Support NeoGAF

[Shake Appeal]

As an aside to the argument Eazy/Ghaleon are having, I always thought 1-Flag/1-Bomb should play with a "sudden death" ruleset. First team to take the lead out of a round (which consists of one turn at offence and one turn at defence) wins.

So if you start on defence, fail to defend, and then fail to score on your turn (i.e. fail to equalize), you lose. If you manage to score, the game goes on.

And if you start on offence, fail to score, and then fail to defend on your turn, you lose. If you manage to defend, the game goes on.

If three rounds (six turns) go by without a winner being called, the game is a tie.

Result: minimum two turns each, no redundant/meaningless turns, tension and stakes are raised for each turn as it is played, and a tie is far less likely (given a gametype that works, i.e. not 1-fucking-sided-VIP).

For turns of e.g. 2.30 minutes in length, the total game is minimum five minutes, maximum fifteen minutes long.

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.

Yes, this could still be a problem on the second turn of the third round. However, depending on how Bungie "reward" you for results (is it bonus cR? do we have clarification on that?), you can give teams more for an outright victory and less for a tie (e.g. in soccer, you get 3 points for a win but only 1 for a tie). This motivates both sides.

 

[dslgunstar]

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.

I'm going to work on this hockey analogy, cause I love hockey.

Problem: Nobody that actually likes hockey is a fan of the current set-up. After 60 minutes of grueling play, where offense, defense, teamwork, physical play and strategy are all combined, the winner is decided in what basically comes down to a skills completion. A test of a very narrow element of the game. My friends and I joke anytime our team wins or loses in a shootout that they won or lost a game of flip-cup. Furthermore, the loser points awarded to teams that make it to overtime but eventually lose skew the standings so that less worthy hockey teams can make the post-season.

If you want a winner, fine. Add more rounds until one team successful scores a point AND successfully defends against the other team. Of course, that's not a practical solution in the same way that limitless overtime isn't a practical solution outside the playoffs - games could go on so long that people tune out. I always thought rounds with elimination rules would be good, because you wuold have to play damn carefully, and every death would be a huge tactical disadvantage.

That said, I find it ridiculous when people claim that one strategy is more valid than another when both of them are successful. That's like saying the Washington Capitals more offensive playstyle is more valid than the New Jersey Devils playstyle. No, they both work very well. Eventually the two teams will have to play in a series to determine just which one works better, and even then, you're only really proving that one strategy works better against a particular team.

You can claim that a messy win with lots of flag touches requires less skill than a perfectly synchronized attack and retrieval, and you're probably right. But if the messy capture WORKS, and the other team fails to defend, then it deserves a point. Its no different than a physical team, grinding away and winning a game against a skilled team like the Blackhawks or the Caps. It may not look as pretty, or use as much hockey skill, but if it works, then so be it, that team gets the 2 points EVEN if the more skilled team dominated the play for the majority of the game. The same strategy may not work against a more skilled defensive team, or a team that plays differently.

Likewise for Halo. There have been games where my team has put together and executed perfect strategies, that the opposing team identified and stopped. Finally, with time running out, we threw everything we had at them and used messy, grinding, flag-touching to move the flag up the field. At the end of the round we were all -20 or something, but we were elated. We left everything we had on the battle-field when our perfectly executed cute plays didnt work.

Using the same plays against a different team a match later, we captured the flag in under a minute. Different teams, different strategies, different experiences. All equally valid.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Really, though, you guys just need to get over your hatred of ties. Sure, one team is always better, but the whole point of sport is that it reflects life in that no matter how things may seem in advance, the result is never decided until the game is over, the underdogs sometimes scrape out a victory (or at least a tie), and quite often people don't deserve what they get (either because they played well and lost, or because they played awfully but ground out a result [e.g. picked up a small amount of cR forcing a tie against better opponents, while also reducing their opponents' cR haul]).

I know urk was kidding with what he posted in response to me before, but there is something very disturbing in that notion that there must be a winner and a loser, and that two teams can never equal one another. And it does seem peculiar to American sports.

