon and switch back to detonate.
 
Kapura said:
In the latest BWU, it gives overviews of all of the revealed AAs. Sprint's says: "Sprint is Spartan only." None of the other abilities save Evade explicitly restrict race. Therefore, it would be logical to infer that the others are for both.

As to trying to balance asymmetry, Sage said essentially "Bungie tried that with elites in Halos 2 and 3. It didn't work. Now we're embracing change." Good. Separate but equal doesn't work. In Halo: Reach, the Covenant wins. Given infinite time in a game of Invasion, surely the Elites would be victorious. But it will be about defending objectives for as long as humanly possible before needing to fall back again. My hope is that score of Invasion will have to do with the number of objectives taken/destroyed, combined with the time taken to do these. Hopefully, there won't be a tie, because two separate teams will have different amounts of success. If both teams can take two objectives, one team killed more than the other. They should win. Or if that were equal, the team that captured the objectives the fastest should win. If I were designing gametypes, there would never be a tie. In a tie, nobody wins.

I agree with the time restraints. Ties in Halo 2 were so dumb. If my team planted the bomb in less than a minute and the other team planted the bomb in 5 minutes, I think it's obvious which team deserves a win for that round. L4D2 did this perfectly with scavenge mode. Bungie has shown that they can learn from other games' successes. Let's hope L4D2 was on their radar.
 
Church RvB said:
On topic question. What Armor Ability do you guys plan on using for Spartans and Elites respectively?

Sprint
Evade
Armor Lock
Jetpack
Camo

Now correct me if I'm wrong but sprint is only for Spartans and Evade is only for Elites. Or maybe you guys care more about starting weapons. I know a lot of people got excited over the 'Expert Marksman' loadout.

Obviously I'll have to reserve judgment until after the beta, but right now I think I'll love sprint. My favorite class in TF2 was the scout. Being faster than everyone is a huge plus in my book. The only downside to the scout, imo, was low health. But now that's not a problem. Evade looks nice too.
It will depend on the situation I'm in and whatever I need most at the moment. As to what armor abilites I'll be using the most, it'll probably be a close race between the jetpack and the armor lock. Of course, that could change when I play the game.
 
Church RvB said:
I agree with the time restraints. Ties in Halo 2 were so dumb. If my team planted the bomb in less than a minute and the other team planted the bomb in 5 minutes, I think it's obvious which team deserves a win for that round. L4D2 did this perfectly with scavenge mode. Bungie has shown that they can learn from other games' successes. Let's hope L4D2 was on their radar.


I dont agree with this. If you were the better team, then you would have kept the other team from arming the bomb in the alotted time limit.

The difference in LFD2 (least as far as i can remember), there is no time limit with the regular Versus mode (scavenge is different?) and so both teams will make it but differ in damage, etc.
 

Slightly Live

Dirty tag dodger
bobs99 ... said:
:lol I just realized you made the OP - and no disrespect meant to you Dani, I honestly havent checked the OP... ever - but based on experience people generally dont bother updating them (on other threads). My point was that he shouldnt be using this place as a newsfeed. He can check the OP if he wants too see if theres any new info.

Sorry Dani!

No problem at all. I know that most GAF thread's OPs' aren't updated after a certain point but I'm taking Ghaleon's approach to Halo threads and updating constantly.

After a few recent Halo threads got locked, I asked that the title of this thread be changed from "Reveal and Speculation" to the current thread title to reflect the fact that the OP was constantly updated with relevant information, important because if we can only have one major thread at a time, it needs to have up to date information for the casual GAFer.

=)
 

Pennybags

Member
If Elites can use the Jetpack ability, then I can't wait to roll as one of these guys.

Dirtbag said:
Yeah, I think it's a multi-objective gamemode of Spartans vs. Elites with one team on defense, the other on offense. Different loadouts become available as the match goes on, or certain criteria are met given the completed objectives. Race specific spawn-weapons obviously (given Repeater=AR, Needlerifle=DMR, Grenade launcher=Plasma Pistol, Sword=Shotgun, Needler=Magnum). Weapons still appear on the map to be picked up, but perhaps only the power weapon type. Vehicle spawns will be placed to attempt keeping the covenant in covie vehicles and vice versa. After a match is completed, sides switch. Only two rounds, ties decided by Invasion Slayer.

