Support NeoGAF

[The Librarian]

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.

A slayer analogy doesn't work because we're speaking about objective gametypes. That doesn't really apply. If both teams get the same amount of kills, it's a tie. If one team gets more kills than the other, that team wins, regardless of the amount of kills needed to win the game.

 

[Kapura]

A slayer analogy doesn't work because we're speaking about objective gametypes. That doesn't really apply. If both teams get the same amount of kills, it's a tie. If one team gets more kills than the other, that team wins, regardless of the amount of kills needed to win the game.

But specifically to a one-sided objective game, both teams can receive the same amount of caps in under the time limit, but one team could clearly be better because the round system is a binary win or loss. ALL other gametypes can be a gradient, with most definite wins well under time limit. But even those that DO go to time give more information than one-sided games, because you can win "more" even if you don't win 100%. Not so in 1-Flag. There is no reward for trying harder than the other team if the game sees both captures as equal in value. In Slayer, if you don't try harder, you lose. Same in 2-flag, KOTH, Ball, 2-Bomb, and Three plots. But in the one-cap-then-switch model doesn't take into account anything. A long time ago, I made a game that was one-sided Assault with three plant points. The points were built on top of the movable scenery, so when you scored at one point the scenery flew apart and you had to go for the next one. I made it on Rat's Nest, and it turned out to be too big, resulting in just as many stalemates past the first point. But Predicide made a version using my gametype on Last Resort, which was more compact, and it worked fairly well. I'm thinking Invasion will be similar to this, so you have to try to not only win, but win more than your opponents.

 

[dslgunstar]

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.

Right, and Im saying that such differentiation isnt necessary or valid in objective gametypes. A tie-breaker would definitely be great (maybe far longer respawns, to really punish reckless play), because I dont want ties either, but a flag cap is a flag cap, regardless of how long it took or how messy it is.

I guess I don't really see how rewarding CTF caps in a certain time limit is a better test of skill than successfully capturing the flag twice in attack/defense. In both cases, the game doesn't reward or penalize players for better strategy or weapon skills.

Its perfectly possible for one team to capture the flag by rushing, dying, but keeping it alive as they slowly make their way across the map. If the other team captures the flag twice with perfect precision, but the other team captures it 3 times in messy fashion, the messier team would still win even though they arguably have less 'skill'. And in many cases, the winning team will have a FAR worse k/d ration to boot.

 

[GhaleonEB]

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 team that performs more effectively AT WHAT? The entire point of an objective game is to focus the game on the completion of that objective.

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.

Not really. Slayer is an objective game - where the objective is kills. So the comparable situation would be ending the game after a certain set time period and, if both teams having the same number of kills, calling the outcome of the game a tie. Which is what happens. Using your logic, in that situation the game should then default to a different set of criteria to determine the "real" winner. What, then? Double kills? Triple kills? You have to seek out metrics that support but do not determine the score.

You're basically arguing that tie games should not exist, and that in the event of a tie, a different set of criteria should be used to determine the winner. I think of objective games as simply being a sport. I can't think of any sports that use secondary statistics to determine who won an otherwise tied game. The logic around such a decision is rather tortured.

I also think that would be damaging to the game. A team that is outclassed in their slaying ability, or in their overall level of coordination, but none the less is able to eek out a tie game in the end deserves to be rewarded with a tie. And by the same token, if a squad is superior to a bunch of randoms, they shouldn't be rewarded for not managing to get a clean win, when they didn't pull it off. The fact that underdogs, by focusing their tactics around the specific objective within a given gametype, are sometimes able to match or beat otherwise superior teams is part of what makes the game fun.

This disagreement probably stems from how you and I play the game. I play 95% of my matchmaking games solo, and I see you playing with friends more often than not. (Also, you're very good, and I'm not.) It's got to be frustrating going up against a pack of random n00bs with your buddies, knowing you're coordinating better and being more efficient, but not being able to come out with a clean win. And from my perspective, holding guys like you to a tie is part of what I play for.

But implementing your suggestion would alienate a pretty big swath of the player base. It would basically stack the deck against the team that is composed of randoms even further than they are already.

Bottom line, if you can't get a clean win with a "superior" team, you don't deserve it. And the other team does not deserve to lose by holding the "superior" team to a tie. To do otherwise would be incredibly unfair.

 

[cool_dude_2049]

nvm

 

[Domino Theory]

If MC is reading this, could you give us a heads up on which site will be carrying the next batch of Reach news this week so that we know where to go when the time comes?