 

[Not a Jellyfish]

New GT The1nOnlyDwarfy, just started getting some games in.

http://www.bungie.net/Stats/GameStatsHalo3.aspx?gameid=1612750608&player=The1nOnlyDwarfy

Amazing game of Team SWAT I just had.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

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

So love that you're a Talladega Nights fan.

Fucking hilarious movie.

So what's the deal? Hard to find specific info now, no more tie games?

 

[Kapura]

You can claim that a messy win with lots of flag touches requires less skill than a perfectly synchronized attack and retrieval, and you're probably right. But if the messy capture WORKS, and the other team fails to defend, then it deserves a point. Its no different than a physical team, grinding away and winning a game against a skilled team like the Blackhawks or the Caps. It may not look as pretty, or use as much hockey skill, but if it works, then so be it, that team gets the 2 points EVEN if the more skilled team dominated the play for the majority of the game. The same strategy may not work against a more skilled defensive team, or a team that plays differently.

Just gonna tackle this paragraph in particular: I don't want to say that grabbing the last cap by the skin of your teeth shouldn't let you feel elated. I don't seek to punish the low end. However, the current set up actively punishes the better team by capping the amount of points they can score in a round at the relatively low number of 1. If they get the cap in under a minute, there are three more minutes that they don't have that the other team does. Could they have captured more flags in that time? Maybe, maybe not. But if they could have, they are forced into the situation of a tie because of the way the gametype is set up. In essence, they are limited because they are the better team. My goal is to find solutions to this conundrum.

One method I mentioned would be to have multiple objectives per round. Hell, you can even do that in Halo now by not ending the round on the flag capture and letting both teams have the full four minutes on offence. A clearly superior team might be able to score two or three times per round while the lower end team might only be able to snag a single cap. But the better team wins, whereas before both teams would have been capped at the absolute lowest number. If Reach only did that, I would be happier than I am now. It would be a fair judgement if a team was far superior to their opponents. There could be further ways to differentiate a true winner even in a tie, but it seems the haters don't care about anything besides objective score in an objective game. Haters.

@2MinTurk: Nah, I just wish there were no more ties.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

Just gonna tackle this paragraph in particular: I don't want to say that grabbing the last cap by the skin of your teeth shouldn't let you feel elated. I don't seek to punish the low end. However, the current set up actively punishes the better team by capping the amount of points they can score in a round at the relatively low number of 1. If they get the cap in under a minute, there are three more minutes that they don't have that the other team does. Could they have captured more flags in that time? Maybe, maybe not. But if they could have, they are forced into the situation of a tie because of the way the gametype is set up. In essence, they are limited because they are the better team. My goal is to find solutions to this conundrum.

One method I mentioned would be to have multiple objectives per round. Hell, you can even do that in Halo now by not ending the round on the flag capture and letting both teams have the full four minutes on offence. A clearly superior team might be able to score two or three times per round while the lower end team might only be able to snag a single cap. But the better team wins, whereas before both teams would have been capped at the absolute lowest number. If Reach only did that, I would be happier than I am now. It would be a fair judgement if a team was far superior to their opponents. There could be further ways to differentiate a true winner even in a tie, but it seems the haters don't care about anything besides objective score in an objective game. Haters.

@2MinTurk: Nah, I just wish there were no more ties.

I can kind of understand what you're saying, but it's not so cut and dry.

You can't set up rules for a game type, and then just change them because a certain aspect doesn't seem to favour a team with superior skill.

It's the same as underdog victories in sport. Should we take away wins or draws in sport when an underdog beats/ties with a superior team simply because they're not as good a team?

The parameters of the match are set. When the 'inferior' team is on offence, you have your chance to stop them from capturing the flag. If you really are part of the better team, you'll find a way to do that.

 

[dslgunstar]

Just gonna tackle this paragraph in particular: I don't want to say that grabbing the last cap by the skin of your teeth shouldn't let you feel elated. I don't seek to punish the low end. However, the current set up actively punishes the better team by capping the amount of points they can score in a round at the relatively low number of 1. If they get the cap in under a minute, there are three more minutes that they don't have that the other team does. Could they have captured more flags in that time? Maybe, maybe not. But if they could have, they are forced into the situation of a tie because of the way the gametype is set up. In essence, they are limited because they are the better team. My goal is to find solutions to this conundrum.