That sounds pretty neat. I like the idea of a Slayer tiebreaker.
 
xDangerboy said:
I dont agree with this. If you were the better team, then you would have kept the other team from arming the bomb in the alotted time limit.

The difference in LFD2 (least as far as i can remember), there is no time limit with the regular Versus mode (scavenge is different?) and so both teams will make it but differ in damage, etc.

It sounds like you've never played scavenge. Scavenge starts with 1 minutes and 20 seconds on the clock. For every can of gas your team scores, the times is increased by 20 seconds. The first team to play as the survivors sets the bar. If the second team scores even one more can than the first team, it's an auto-win. One thing I hated in Halo 2 was being up 2 to 0 (or vice versa) and then having to play another round with no chance of the outcome differing. I also hated getting a tie and feeling as if your team was far superior. With enough time even a monkey can write Shakespeare right? Well with enough time and trial and error the other team can get a lucky score. Idk, I hate the first scenario far more than the second. But I also feel like there should never be ties.
 

Domino Theory

Crystal Dynamics
I recently got back from my Computer Information Systems class and the professor randomly started talking about the 360 in class asking who plays what. One dude said SFIV, another said Call of Duty and as I was about to say "all Halo, all the time", he said he plays Halo 3 a lot to blow off steam. :lol

Was surprised, to say the least.
 

Domino Theory

Crystal Dynamics
JaggedSac said:
Have they said whether the armor lock EMP will affect team mates?

Considering Halo has always incorporated friendly-fire, yeah.

Also, calling it now, Plasma Pistol secondary for all Elite load-outs. :p
 

Trasher

Member
Domino Theory said:
I recently got back from my Computer Information Systems class and the professor randomly started talking about the 360 in class asking who plays what. One dude said SFIV, another said Call of Duty and as I was about to say "all Halo, all the time", he said he plays Halo 3 a lot to blow off steam. :lol

Was surprised, to say the least.
You should invite him to some customs so we can DONG on him!
 

GhaleonEB

Member
JaggedSac said:
Have they said whether the armor lock EMP will affect team mates?
Why wouldn't it? It's akin to throwing a power drain down. What Urk wrote in the last BWU:

Those that get too close are treated to an EMP blast when you exit the lock and the longer you’re locked down, the bigger and more powerful the effective radius becomes. While you’re in Armor Lock, you can’t be melee’d or assassinated, either.

Sounds like everyone. Accidents are going to happen. And will often be hilarious, I suspect.
 

JaggedSac

Member
Domino Theory said:
Considering Halo has always incorporated friendly-fire, yeah.

Also, calling it now, Plasma Pistol secondary for all Elite load-outs. :p

I hope EMP spamming is a bootable offense then.

EDIT: After reading the BWU comment, it appears it might be easy to get away from a teammate trying to cause grief before the EMP goes off. For some reason I was thinking it happened at the beginning.
 

Not a Jellyfish

but I am a sheep
Church RvB said:
I agree with the time restraints. Ties in Halo 2 were so dumb. If my team planted the bomb in less than a minute and the other team planted the bomb in 5 minutes, I think it's obvious which team deserves a win for that round. L4D2 did this perfectly with scavenge mode. Bungie has shown that they can learn from other games' successes. Let's hope L4D2 was on their radar.

The focus is completing the objective, not how fast you do it, or the amount of kills you rack up while doing it or defending it. If you plant the bomb in 1 minute and my team plants it in 5, regardless we still planted it and you failed at defending the objective for the round, just like my team did before.

To say that you should win because you completed the task quicker than the other team still does not change the fact that you failed defending. The only thing I would like to see in the event of a tie is that players can earn experience based on their individual performance. I don't think that a team should be rewarded a win, when in the end no one completed both scoring and defending the objective.
 

derFeef

Member
:( did not find time to join the customs on saturday. Maybe next time. Until then, I stay a Halo Multiplayer virgin.

Fake edit: thats not true, I played some games and I remember one particular game where I came out 1st. It was like heaven ;)
 
Not a Jellyfish said:
The focus is completing the objective, not how fast you do it, or the amount of kills you rack up while doing it or defending it. If you plant the bomb in 1 minute and my team plants it in 5, regardless we still planted it and you failed at defending the objective for the round, just like my team did before.