 

[Shake Appeal]

As an aside, it is a peculiarly American thing to dislike ties. Football (i.e. world football, not American) throws up ties all the time in league format, it's part of the game.

 

[Hydranockz]

If MC is reading this, could you give us a heads up on which site will be carrying the next batch of Reach news this week so that we know where to go when the time comes?

How many of us thought of Master Chief before ManCannon?

 

[Blueblur1]

I know I did.

 

[metareferential]

How many of us thought of Master Chief before ManCannon?

*raises hand*

 

[Wizman23]

I'm going to guess that starting tomorrow or Wednesday a different gaming website is going to do a special on an individual map each day through Friday. I think its awesome that from here until the Beta we are going to really be getting into the gameplay features of Reach and how the game actually will play through the various weekly updates and podcasts

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

I really hope it is not IGN..really hard to read their impressions/new feature articles because they are never clear on anything and are usually wrong. :lol

 

[Shake Appeal]

I wonder if Eurogamer are getting anything. They are traditionally not Halo evangelists, but it would be interesting to see.

 

[Blueblur1]

I really hope it is not IGN..really hard to read their impressions/new feature articles because they are never clear on anything and are usually wrong. :lol

Agreed.

 

[Kibbles]

I'm going to guess that starting tomorrow or Wednesday a different gaming website is going to do a special on an individual map each day through Friday. I think its awesome that from here until the Beta we are going to really be getting into the gameplay features of Reach and how the game actually will play through the various weekly updates and podcasts

I hope this is the case. 1 map each day starting tomorrow to Friday.

Damn hype levels are rising. Beta can't come soon enough.

 

[Slightly Live]

I hope this is the case. 1 map each day starting tomorrow to Friday.

Damn hype levels are rising. Beta can't come soon enough.

I hope they don't spread out each map across different sites. Much easier to F5 a single site at the same time each day. :lol

 

[bobs...onGaf]

How many of us thought of Master Chief before ManCannon?

Haha im glad im not the only one, I was just a bit confused for a second :lol

I want map info directly from Bungie, I dont trust any site to tell me how a maps going to play, I simply want pictures and info on the sandbox available on that map.

 

[EazyB]

The team that performs more effectively AT WHAT? The entire point of an objective game is to focus the game on the completion of that objective.

Completes the objective more efficiently? You obviously understand the difference as you demonstrate below, so I don't know where the disconnect is.

Not really. Slayer is an objective game - where the objective is kills. So the comparable situation would be ending the game after a certain set time period and, if both teams having the same number of kills, calling the outcome of the game a tie. Which is what happens. Using your logic, in that situation the game should then default to a different set of criteria to determine the "real" winner. What, then? Double kills? Triple kills? You have to seek out metrics that support but do not determine the score.

You're basically arguing that tie games should not exist, and that in the event of a tie, a different set of criteria should be used to determine the winner. I think of objective games as simply being a sport. I can't think of any sports that use secondary statistics to determine who won an otherwise tied game. The logic around such a decision is rather tortured.

I also think that would be damaging to the game. A team that is outclassed in their slaying ability, or in their overall level of coordination, but none the less is able to eek out a tie game in the end deserves to be rewarded with a tie. And by the same token, if a squad is superior to a bunch of randoms, they shouldn't be rewarded for not managing to get a clean win, when they didn't pull it off. The fact that underdogs, by focusing their tactics around the specific objective within a given gametype, are sometimes able to match or beat otherwise superior teams is part of what makes the game fun.

This disagreement probably stems from how you and I play the game. I play 95% of my matchmaking games solo, and I see you playing with friends more often than not. (Also, you're very good, and I'm not.) It's got to be frustrating going up against a pack of random n00bs with your buddies, knowing you're coordinating better and being more efficient, but not being able to come out with a clean win. And from my perspective, holding guys like you to a tie is part of what I play for.

But implementing your suggestion would alienate a pretty big swath of the player base. It would basically stack the deck against the team that is composed of randoms even further than they are already.

Bottom line, if you can't get a clean win with a "superior" team, you don't deserve it. And the other team does not deserve to lose by holding the "superior" team to a tie. To do otherwise would be incredibly unfair.

The scoreboard should reflect how well the teams performed by factoring every single appropriate aspect of the game. If one team works together, and does better, the scoreboard should say. If MM pits two uneven teams together the game should compensate by using flimsier score criteria.