One method I mentioned would be to have multiple objectives per round. Hell, you can even do that in Halo now by not ending the round on the flag capture and letting both teams have the full four minutes on offence. A clearly superior team might be able to score two or three times per round while the lower end team might only be able to snag a single cap. But the better team wins, whereas before both teams would have been capped at the absolute lowest number. If Reach only did that, I would be happier than I am now. It would be a fair judgement if a team was far superior to their opponents. There could be further ways to differentiate a true winner even in a tie, but it seems the haters don't care about anything besides objective score in an objective game. Haters.

@2MinTurk: Nah, I just wish there were no more ties.

Fair points.

I think you're focusing too much on the offensive side the coin. Yes, teams have a ceiling of one cap per round, but one cap can be enough if you put the effort into locking the flag down on defense. For every team that captures a flag by the skin of their teeth, there's a team that hit a brick wall of defense and never even managed to get their mitts on the flag.

That said, going back to the NHL analogy though, I wouldn't be against the game letting you use extra time to get bonus flag captures. That way, a team that played like the Blackhawks of the Washington Capitals, who basically outscore their defensive and goal-tending woes, would still have a viable strategy. So would those teams that play like the Devils, who lock down on defense and make the opposition pay for that one mistake in a 1-0 game. And so would the muckers and grinders like the Coyotes or Nashville, who manage get the 2 points by the least pretty, least finessed means possible.

So it would be cool if they incorporated something like that into Reach. But in the mean time, I refuse to say that one teams method for securing the flag is less valid than another, and that one flag capture is worth more points than another. If you dont want a tie in the current system, then watch 300 for inspiration or something, and dont give them one inch when you're playing on defense. Aim for a 2-0 score every game.

 

[Kapura]

I can kind of understand what you're saying, but it's not so cut and dry.

You can't set up rules for a game type, and then just change them because a certain aspect doesn't seem to favour a team with superior skill.

It's the same as underdog victories in sport. Should we take away wins or draws in sport when an underdog beats/ties with a superior team simply because they're not as good a team?

The parameters of the match are set. When the 'inferior' team is on offence, you have your chance to stop them from capturing the flag. If you really are part of the better team, you'll find a way to do that.

I agree, in most situations the better team ought to be able to stop. However, the settings of flag returns mean that a team can zerg rush and get a cap, even if it takes the whole damn match. That is the problem, but having standardized settings across all of the maps will likely not change in reach, so there needs to be another determining factor.

I'm all for underdog victories, but they happen on fair battlefields. Halo's 1-flag is decidedly not fair. If a team scores, they lose time they had for offence. And yet; they need to defend for the entirety of the others' clock (unless they score). A team that caps quickly has less time to score while a team that caps slowly has more. That doesn't seem fair to me. That would be like trying to determine who's better at hitting home runs by pitching at them until they got a hit. One guy might get it his first try, another requires 50 pitches. But then, because they've both hit exactly one home run, they are declared equal; told it was a tie. Shit sucks.

 

[big ander]

I'm fine with 1-sided objective games being limited to one capture/detonation rather than a plain time limit.
That way defense and offense are equally as important, in my eyes.

We really need some Reach map screens tomorrow.

 

[Dirtbag]

I'm definitely in the tie-game camp when it comes to objective and slayer games.
If something like invasion features a, "each team gets a turn to defend/attack and its time based" (under the assumption that the elites are always expected to win) then yeah I think comparing a who did it quicker is relevant. But only in gametypes where its about how fast something is done/controlled/etc.

Anything that has a capture/explode/kill counter on it should never stray from its core objective to determine a winner. Otherwise, you'll see people play it differently just like you see when achievements favor a certain playstyle. I categorically disagree with that no matter how minor it may seem.

The only thing I could agree with is a unanimous vote to play a tiebreaking round.