To say that you should win because you completed the task quicker than the other team still does not change the fact that you failed defending. The only thing I would like to see in the event of a tie is that players can earn experience based on their individual performance. I don't think that a team should be rewarded a win, when in the end no one completed both scoring and defending the objective.

In my opinion one team did better than the other. And there's a clear cut way of deciding it. Time. Ties were annoying because neither team got EXP. Now that EXP is gone, ties might not be so bad. I agree that we should get cR for our individual performance.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Not a Jellyfish said:
The focus is completing the objective, not how fast you do it, or the amount of kills you rack up while doing it or defending it. If you plant the bomb in 1 minute and my team plants it in 5, regardless we still planted it and you failed at defending the objective for the round, just like my team did before.

To say that you should win because you completed the task quicker than the other team still does not change the fact that you failed defending. The only thing I would like to see in the event of a tie is that players can earn experience based on their individual performance. I don't think that a team should be rewarded a win, when in the end no one completed both scoring and defending the objective.
Aye, it's like any other sport: it's not who scores quickly or who scores first, it's who scores the most. Nothing else matters (when determining winners and losers).

Church RvB said:
In my opinion one team did better than the other. And there's a clear cut way of deciding it. Time. Ties were annoying because neither team got EXP. Now that EXP is gone, ties might not be so bad. I agree that we should get cR for our individual performance.
It's like a football game where one team scores on their drives in two minutes, and the other team takes eight each. If at the end of the game they're still tied, they're tied. It doesn't matter who scores more quickly. Nor should it.
 

soco

Member
any chance of changing the OP to not use the code blocks? they render fixed size (very tiny) in firefox and some of them are missing vertical scroll bars, when they should have them.

change them to quotes perhaps?
 

Not a Jellyfish

but I am a sheep
GhaleonEB said:
Aye, it's like any other sport: it's not who scores quickly or who scores first, it's who scores the most. Nothing else matters (when determining winners and losers).


It's like a football game where one team scores on their drives in two minutes, and the other team takes eight each. If at the end of the game they're still tied, they're tied. It doesn't matter who scores more quickly. Nor should it.

^This x 1000000.
 
GhaleonEB said:
Aye, it's like any other sport: it's not who scores quickly or who scores first, it's who scores the most. Nothing else matters (when determining winners and losers).


It's like a football game where one team scores on their drives in two minutes, and the other team takes eight each. If at the end of the game they're still tied, they're tied. It doesn't matter who scores more quickly. Nor should it.

You know I really expected someone to come back at me with that. And I agree. In a one bomb or one flag game variant you are correct. But imagine if Football had a 'mode' where you played as offense for 5 minutes straight. No downs. You just played till time was up or you scored... Yeah, it would look pretty crummy if it took you all 5 minutes and 10 downs to score, and the other team took 1 minute and 3 downs.

(edit: one bomb and one flag as in both teams have bases to defend at the same time.)
double edit: as far as scoring most, i agree with that. but when you're in a game mode where you either score or you don't it makes things a bit black and white. In territories you have up to 10 points you can acquire. in assault you have 2. It makes a world of difference.
 
Kapura said:
In the latest BWU, it gives overviews of all of the revealed AAs. Sprint's says: "Sprint is Spartan only." None of the other abilities save Evade explicitly restrict race. Therefore, it would be logical to infer that the others are for both.

As to trying to balance asymmetry, Sage said essentially "Bungie tried that with elites in Halos 2 and 3. It didn't work. Now we're embracing change." Good. Separate but equal doesn't work. In Halo: Reach, the Covenant wins. Given infinite time in a game of Invasion, surely the Elites would be victorious. But it will be about defending objectives for as long as humanly possible before needing to fall back again. My hope is that score of Invasion will have to do with the number of objectives taken/destroyed, combined with the time taken to do these. Hopefully, there won't be a tie, because two separate teams will have different amounts of success. If both teams can take two objectives, one team killed more than the other. They should win. Or if that were equal, the team that captured the objectives the fastest should win. If I were designing gametypes, there would never be a tie. In a tie, nobody wins.