Yes, a team that's outmatched but still manages to complete some objectives should be rewarded for those efforts, in Halo 3 there's nothing in place to rewards other than giving a team 1 exp or not, but in Reach this isn't the case. A team that isn't quit able to perform as well can be given a cP bonus for completing objectives but ultimately the better performers will be rewarded more aptly. If anything, giving the team that sloppily scraps a few caps an equal reward is "unfair." If MM fails by pitting two uneven teams together, it's a fault of the MM system and the gametype shouldn't be made artificially lenient to compensate and give everyone a win.

I hope they don't spread out each map across different sites. Much easier to F5 a single site at the same time each day. :lol

There's no way these game journalists could pull enough content from a single MP map to make a headline article. They'll all be in one article and if anything multiple sites will cover it.

 

[urk]

As an aside, it is a peculiarly American thing to dislike ties. Football (i.e. world football, not American) throws up ties all the time in league format, it's part of the game.

If you ain't first, you're last.

 

[Slightly Live]

The Bnet Reach project page has been updated with last week's renders and some juicy descriptions.

Plasma Launcher:

The Type-52 Guided Munitions Launcher/Explosive (or T52 GML/E) is more commonly identified as the Plasma Launcher. This system is capable of launching and guiding up to four super-heated plasma bolts at a single target. The bolts will continue to track even if the operator is killed.

 

[Teknoman]

I know what I cant wait for: Hearing the in game soundtrack. Not enough people talk about how awesome Halo soundtracks are, and ODST (Traffic Jam, Rain, Neon Night) didnt disappoint...so i'm hoping Reach blows everyone away once again.

 

[Gui_PT]

I know what I cant wait for: Hearing the in game soundtrack. Not enough people talk about how awesome Halo soundtracks are, and ODST (Traffic Jam, Rain, Neon Night) didnt disappoint...so i'm hoping Reach blows everyone away once again.

Marty seems to be trying something completely different.

Some of the things you hear on the trailers/vidocs are simply gorgeous

Marty never disappoints, doubt he will now =)

 

[Kapura]

Not enough people talk about how awesome Halo soundtracks are...

You are clearly hanging out with the wrong sort of people. I try to talk about it at least once per day to strangers on the bus. Or I did, but now I'm banned from the bus system. BUT I WILL CONTINUE MY CRUSADE.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Completes the objective more efficiently? You obviously understand the difference as you demonstrate below, so I don't know where the disconnect is.

I understand the difference, I simply reject the premise. I like Halo because there's lots of different ways to play it. And I don't think the game should reward one set of tactics over another, if the two arrive at the same end result.

I also reject the premise because I don't believe there is any correct way to weight factors other than the final score. Let's say there's a CTF game that ends 0-0. One team grabbed the flag 20 times, but never got it very far. The other grabbed the flag twice, but got stopped just shy of capping it both times. In every other statistic, the teams tied. Who won? The winner will be, by definition, subjective. That's not the case when looking at the score, the game is objectively (haha) tied.

You want the game to pick someone as the winner. I don't. I'm not sure we're going to get around that disagreement.

The scoreboard should reflect how well the teams performed by factoring every single appropriate aspect of the game. *snip*

I'll make this simple: I disagree. And more to the point, you're describing a game I would not want to play.

What you are describing is, I think, the same concept that's behind the individual rankings for The Arena: a comprehensive ranking of your overall performance. You want that both expanded to non-Slayer game types, and applied at the team level in the instance of a tie game. To that I say, I hope The Arena eventually accommodates you, and I'm glad that kind of ranking is carved out from the rest of the Halo experience. Because I don't want anything to do with it, for all the reasons I outlined before.

If anything, giving the team that sloppily scraps a few caps an equal reward is "unfair."

Um. If your superior team can't beat the other guys, you're not superior. Sack up and beat them outright next time. Your team wasn't good enough this time around at the objective at hand: you couldn't even beat a pack of randoms! And you want the game to reward you for this.

In my ideal world, in a tie game, one team gets some sort of additional reward, and good players on either team also get some sort of additional reward. But those rewards don't affect the final score of the game. I think the cR system is going to be this differentiator. To that end, Reach looks to be satisfying one of my problems with Halo 3 (and yours).

The real difference between us is you want those performance differentiators to affect the status of a tie game, and I don't. Like I said earlier, we're not going to get around that. But The Arena will hopefully provide a partial outlet valve for those who want that kind of play.