 

[2 Minutes Turkish]

I agree, in most situations the better team ought to be able to stop. However, the settings of flag returns mean that a team can zerg rush and get a cap, even if it takes the whole damn match. That is the problem, but having standardized settings across all of the maps will likely not change in reach, so there needs to be another determining factor.

I'm all for underdog victories, but they happen on fair battlefields. Halo's 1-flag is decidedly not fair. If a team scores, they lose time they had for offence. And yet; they need to defend for the entirety of the others' clock (unless they score). A team that caps quickly has less time to score while a team that caps slowly has more. That doesn't seem fair to me. That would be like trying to determine who's better at hitting home runs by pitching at them until they got a hit. One guy might get it his first try, another requires 50 pitches. But then, because they've both hit exactly one home run, they are declared equal; told it was a tie. Shit sucks.

I like your analogy about the baseball, but I can only reiterate that it isnt that cut and dry.

I can see what you're saying, but then where does it end? You could pose similar arguments for other game types like Oddball and King of the Hill as well.

"The better team held on to the ball for one continuous length of 1 minute, but the other team cobbled their minute together in 10 second spurts, so the better team should win".

edit: I know Oddball and KotH can't have tie games, but I hope you see my point.

 

[NOKYARD]

friggin Safari.

I prepared an Invasion speculation post complete with several screenshots and video clips as evidence. Then Safari choked on a YouTube vid and crashed without a backup. Now 24 is about to start and i don't have time to re-create it.

Short form: For Invasion, i predict the Elite invaders will start the match inside a Phantom and land at one of several locations, much like a 2-sided Firefight.

[edit] changed Pelican to Phantom

 

[GhaleonEB]

friggin Safari.

I prepared an Invasion speculation post complete with several screenshots and video clips as evidence. Then Safari choked on a YouTube vid and crashed without a backup. Now 24 is about to start and i don't have time to re-create it.

Short form: For Invasion, i predict the invaders will start the match inside a Pelican Phantom and land at one of several locations, much like a 2-sided Firefight.

Agree.

 

[Dirtbag]

friggin Safari.

I prepared an Invasion speculation post complete with several screenshots and video clips as evidence. Then Safari choked on a YouTube vid and crashed without a backup. Now 24 is about to start and i don't have time to re-create it.

Short form: For Invasion, i predict the invaders will start the match inside a Pelican and land at one of several locations, much like a 2-sided Firefight.

Nice! Makes sense given the name, but I think you have it backwards. Invaders will begin in a phantom (not a pelican) and spartan team being the defenders will have to rush the spawn zone centering around the first objective point.
The elite team will be attacking always (the terrorist ala counterstrike).

 

[oatmeal]

I've been playing H3 with a buddy who was a MW2 nut until recently because we're so excited for Reach.

It's awesome.

Fuck I love H3. Its staying power is ridiculous.

 

[Dirtbag]

Part of me kind of hopes Invasion is the Halo version of counterstrike/shadowrun, with money based rounds and weapon progression. Would love to see how that would play out in the halo-verse, especially now with AA. I'm talking about down to buying vehicles and everything.
You could get more money for stylish kills / assassinations / double kills / etc.

 

[Schmitty]

I've been playing H3 with a buddy who was a MW2 nut until recently because we're so excited for Reach.

It's awesome.

Fuck I love H3. Its staying power is ridiculous.

So true. No matter how many games pull you away from Halo, when you go back it has something that keeps it fun forever. I could play Halo 1, 2, or 3 and have fun with friends. They are timeless.

Part of me kind of hopes Invasion is the Halo version of counterstrike/shadowrun, with money based rounds and weapon progression. Would love to see how that would play out in the halo-verse, especially now with AA. I'm talking about down to buying vehicles and everything.
You could get more money for stylish kills / assassinations / double kills / etc.

Wow, I had never thought of that before. It would be a great way to mix things up between classic Halo slayer/objective games and then get the CS/Shadowrun playstyle in another playlist for variety.

 

[ZZMitch]

So true. No matter how many games pull you away from Halo, when you go back it has something that keeps it fun forever. I could play Halo 1, 2, or 3 and have fun with friends. They are timeless.

Yep, really the only games that I don't sell when a sequel comes around.