Also @ squid: My guess is that would be a terrible tactic. It will take down the enemy's shield with the EMP, but they won't be dead. Additionally, during that camp time you wouldn't be able to shoot or change weapons, what with the holding down the trigger bit. Melees to be seen. You'd be camping with a shotgun, but you wouldn't be able to kill in one shot. I'd rather just shill in a corner, if anything.

Well, they explicitly state that sprint is for Spartans, evade is for Elites, and that camo could be used by both. They didn't specify for any of the others. Camo and Evade are fair inter-species skills, but I would leave jetpack and armor lock as Spartan only, as well as any others.

I agree that they should embrace the differences between the species, but they didnt even try 'equal but different' in Halo 2 or Halo 3. They just pretended there were no differences and made both races play exactly the same. This is the first game they're actually pushing the differences between the species. So why not try and make them as different AND as equal as possible?

Your idea is interesting, and could make for an interesting variant or gametype, but I dont see what the rational for making one race inherently better than another as a standard. Giving Elites better health, shields and speed would have been a good way to counterbalance their increased body size, and giving Spartans armor abilities that allow them to do everything from fly to become invulnerable, would have been a great way to counterbalance those strengths. Both races would play differently, and the advantages would balance out. Similar to three equal but different races in Starcraft, for example.
 

Iknos

Junior Member
GhaleonEB said:
It's like a football game where one team scores on their drives in two minutes, and the other team takes eight each. If at the end of the game they're still tied, they're tied. It doesn't matter who scores more quickly. Nor should it.

Makes sense.

I see Church's point and maybe the bigger issue is that the game ends in a tie.

Why not an overtime round?

Personally I don't play these modes maybe I should start.

Which speaks volumes about the combat. The combat is so satisfying that I don't need these other modes to have fun.

Can safely say that there are other next gen shooters out there where the 1 on 1 combat isn't as fun so you need to play team objective modes to start having fun.
 

Not a Jellyfish

but I am a sheep
Church RvB said:
You know I really expected someone to come back at me with that. And I agree. In a one bomb or one flag game variant you are correct. But imagine if Football had a 'mode' where you played as offense for 5 minutes straight. No downs. You just played till time was up or you scored... Yeah, it would look pretty crummy if it took you all 5 minutes and 10 downs to score, and the other team took 1 minute and 3 downs.

(edit: one bomb and one flag as in both teams have bases to defend at the same time.)

I still don't see the point of this discussion. Either way the team that just scored so quickly, couldn't defend their objective. If you want to win you have to not only score but you have to defend as well.

Defense wins championships. :D
 
Iknos said:
Makes sense.

I see Church's point and maybe the bigger issue is that the game ends in a tie.

Why not an overtime round?

Personally I don't play these modes maybe I should start.

Which speaks volumes about the combat. The combat is so satisfying that I don't need these other modes to have fun.

Can safely say that there are other next gen shooters out there where the 1 on 1 combat isn't as fun so you need to play team objective modes to start having fun.

There ya go, At least have an overtime round of slayer or something. First to X kills. I just hate ties. One team is always better than another. Football games (and almost all sports?) have overtime. Just make it so their is a clear cut winner somehow.
 

Deadly Cyclone

Pride of Iowa State
No prob Dani, apologies for contributing to the image pile. :D

Wonder what Urk and Brian have in store for showcasing the beta maps this week. A Red vs Blue map tour of the beta maps would be awesome.
 

Gui_PT

Member
Church RvB said:
There ya go, At least have an overtime round of slayer or something. First to X kills. I just hate ties. One team is always better than another. Football games (and almost all sports?) have overtime. Just make it so their is a clear cut winner somehow.


You usually have what? 4 rounds to complete the objective?

You had your chance. Why waste more time with it?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Church RvB said:
You know I really expected someone to come back at me with that. And I agree. In a one bomb or one flag game variant you are correct. But imagine if Football had a 'mode' where you played as offense for 5 minutes straight. No downs. You just played till time was up or you scored... Yeah, it would look pretty crummy if it took you all 5 minutes and 10 downs to score, and the other team took 1 minute and 3 downs.

(edit: one bomb and one flag as in both teams have bases to defend at the same time.)
Well, the timer is sort of like the limit on downs. Some may score on first down. Others take all four, or get a series of first downs. I can roll with this analogy all day.