And with that, I'll finally drop it.

The Bnet Reach project page has been updated with last week's renders and some juicy descriptions.

And just in time! Yummy.

 

[Kibbles]

Marty seems to be trying something completely different.

Some of the things you hear on the trailers/vidocs are simply gorgeous

Marty never disappoints, doubt he will now =)

VGA trailer music was so awesome. I got to say though, I am dissapointed there won't be a remixe Halo theme this time around. No monks at all.

Then through that disappointment comes a ray of hope, knowing that whatever comes will be amazingly amazing.

 

[Teknoman]

You are clearly hanging out with the wrong sort of people. I try to talk about it at least once per day to strangers on the bus. Or I did, but now I'm banned from the bus system. BUT I WILL CONTINUE MY CRUSADE.

 

[The Librarian]

But specifically to a one-sided objective game, both teams can receive the same amount of caps in under the time limit, but one team could clearly be better because the round system is a binary win or loss.

Clearly better at what? Accomplishing the objective? Because both teams did that.

There is no reward for trying harder than the other team if the game sees both captures as equal in value. In Slayer, if you don't try harder, you lose. Same in 2-flag, KOTH, Ball, 2-Bomb, and Three plots. But in the one-cap-then-switch model doesn't take into account anything.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. This "trying" premise is rather flimsy. I could not be trying that much in a certain game and my team still could come out on top. And there is a sense to be as determined as you can to get a flag capture: if the other manages to get a flag capture while you're defending, then when your team is attacking, you feel more compelled to get that flag capture in order to tie it up. Then the next round starts, and now the other team is more compelled to score one more because they want to win, not have the game result in a tie.

How many of us thought of Master Chief before ManCannon?

Here.

The Bnet Reach project page has been updated with last week's renders and some juicy descriptions.

So hot.

 

[Gui_PT]

VGA trailer music was so awesome. I got to say though, I am dissapointed there won't be a remixe Halo theme this time around. No monks at all.

Then through that disappointment comes a ray of hope, knowing that whatever comes will be amazingly amazing.

The monks will be missed, but I guess it's time to move on

So purdy

 

[Kapura]

Just gonna throw this out there: Ties suck. If there is a high chance of a tie, the gametype and/or map suck. Again, nobody wins in a tie.

And Teknoman, I'm not exactly sure what my avatar is supposed to mean in that context. But I'll take it as a compliment(?)

 

[The Librarian]

Just gonna throw this out there: Ties suck. If there is a high chance of a tie, the gametype and/or map suck. Again, nobody wins in a tie.

And Teknoman, I'm not exactly sure what my avatar is supposed to mean in that context. But I'll take it as a compliment(?)

Nobody loses either.

Spoiler

Haha!

 

[dslgunstar]

I understand the difference, I simply reject the premise. I like Halo because there's lots of different ways to play it. And I don't think the game should reward one set of tactics over another, if the two arrive at the same end result.

I also reject the premise because I don't believe there is any correct way to weight factors other than the final score. Let's say there's a CTF game that ends 0-0. One team grabbed the flag 20 times, but never got it very far. The other grabbed the flag twice, but got stopped just shy of capping it both times. In every other statistic, the teams tied. Who won? The winner will be, by definition, subjective. That's not the case when looking at the score, the game is objectively (haha) tied.

You want the game to pick someone as the winner. I don't. I'm not sure we're going to get around that disagreement.


I'll make this simple: I disagree. And more to the point, you're describing a game I would not want to play.

What you are describing is, I think, is the same concept that's behind the individual rankings for The Arena: a comprehensive ranking of your overall performance. You want that both expanded to non-Slayer game types, and applied at the team level in the instance of a tie game. To that I say, I hope The Arena eventually accommodates you, and I'm glad that kind of ranking is carved out from the rest of the Halo experience. Because I don't want anything to do with it, for all the reasons I outlined before.


Um. If your superior team can't beat the other guys, you're not superior. Sack up and beat them outright next time. Your team wasn't good enough this time around at the objective at hand: you couldn't even beat a pack of randoms! And you want the game to reward you for this.

In my ideal world, in a tie game, one team gets some sort of additional reward, and good players on either team also get some sort of additional reward. But those rewards don't affect the final score of the game. I think the cR system is going to be this differentiator. To that end, Reach looks to be satisfying one of my problems with Halo 3 (and yours).