 

[Kapura]

I'd love to give my full interpretation of invasion, so here it goes:

Invasion is a one-sided multi-objective gametype, with Humans as defenders and Elites/Covenant as aggressors (invaders, if you will). At the start of the round, the Elites will spawn on a side of the map with a number of Covenant vehicles. The humans spawn on the other side of the map, maybe with vehicles of their own, or maybe with access to anti vehicle weapons.

The Elites will proceed through the map, destroying or capturing (a la King of the Hill) objectives. The Human's are to try and prevent as much of the destruction as possible within the time limit. Then the rounds switch. Of this much, I am relatively certain.

Now I go into shaky speculation. The Phantom: It is possible that respawns will occur in waves via the "reinforcement drops." I'm more sure about it with the Covenant than the UNSC, but they may be dropped off in pelicans in the same fashion.

Additionally, I don't know how power weapons will work. It could be they spawn at given, even locations, but that doesn't lend well to asymmetry. More likely are either race-specific weapons spawning at opposing ends of the map or limited loadouts of heavier weapons, (perhaps you can only choose it once every so often, or perhaps it doesn't unlock until later). Maybe the weapons for the aggressors spawn depending on the current objective: a sword will spawn for a take-and-hold hill-style objective, a launcher will spawn for a blow-up-the-generator objective. I don't know.

As for the order of objectives, there are three possibilities in my mind:
1: There is a fixed order, progressing steadily from the Elite spawn/drop zone towards the UNSC area. One unlocks after the other
2: The objectives are randomly assigned; as soon as one is complete, another randomly becomes active.
3: The objectives are on the map; the elites decide which to tackle when, perhaps pursuing two or more simultaneously.

That's my best estimate given the exactly dick information we have been given so far.

 

[Schmitty]

Yeah, that's what I had in mind basically too. I really wish we could just stop speculating, but we will probably have to wait a week or two for that.

 

[Dirtbag]

I'd love to give my full interpretation of invasion, so here it goes:

Invasion is a one-sided multi-objective gametype, with Humans as defenders and Elites/Covenant as aggressors (invaders, if you will). At the start of the round, the Elites will spawn on a side of the map with a number of Covenant vehicles. The humans spawn on the other side of the map, maybe with vehicles of their own, or maybe with access to anti vehicle weapons.

The Elites will proceed through the map, destroying or capturing (a la King of the Hill) objectives. The Human's are to try and prevent as much of the destruction as possible within the time limit. Then the rounds switch. Of this much, I am relatively certain.

Now I go into shaky speculation. The Phantom: It is possible that respawns will occur in waves via the "reinforcement drops." I'm more sure about it with the Covenant than the UNSC, but they may be dropped off in pelicans in the same fashion.

Additionally, I don't know how power weapons will work. It could be they spawn at given, even locations, but that doesn't lend well to asymmetry. More likely are either race-specific weapons spawning at opposing ends of the map or limited loadouts of heavier weapons, (perhaps you can only choose it once every so often, or perhaps it doesn't unlock until later). Maybe the weapons for the aggressors spawn depending on the current objective: a sword will spawn for a take-and-hold hill-style objective, a launcher will spawn for a blow-up-the-generator objective. I don't know.

As for the order of objectives, there are three possibilities in my mind:
1: There is a fixed order, progressing steadily from the Elite spawn/drop zone towards the UNSC area. One unlocks after the other
2: The objectives are randomly assigned; as soon as one is complete, another randomly becomes active.
3: The objectives are on the map; the elites decide which to tackle when, perhaps pursuing two or more simultaneously.

That's my best estimate given the exactly dick information we have been given so far.

Realistically thats more likely what I think. I can picture the objective switching up from blow these generators up. Once this is accomplished the next set of objectives unlock like "hold these capture points" (king of the hill), then perhaps finally a "plant the bomb" (assault) or a team slayer mixed in there. Loadout unlocks could be performance based, along with different vehicle spawns depending on how well/bad you're team is doing. I picture something a bit more fluid.

Would be really awesome if invasion mode used bigger chunks of the larger campaign levels surrounding the MP maps and had more of a frontlines being pushed-back vibe.