At the end of the day, the different objective games have different objectives for a reason.

An anecdote: one of the most satisfying games I've ever had in matchmaking was Neutral Assault on Valhalla, Social BTB. I was solo, in a pack of randoms. We went up against a full squad (similar names, identical emblems) and they were good. Unbelievably good. We spent 90% of the game on full defense, as coordinated Banshee/Laser/Sniper/Hog assaults hit us in calculated waves, pinning us inside the base. Outside was death. They scored once early on in a coordinated rush, but we were able to (barely) hold them off for a good ten minutes or so. And then, I was able to break out on a Mongoose with the bomb - having barely disarmed it. We managed a desperate run into their base, punching a hole through their armor by going around bubble side when their main defenses were clustered on cave side for a moment. Two Mongoose and a 'Hog formed a train of desperation and we plow into the base. A crazy, blistering fight inside later, and we scored a point.

Oh, and we were down a couple men at the time.

We managed to hold them off the rest of the game, for a 1-1 tie. The kill totals were something obscene, like 200-40. But we held them off.

Now, if the game had awarded them a win anyways, even though we were able to tie them in the main objective, any satisfaction from holding them off would be gone, and their superior Slayer skills would be rewarded (instead of just padding their stats). But at the end, we both scored once, and the game was a tie. That's what objective games are all about. It's one of the most memorable game I've ever had in BTB.
If the game had awarded them the win, even though we managed to tie it up, well: fuck that.

Iknos said:
Makes sense.

I see Church's point and maybe the bigger issue is that the game ends in a tie.

Why not an overtime round?
I'm down for an overtime round, as long as the main game isn't overly long.
Church RvB said:
There ya go, At least have an overtime round of slayer or something. First to X kills. I just hate ties. One team is always better than another. Football games (and almost all sports?) have overtime. Just make it so their is a clear cut winner somehow.
Better at what? The purpose of an objective game is to see how good each team is at completing the objective, full stop. If you want to prove which team is better in kills, stick to Team Slayer. I don't want a CTF game determined by kills. That's like scoring a basketball game by who had the most dunks.
 
Not a Jellyfish said:
I still don't see the point of this discussion. Either way the team that just scored so quickly, couldn't defend their objective. If you want to win you have to not only score but you have to defend as well.

Defense wins championships. :D

You're right. Defense does win. And the team that can defend for longer should be given the win. I'm sorry if I'm being overly passionate about this. I just feel like scavenge mode was great in the fact that there were never ties. We'll see what Bungie does in the beta/final game I guess.

GhaleonEB said:
Well, the timer is sort of like the limit on downs. Some may score on first down. Others take all four, or get a series of first downs. I can roll with this analogy all day.

At the end of the day, the different objective games have different objectives for a reason.

An anecdote: one of the most satisfying games I've ever had in matchmaking was Neutral Assault on Valhalla, Social BTB. I was solo, in a pack of randoms. We went up against a full squad (similar names, identical emblems) and they were good. Unbelievably good. We spent 90% of the game on full defense, as coordinated Banshee/Laser/Sniper/Hog assaults hit us in calculated waves, pinning us inside the base. Outside was death. They scored once early on in a coordinated rush, but we were able to (barely) hold them off for a good ten minutes or so. And then, I was able to break out on a Mongoose with the bomb - having barely disarmed it. We managed a desperate run into their base, punching a hole through their armor by going around bubble side when their main defenses were clustered on cave side for a moment. Two Mongoose and a 'Hog formed a train of desperation and we plow into the base. A crazy, blistering fight inside later, and we scored a point.

Oh, and we were down a couple men at the time.

We managed to hold them off the rest of the game, for a 1-1 tie. The kill totals were something obscene, like 200-40. But we held them off.

Now, if the game had awarded them a win anyways, even though we were able to tie them in the main objective, any satisfaction from holding them off would be gone, and their superior Slayer skills would be rewarded (instead of just padding their stats). But at the end, we both scored once, and the game was a tie. That's what objective games are all about. It's one of the most memorable game I've ever had in BTB.
If the game had awarded them the win, even though we managed to tie it up, well: fuck that.