The real difference between us is you want those performance differentiators to affect the status of a tie game, and I don't. Like I said earlier, we're not going to get around that. But The Arena will hopefully provide a partial outlet valve for those who want that kind of play.

This. All of this. Perfect.

 

[Kapura]

Clearly better at what? Accomplishing the objective? Because both teams did that.

Let's go with an example: 1 flag on Valhalla. Team A grabs a warthog, grabs the Laser, and gets a very good sniper on the hill. They grab and capture the flag in 43 seconds. Team B (the opponents), when it's their turn, don't get the laser and get their warthog blown up. They mongoose rush until the laser is drained, and then make another warthog push. The warthog is flipped by a grenade, but one dude manages to get the flag off of the mancannon. Team B continues to spam Power Drains and touch-die with the flag, and manage to score it in the overtime. The score is then the same, but one team was clearly better at accomplishing the objective, and could have captured it several more times in the same time as the other. Both teams managed to do the objective, but they were then capped at the binary indicator of one point.

I don't understand what you're getting at here. This "trying" premise is rather flimsy. I could not be trying that much in a certain game and my team still could come out on top. And there is a sense to be as determined as you can to get a flag capture: if the other manages to get a flag capture while you're defending, then when your team is attacking, you feel more compelled to get that flag capture in order to tie it up. Then the next round starts, and now the other team is more compelled to score one more because they want to win, not have the game result in a tie.

K, lets say for the first three of four rounds that the score goes 1-1-1. The final defending team gets 1 xp whether or not the other team scores. They have no motivation to try on defence; they get rewarded either way.

 

[kylej]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzlrDGZt3c

put this on the soundtrack

 

[The Librarian]

Let's go with an example: 1 flag on Valhalla. Team A grabs a warthog, grabs the Laser, and gets a very good sniper on the hill. They grab and capture the flag in 43 seconds. Team B (the opponents), when it's their turn, don't get the laser and get their warthog blown up. They mongoose rush until the laser is drained, and then make another warthog push. The warthog is flipped by a grenade, but one dude manages to get the flag off of the mancannon. Team B continues to spam Power Drains and touch-die with the flag, and manage to score it in the overtime. The score is then the same, but one team was clearly better at accomplishing the objective, and could have captured it several more times in the same time as the other. Both teams managed to do the objective, but they were then capped at the binary indicator of one point.

In that case, it's the flag return time that's the issue. Additionally, the other team wasn't good enough to prevent such a tactic from working. Because one team managed to tie it up, then obviously the other team isn't better/superior.

K, lets say for the first three of four rounds that the score goes 1-1-1. The final defending team gets 1 xp whether or not the other team scores. They have no motivation to try on defence; they get rewarded either way.

I'm strictly speaking of what happens in the game. Anecdotal aside, when I play, EXP is the last thing in my mind. I'm strictly concerned with the game in front of me. If it's tied like that, then the other teams will be more determined to win, though context is everything (how did they come to that 1-1-1 tie?).

 

[Ten-Song]

The score is then the same, but one team was clearly better at accomplishing the objective,

And yet, it seems that team wasn't so great at defense if the other team capped it.

 

[Teknoman]

Just gonna throw this out there: Ties suck. If there is a high chance of a tie, the gametype and/or map suck. Again, nobody wins in a tie.

And Teknoman, I'm not exactly sure what my avatar is supposed to mean in that context. But I'll take it as a compliment(?)

Its just what you wrote perfectly suited your avatar's expression. The whole crusade thing.

 

[Gareth Bale]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GEzlrDGZt3c

put this on the soundtrack

Old skool hip-hop?

I raise you this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0zxWX-_KM

 

[Schmitty]

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/intel/vehicle/040510/banshee.png

Damn, that Banshee is hot. Did they shorten the wingspan?

 

[EazyB]

And yet, it seems that team wasn't so great at defense if the other team capped it.

It's the same as one team getting 48 kills while the other team got 50. In the case of slayer the win conditions are different so that even in a close game the team that outperformed the other got the win. In a close match in Halo 3's one-sided objectives the win conditions aren't detailed enough to give the better team the win unless one team outperforms the other to a huge extent; the equivalent of having one team get a 10 kill lead for it not to be a tie.