 

[ToyMachine228]

Was talking to a friend, spreading the new Reach info that's been coming out lately. Hype building! Can't wait for the beta. Going to read some Evolutions before bed tonight. I've been reading it at an uber slow pace.

 

[Striker]

Halo Reach's Assault variants needs Halo 2's arm. Grew overly tired of the arm, run away, chuck all grenades/equipment possible scenario.

Would be really awesome if invasion mode used bigger chunks of the larger campaign levels surrounding the MP maps and had more of a frontlines being pushed-back vibe.

Like Bad Company 2's Rush Mode?

 

[Dirtbag]

Like Bad Company 2's Rush Mode?

Haven't played it, but yeah like that.
Makes sense given the whole, MP maps are smaller parts of campaign levels now.

 

[Subtervotion]

Yeah, I've been coming here and posting 'I want Invasion NAO!' for awhile. I love what you guys are speculating. I've wanted a multi-objective gametype for awhile. Invasion has me super excited. The only thing that could get me more excited is the reveal of firefight (I liked it a lot more than I thought I would) or some sort of L4D spin off mode. (I think anyone who's played L4D versus mode can speculate how that would go.) I'm not holding my breath on that one though. I think its more of wishful thinking than anything.

Edit: I should clarify that my L4D vs mode fantasy would allow us to play as all races in the covenant. Which I believe is something that Bungie probably wouldn't have time or resources to do. I'm no game developer and I'm not claiming to know much about the whole process of designing a video game, but I'd assume a whole lot of work would have to be put into this mode.

 

[Schmitty]

Has anyone seen this awesome new asset on Bungie.net? I'll link because the pic is huge. Councilor Elites are back!

Spoiler

I have a feeling this is so old

 

[FunkyMunkey]

I would LOVE to see a 16-24 player Firefight mode.

Can you imagine how intense that'd be? Dozens of covies and insanity.

Damn.

 

[Subtervotion]

I would LOVE to see a 16-24 player Firefight mode.

Can you imagine how intense that'd be? Dozens of covies and insanity.

Damn.

If that is even possible, it would be ridiculous. And I mean that in a holy shit good kind of way. :lol :lol So many things going on at once, it would be absolute chaos.

 

[Schmitty]

I would LOVE to see a 16-24 player Firefight mode.

Can you imagine how intense that'd be? Dozens of covies and insanity.

Damn.

Player count is staying at 16

 

[Thagomizer]

Has anyone seen this awesome new asset on Bungie.net? I'll link because the pic is huge. Councilor Elites are back!

Spoiler

I have a feeling this is so old

Pre-Alpha old.

It is indeed awesome, though.

 

[Kapura]

Has anyone seen this awesome new asset on Bungie.net? I'll link because the pic is huge. Councilor Elites are back!

Spoiler

I have a feeling this is so old

So old.

 

[Self Induced]

Ghostbusters is awesome.

 

[NOKYARD]

Nice! Makes sense given the name, but I think you have it backwards

Yes, i did have it backwards and meant to say Phantom. Thanks.

Two of the clips i had from earlier. Notice how the Phantom lands immediately before the Invasion title, and the call-out name for this ledge is Cliff Approach.

 

[Iknos]

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?

Was thinking neutral when I suggested overtime. Teams that haven't seen that rule before will learn it quickly and if consistent across one-way gametypes people will learn very quickly.

 

[Slightly Live]

Sorry for the quick exit, need to be up early today and forgot the time. :lol

Are we waiting until Thursday for the map reveal? =\

 

[Walshicus]

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.

What's wrong with a tie?? Two of the world's most popular sports [football and cricket] are incredibly tie heavy and that's never hurt their appeal.

 

[Matty McDee]

What's wrong with a tie?? Two of the world's most popular sports [football and cricket] are incredibly tie heavy and that's never hurt their appeal.

Pfft.

Nobody wins in a tie. Therefore you lose and losing is for losers. Duh.

 

[The Librarian]

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.