I'm down for an overtime round, as long as the main game isn't overly long.

The problem with your analogy is that a football game is like neutral bomb/flag. Both teams have equal opportunities to score at any moment. One bomb/flag does not. You cannot intercept the bomb from the offensive team and then you become offense. I can roll with this analogy all day as well. Seeing as how its sorta skewed in my favor. In your story it was like a football game. You had a great defense and I love to hear stories like that. But in a one bomb/flag variant things are different. There are rounds. I think we all agree on overtime rounds anyway.

GhaleonEB said:
Better at what? The purpose of an objective game is to see how good each team is at completing the objective, full stop. If you want to prove which team is better in kills, stick to Team Slayer. I don't want a CTF game determined by kills. That's like scoring a basketball game by who had the most dunks.

And no, don;t worry. I am not like that. I am an objective oriented player. Kills play an obvious important role in objective games, but a lot of the times the best player is a person with few kills. I simply meant better at scoring the objective. I'm pretty sure I said time was the easy way to decide a better team. Not kills.

Gui_PT said:
You usually have what? 4 rounds to complete the objective?

You had your chance. Why waste more time with it?

No. You only have two. Two for each team. Like I said, Bungie will decide for us. They'll put tiebreakers in or leave it be.
 

Kapura

Banned
dslgunstar said:
Well, they explicitly state that sprint is for Spartans, evade is for Elites, and that camo could be used by both. They didn't specify for any of the others. Camo and Evade are fair inter-species skills, but I would leave jetpack and armor lock as Spartan only, as well as any others.

I agree that they should embrace the differences between the species, but they didnt even try 'equal but different' in Halo 2 or Halo 3. They just pretended there were no differences and made both races play exactly the same. This is the first game they're actually pushing the differences between the species. So why not try and make them as different AND as equal as possible?

Your idea is interesting, and could make for an interesting variant or gametype, but I dont see what the rational for making one race inherently better than another as a standard. Giving Elites better health, shields and speed would have been a good way to counterbalance their increased body size, and giving Spartans armor abilities that allow them to do everything from fly to become invulnerable, would have been a great way to counterbalance those strengths. Both races would play differently, and the advantages would balance out. Similar to three equal but different races in Starcraft, for example.
Hmm. I do agree with your points. I was responding specifically to the comment that if Elites can use all of the AAs that spartans can, they would be overpowered. They would be, because an increase in model size that doesn't make them impossible to not hit would be the only thing to balance with better everything else. I firmly believe that and Elite will always have the upper hand in most situations, so the burden is on the Spartans to hold out for as long as humanly possible. Therefore in Invasion, spartans don't "win," they'll simply do better at defending than the other team.

An analogue is the L4D versus mode: One team has the objectives, the other team has only the ability to stop them from accomplishing the objectives. While Elites will certainly respawn in Invasion, the Spartans have to stop them from reaching the end of the objective track, which would be analogous to the Safe Room in L4D.
 

zumphry

Banned
Gui_PT said:
From that time Bagel, Zayneh, a friend of mine and I took about 2 hours to finish the last level

http://i39.tinypic.com/hvxb3q.jpg

http://i39.tinypic.com/1px8ci.jpg

<3

DiabolicalBagel said:
Fixed.

Seriously, Zayne... it didn't work the first 30 times... why would it work the next 50? :p
We had some good laughs in that game though.

Gui_PT said:
Yeah :lol

" Us - Did we make it?
Zayne - Oh shit!
Us - Nooooooooooo!!!"

We had a lot of fun, that's true :lol

That made me want to try another 4 player co-op run. Anyone interested in that? Maybe after the Halo 2 servers are shut down?

</3

Seriously, I loved that so much. That game is why I love Halo. :lol
 
Re: completing objective games. I agree with the notion that it doesn't matter how fast a team completes an objective so long as they complete it. Just because a team completes an objective faster than another team, and the game ends up being a tie, doesn't mean that team should win.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
Church RvB said:
The problem with your analogy is that a football game is like neutral bomb/flag. Both teams have equal opportunities to score at any moment. One bomb/flag does not. You cannot intercept the bomb from the offensive team and then you become offense. I can roll with this analogy all day as well. Seeing as how its sorta skewed in my favor. In your story it was like a football game. You had a great defense and I love to hear stories like that. But in a one bomb/flag variant things are different. There are rounds. I think we all agree on overtime rounds anyway.
You are seeing things in far too narrow a view. The game could have been one-sided (in the gametype sense) and played out the same way, where they dominate us with a quick score at the top of the first round, crush us in the kill count for the rest of the game, and we don't score until the very end of the last round. Who won? No one.