It seems you're arguing that in order to be given a win, the team must perform much much better to get a win or it's a wash. Kapura and I (how in the world?) are arguing that one team must have performed better so regardless if they differentiated themselves by capping two flag within a minute of the match and stopped the other team completely (the slayer equivalent to a 50-20 blowout) or capping the flags more efficiently while still giving up two caps (the 50-48 where each team performed valiantly but one still performed better) there should be a loser and a winner.


Checked out the "Playlist" section and I think these two screens are new:

Edit: Hmm, the screens look a little washed out when I link them here. Well at least they look better to me when I see them on Bnet. Here's a link.

 

[user_nat]

K, lets say for the first three of four rounds that the score goes 1-1-1. The final defending team gets 1 xp whether or not the other team scores. They have no motivation to try on defence; they get rewarded either way.

Half the enjoyment in winning for me is making the other team not get XP. So in that example I would still be trying.

I don't agree with trying to split teams based on other factors in the event of a draw. Can you imagine that in other sports? Soccer for example (where draws are hugely common), maybe you could decide a winner by saying "Well team A had 42% of the possession and still scored twice, and therefore were more efficient when they had the ball" (or you could argue that because team B had more ball, they were better). That would be stupid and highly subjective.

I'm fine with some form of overtime with different rules or extra round the way MW2 deals with objective ties. I just don't want to see something stupid like most assists deciding a tie.

 

[Kapura]

And yet, it seems that team wasn't so great at defense if the other team capped it.

(T Dax too) The settings shift the score away from skill to persistence. In the situation I gave, the worse team would have been unable to score had the reset been faster, the game been shorter, or sudden death been less than the time it was. Alas, settings aren't tailored specifically to the map, and we can expect close-to-default settings on every map. Not every map will work the same under those conditions, so situations that I described will very likely carry over.

I acknowledge that the settings are the problem. But if those don't change to eliminate the problem, we are stuck with a bad team doing as well as a good team, according to the only part of the scoreboard that matter: The flag caps. One team was denied a clean win that they deserved. Saying "defend better" doesn't help; if one flag were 10 minute rounds almost every game would eventually end 2-2, regardless of the overall skill.

HOPEFULLY Invasion, which looks to have multiple objectives per round, will include the gradation of scoring that significantly reduces ties. Both teams may be able to accomplish the first objective in the time limit, but the superior team will be able to obtain the second, third, and fourth objectives.

And finally to address ties: Winning is a much better reward than not losing. A superior team deserves a win, not a lack of a loss. To paraphrase one of the many, many speeches in Atlas Shrugged, the removal of a punishment is not a reward. The American National Hockey League revised it's rules a few years back so that ties were eliminated. If a tie occurred in regulation, both teams received a point (out of the maximum two for a win). After overtime, if scores remained constant, there was a shootout that wouldn't end until one team was victorious (and received the second point). The better team would win in the game overall. That's how competitive activities should end: One team wins. And, as urk stated, if you ain't first, yer last.

Also, I agree with what Easy said up there. We may be at odds on some issues, but god dammit we like seeing winners.

 

[Gareth Bale]

Let's go with an example: 1 flag on Valhalla. Team A grabs a warthog, grabs the Laser, and gets a very good sniper on the hill. They grab and capture the flag in 43 seconds. Team B (the opponents), when it's their turn, don't get the laser and get their warthog blown up. They mongoose rush until the laser is drained, and then make another warthog push. The warthog is flipped by a grenade, but one dude manages to get the flag off of the mancannon. Team B continues to spam Power Drains and touch-die with the flag, and manage to score it in the overtime. The score is then the same, but one team was clearly better at accomplishing the objective, and could have captured it several more times in the same time as the other. Both teams managed to do the objective, but they were then capped at the binary indicator of one point.

The easiest way to implement a system like this, not that I would agree with it, would be to add time as the differentiating factor between two team in the event of a tie. Anything else, e.g. vehicles used, vehicles destroyed, and even kills would be forcing you into playing the game in a specific way which is definately not the point of objective. To be honest, even adding time as the differentiating factor would force people to play in a specific way. Imagine you're behind 2-1 and it's the last round and you're on offense. This system would cause the team thats behind to rush their offensive. I don't want to speak for Bungie, but I don't think they want to force play styles upon people in objective games. Surely that's what the MLG playlist is for? And that's why there's loadouts right?

Anyone have any ideas on the third section in playlists? Firefight or Invasion. I would have said Firefight, but that would be assuming that Invasion goes into matchmaking.