In order not to make my post too long, I'll just quote this paragraph. In the event of a tie, you want the game to determine a winner by looking at what each team did in something other than completing the objective. I don't, so we'll have to agree to disagree.

Short form: For Invasion, i predict the Elite invaders will start the match inside a Phantom and land at one of several locations, much like a 2-sided Firefight.

That would most definitely be a cool experience. Never been able to fly inside a phantom before.

 

[timetokill]

What's wrong with a tie?? Two of the world's most popular sports [football and cricket] are incredibly tie heavy and that's never hurt their appeal.

They sure as hell hurt their appeal in the United States. We don't want your socialist "yay everyone's a winner!" games. There has to be a winner and a loser. HAS TO BE.

PS. Shootouts are retarded

Spoiler

(seriously)

 

[Stormtrooper30]

What's wrong with a tie?? Two of the world's most popular sports [football and cricket] are incredibly tie heavy and that's never hurt their appeal.

In America, ww don't got no ties. In real football, the winner of a coin toss kicks a sissy ass 45 yard field goal and wins in overtime.

 

[Gui_PT]

But us Europeans are so inferior. We'll think of any excuse to get more self esteem.

When there's a tie, instead of everyone being sad, we're all happy because we're all winners

 

[Iknos]

I'd love to give my full interpretation of invasion, so here it goes:

Was thinking the same.

I think it's #1 of your 3 possibilities.

Having a choice of objectives won't work well with this few players. Correct me if I'm wrong but IIRC Resistance had a one way objective mode between aliens and humans and it had 32 players...and you could choose what objective you want? Could be getting it mixed up with Warhawk.

Point is 16 players on a team give them flexibility to split up into groups. Having 8 players on a team gives us less flexibility.

The "linear" progression of objectives seems more plausible. 8 people attacking and 8 defending an objective...it sounds right.

 

[Shake Appeal]

When someone is quoting Ayn Rand to justify their no-tie philosophy, you know which side is both more gentlemanly... and saner.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

But us Europeans are so inferior. We'll think of any excuse to get more self esteem.

When there's a tie, instead of everyone being sad, we're all happy because we're all winners

:lol

Seriously though, in objective games you have to be good at both attacking AND defending, having a better attack than them doesnt mean anything if they still break through your defences (wether its luck or not).

The fact is there are usually 2 rounds to prove your ability at both attacking and defending. You cant say they got lucky against you twice.


Stormtrooper let me get this straight, in American Football a draw is basically decided by a coin flip!?? - and people bet on this sport!?? wow

 

[metareferential]

The "linear" progression of objectives seems more plausible. 8 people attacking and 8 defending an objective...it sounds right.

This is what I think and hope it will be.

Battlefield-flavoured Halo. I can't wait.

But in the end, I know my expectations will be blown away when they reveal the truth: I - as anyone else - was able to predict a sort of class-based system for Reach, but I could have never imagined it would have been this way, with abilities and loadouts.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Apparently the new Xbox Live update is up (the one that allows USB access) - I wonder if its possible to save all the Halo 2 maps to USB so if they ever get currupt on the console I will have a backup?

Has anyone tried it? I wont be able to try for a while and would love to know if its possible.


They really should just put the Halo 2 maps on the 360 marketplace though - or on Waypoint somehow.

 

[Shake Appeal]

Stormtrooper let me get this straight, in American Football a draw is basically decided by a coin flip!?? - and people bet on this sport!?? wow

While it is possible for the team who wins possession off the flip to then lose it (thus giving the other team the chance to grind out the position for a field goal), it is still pretty much the kiss of death not to win the toss.

Penalties in soccer, while inane, are at least reasonably fair.

 

[Gui_PT]

They really should just put the Halo 2 maps on the 360 marketplace though - or on Waypoint somehow.

Yes please, I can't get the maps from Halo 2's content download =(

 

[squidhands]

Short form: For Invasion, i predict the Elite invaders will start the match inside a Phantom and land at one of several locations, much like a 2-sided Firefight.

I speculated on this when the ViDoc first dropped; happy to see someone else thinks the same thing. Hopefully the Phantom will drop in a spot that can't be fired upon with heavy weapons.