The goal of an objective game is to see which team completes the objectives more often. It does not make sense to have it any other way.
 

feel

Member
-Yeti said:
Since everyone seems to be doing it....
helpcz.jpg
wat

where is that?
 

EazyB

Banned
I agree with Church. There's a lot of dumb things about Halo 3's one-sided object gametypes that I hope they fix with Reach:
- going to a 4th round when it's impossible for that team to win.
- calling a tie when one team just rushes the flag over and over again and with the ridiculous return times they eventually get it as the time runs out. Then a unequivocally better team rolls in and gets it out within the 1st minute but it's considered a tie.

Pennybags said:
If Elites can use the Jetpack ability, then I can't wait to roll as one of these guys.
You and me both, man!
 

Gui_PT

Member
Church RvB said:
No. You only have two. Two for each team. Like I said, Bungie will decide for us. They'll put tiebreakers in or leave it be.

I think it depends on the gametype you're playing, no?

I don't like the idea of an extra round because 90% of those games are way too long. Having to play one more round would get too boring, imo.

ZayneH said:
Seriously, I loved that so much. That game is why I love Halo. :lol

Probably the most fun I had in Campaign =)
 
EazyB said:
I agree with Church. There's a lot of dumb things about Halo 3's one-sided object gametypes that I hope they fix with Reach:
- going to a 4th round when it's impossible for that team to win.
I agree with this.
 

GhaleonEB

Member
EazyB said:
I agree with Church. There's a lot of dumb things about Halo 3's one-sided object gametypes that I hope they fix with Reach:
- going to a 4th round when it's impossible for that team to win.
Agree.

EazyB said:
- calling a tie when one team just rushes the flag over and over again and with the ridiculous return times they eventually get it as the time runs out. Then a unequivocally better team rolls in and gets it out within the 1st minute but it's considered a tie.
Your specific complaint is with flag return times, which you won't get any argument from me with; smaller maps should have shorter return times than larger maps. It boggles my mind that it is not so in Halo 3's matchmaking.

But the bottom line is, if you're not better than the other team at scoring the objective, then you're not better than them in that gametype. No matter how much you tell yourself that.
 

zumphry

Banned
Gui_PT said:
Probably the most fun I had in Campaign =)

4494348411_ee26ab448c_o.jpg

(Kinda crappy. I'm considering using it, but I love 'I FUCKING LOVE SWEEPING HAMSTER' so, so much)

GhaleonEB said:
Your specific complaint is with flag return times, which you won't get any argument from me with; smaller maps should have shorter return times than larger maps. It boggles my mind that it is not so in Halo 3's matchmaking.

Agreed with this. Hopefully they learned from their mistakes from Halo 3 and have custom return times for each map. Having the same return time from Valhalla on The Pit or even Standoff is ridiculous.


So, um, anyone have the link to the old Halo Screenshot thread? Or is a new one going to be put up?
 
Kapura said:
Hmm. I do agree with your points. I was responding specifically to the comment that if Elites can use all of the AAs that spartans can, they would be overpowered. They would be, because an increase in model size that doesn't make them impossible to not hit would be the only thing to balance with better everything else. I firmly believe that and Elite will always have the upper hand in most situations, so the burden is on the Spartans to hold out for as long as humanly possible. Therefore in Invasion, spartans don't "win," they'll simply do better at defending than the other team.

An analogue is the L4D versus mode: One team has the objectives, the other team has only the ability to stop them from accomplishing the objectives. While Elites will certainly respawn in Invasion, the Spartans have to stop them from reaching the end of the objective track, which would be analogous to the Safe Room in L4D.

I like the L4D analogy. I would actually really like to see a gametype or variant that worked like that, making the Elites an unstoppable force that could not really be defeated, only contained for a certain time, perhaps until reinforcements arrived (or high command just annihilated the position with satellite blasts....ooooh, what a cynical view of the military I have :p).
 