 

[Schmitty]

Checked out the "Playlist" section and I think these two screens are new:

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/intel/2210_update/arena_intel.png

http://www.bungie.net/images/Games/Reach/intel/2210_update/arena_intel2.png

The screens look fine to me, and are definitely giving me some Halo 1/2 multiplayer map vibes. I'm loving the bridges that span over the center area. Is there a name to that level yet?

 

[Slightly Live]

The screens look fine to me, and are definitely giving me some Halo 1/2 multiplayer map vibes. I'm loving the bridges that span over the center area. Is there a name to that level yet?

"SWORD BASE"

Almost has to be an ONI facility. It reminds of CASTLE base, a top secret ONI facility in the Fall of Reach book.

 

[Kapura]

"SWORD BASE"

Almost has to be an ONI facility. It reminds of CASTLE base, a top secret ONI facility in the Fall of Reach book.

Here's a good one I found by googling "acronym" and "sword:" Special Warfare Operations Rapid Deployment

 

[Matty McDee]

I made a small forum signature using one of those newer Renders. It was the red spartan using the Sprint armour ability.

To be perfectly honest....I suck at Photoshop. :lol

 

[dilatedmuscle]

How many of us thought of Master Chief before ManCannon?

LMAO i did

 

[feel]

It's the same as one team getting 48 kills while the other team got 50. In the case of slayer the win conditions are different so that even in a close game the team that outperformed the other got the win. In a close match in Halo 3's one-sided objectives the win conditions aren't detailed enough to give the better team the win unless one team outperforms the other to a huge extent; the equivalent of having one team get a 10 kill lead for it not to be a tie.

It seems you're arguing that in order to be given a win, the team must perform much much better to get a win or it's a wash. Kapura and I (how in the world?) are arguing that one team must have performed better so regardless if they differentiated themselves by capping two flag within a minute of the match and stopped the other team completely (the slayer equivalent to a 50-20 blowout) or capping the flags more efficiently while still giving up two caps (the 50-48 where each team performed valiantly but one still performed better) there should be a loser and a winner.


Checked out the "Playlist" section and I think these two screens are new:

Edit: Hmm, the screens look a little washed out when I link them here. Well at least they look better to me when I see them on Bnet. Here's a link.

They are see through PNGs. Gaf's obviously brighter background makes them look all washed out.

These character models make Halo 3's seem like toys. The scratches and whatnot make a world of difference. Amazing bump in quality, Bungie, you done good.


edit-

With a black layer on the background

 

[Louis Wu]

Way late to the party, but...

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.

This isn't reasonable at all. Some of us enjoy playing Objective games specifically BECAUSE number of kills doesn't matter as much as completing the objective. Now you want to tell me that if I tie you in the metric the game was BASED on, I need to play you in a DIFFERENT metric to prove who's better?

In Halo 3, both teams get EXP if they tie - so your complaint that you don't get EXP isn't even valid.

Dunno. You wanna beat me at Assault, beat me at Assault. Don't beat me at Slayer and say "Hey! I won the Assault game!"

[I should delete all this because I've now read a number of posts that confirm that Church wasn't really advocating a slayer determination for a CTF game - at least not after he first suggested it. I'm leaving it, though, because I agree with all those who think objective games should be decided on the objective.]

I don't want a CTF game determined by kills. That's like scoring a basketball game by who had the most dunks.

Nah, it's more like deciding a basketball game by deciding who had the most home runs. :lol

I like the idea of a tie-breaking round - but I'm not sure how it would work in one-bomb/one-flag. I mean... do you make the tiebreaking round neutral? That would destroy any team that never saw the rule before. If you continue pairs of rounds, you could, conceivably, go on forever. So what's fair?

 

[kylej]

Old skool hip-hop?

I raise you this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ad0zxWX-_KM

If PE is in you need War at 33 1/3rd. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NXkVgWmx9o8

Put this at the title screen. Shit would get me hyped way more than some monks. All the little 12 year olds who buy Halo would have their faces torn off.

I would love to know how Breaking Benjamin and all that shit got into Halo 2. Microsoft must've forced that into the game via some marketing agreement. No way anyone at Bungie thought that was cool.

I wish game development weren't so soul crushing. I'd love to work on a game where you stretch the boundaries of cohesion. Take the Resident Evil 4 framework and stick a g-rap soundtrack around it with all sorts of surreal environments and mindfucks. Would be fun to toy with established genres. Until your game fails and you spend the next 30 years of your career making Ubisoft DS games.