EazyB said:
I agree with Church. There's a lot of dumb things about Halo 3's one-sided object gametypes that I hope they fix with Reach:
- going to a 4th round when it's impossible for that team to win.
- calling a tie when one team just rushes the flag over and over again and with the ridiculous return times they eventually get it as the time runs out. Then a unequivocally better team rolls in and gets it out within the 1st minute but it's considered a tie.


You and me both, man!

Yeah, like I said earlier, the first example sucks far more than the second. Haha. But both scenarios are pretty lame. Wish I could keep debating with you guys but I've got work. Can't wait for the map news this week.
 

Kapura

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
But the bottom line is, if you're not better than the other team at scoring the objective, then you're not better than them in that gametype. No matter how much you tell yourself that.
Disagree. If a team could have scored three times in the time it took for the other team to score once, the first team is better. This is obvious in objective games like 2-flag CTF, where the first team to score thrice wins. The better objective players will win. But in a 1-flag scenario, a bad team can simply bullshit touch-die-repeat to get the flag across the map, and if they do it twice they don't even need to play defence. If you aren't doing both, you're just coasting on inadequacies of the system. Ties suck.
 

EazyB

Banned
GhaleonEB said:
Your specific complaint is with flag return times, which you won't get any argument from me with; smaller maps should have shorter return times than larger maps. It boggles my mind that it is not so in Halo 3's matchmaking.

But the bottom line is, if you're not better than the other team at scoring the objective, then you're not better than them in that gametype. No matter how much you tell yourself that.
Regardless of the return times, I don't see why the efficiency with which your team completes the objective shouldn't be used as tie-breaker. From the most literal sense, both teams completed the given objective under the same constraints, but arguing that they deserve to tie because the game's rule-set gives them the same score is a circular argument. The rule-set should be tweaked so that the team that performs more efficiently gets rewarded for their effort.

The way it is now it'd be like having slayer matches go for 10 minutes regardless and saying whichever team gets above 40 kills wins, if they both do or don't its a tie.
 
GhaleonEB said:
But the bottom line is, if you're not better than the other team at scoring the objective, then you're not better than them in that gametype. No matter how much you tell yourself that.

THANK YOU. I think so maybe people try to apply a Slayer mindset to objective gametypes.

The objective is the only goal. The speed, strategy used, skill of the individual teammates and all over elements are completely irrelevant when it comes down to the final score. You either succeeded or failed to accomplish your objective.

EazyB said:
The way it is now it'd be like having slayer matches go for 10 minutes regardless and saying whichever team gets above 40 kills wins, if they both do or don't its a tie.

The objective for a slayer match is to achieve a certain number of kills first. The team that achieves that objective wins. If both teams achieve that objective at the same time, a tie does happen. Winning a slayer match incredibly quickly doesnt offer you more exp than doing it just before the timelimit, as far as I know. Neither does k/d ratio.

Likewise, the objective in CTF is the capture the flag before the round timelimit. Doing so gets you a point, failing does not. The speed with which you do it is irrelevant. You succeeded, the other team failed. Any strategy for doing so, regardless of how efficient or speedy it may or may not be, is valid.
 

EazyB

Banned
dslgunstar said:
The objective for a slayer match is to achieve a certain number of kills first. The team that achieves that objective wins. If both teams achieve that objective at the same time, a tie does happen. Winning a slayer match incredibly quickly doesnt offer you more exp than doing it just before the timelimit, as far as I know. Neither does k/d ratio.

Likewise, the objective in CTF is the capture the flag before the round timelimit. Doing so gets you a point, failing does not. The speed with which you do it is irrelevant. You succeeded, the other team failed. Any strategy for doing so, regardless of how efficient or speedy it may or may not be, is valid.
Uhh... that was my entire point of the analogy. The scoring system in the example I gave was flawed in that it the goal term/scoring doesn't reward the better performing team as much as it should. Likewise, the scoring system currently in place is flawed in that it doesn't take into account the rate at which the team completes the objective (slayer gives the win to the team with more kills/time and ctf more caps/time). It's missing that extra factor that more greatly differentiates the better performing team.
 
Top Bottom