- fifthderelicte
- |
- Exalted Mythic Member
- gamertag: BJRSCJ
- user homepage:
Before I respond, I want to mention that I love to debate issues. At the start, I thought that healthpacks logically lead to worse gameplay. I've been playing videogames since the early 90s, and multiplayer since games like Halo, Tribes, and Unreal were out. I've played plenty of games with healthpacks and know how that gameplay works. Halo is a bit unique with the shields, I agree, but overall, the game experience with healthpacks I find less enjoyable.
That being said, while my arguments appear to be argued with a lot of motivation behind them, I wouldn't mind my mind to be changed. Actually, I do agree with a lot of your points, as you shall see. I am feeling much less depressed at the possible inclusion of health in HR because of this discussion, and am actually seeing some bright sides to it. However, there are two things that still worry me about it:
1) If the gameplay doesn't change much from H3 and move more towards a type of game that could support health (quicker kills and a more individualized focus on kills), I wouldn't like it. One major point I agree with you on is teamwork. Teamwork is still evident in HCE, but HCE focuses a lot on individual skill as well. You CAN have both. If Bungie would change the game to create a larger skill gap (which as you know, I heavily argue), I think health could be good.
2. The health has to be properly placed in position, number, and respawn time or it would SUCK. It's a pretty big hit or miss thing here.
Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
I still think you're looking too deep into the extremes on many issues and not believing that Bungie can pull it off like how they did in Halo 1. They made it work. Right, but again, how much are you/others exaggerating at how much it would add to the game and not taking into account the potential downsides?
Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
For example you talk about balance and camping or even how certain situations can be unfair, but you talk about these situations as if it were to only be one-sided. These scenarios would be occurring to both teams, not just to one player or one side, so if you were to run out for a health and die more BECAUSE of it, then you could also flip that around and kill more people because THEY need health like you did previously. It's all about balance, not just one-sided extremes. My point was that if your health is down, you'll probably camp. That occuring on both sides is not a positive, in my opinion. I said that they WON'T run out to get the health, so no, you don't get it evened out in a positive way.
Also, just because something exists for all does not make it fair. The H2 rockets are a perfect example. You got those and a banshee and your team automatically won. Was it fair (or should I say gamebreaking) that a team one automatically in the first 20 seconds of gameplay? Healthpacks won't be like the H2 Rocks/Banshee combo, but the point is that just because something exists, it does not make the gameplay good or fitting.
Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
Now, you keep referring to teamwork and team firing. Ok, TEAM FIRING was clearly more evident in Halo 2 and Halo 3, I got that, but you CAN'T keep suggesting that there is LESS teamwork in Halo 1 because it required LESS team firing. Team firing isn't the go-to source for defining teamwork in Halo games... There are many other aspects to be included, such as strategies to approach situations which weighs much more on teamwork than team firing will ever hold. Not to mention the fact that if your team was well-coordinated in Halo 1 and worked on taking out people together on more open maps like Hang 'Em High or Rat Race, then that also shows team firing in Halo 1. You're way of explaining these types of things keeps falling back on team firing as the main source of defining teamwork when it really is not and you make it seem as though Halo 1 had little to none of that, which again is not the case if you've played it competitively like I assumed you have. Agreed. I mentioned that at the top.
Posted by: UNKNOWN iXi
Before we continue this I would just like to know something. You're against health packs, ok I get that. However, I think I recall you saying you want a health bar, correct? If so, would you want it to be regenerating over time? If so again, would you want it to be fast or slow? I was assuming the healthbar would regenerate at the rate it currently does. The healthbar would be good to show us how much we had. A slow regen would be nice, as it would punish you for going into combat incorrectly or for being tactically assaulted, but it could promote camping until it was full. HOWEVER, if your health takes 30 seconds to recharge after shields are up, it means that you were probably being chased and people knew where you were headed, so you wouldn't really have a camping advantage. It would help the kill to be finished.
On the other hand, fast regens would encourage superb teamwork and teamfiring. You'd have to hit together and/or hit hard to get the kills. It would promote movement across the map and would speed up the gameplay.
Either way you look at it, there will be pros and cons. Slow regen slow down the game (like health would - as you essentially have slow regen or no regen until healthpack). However, this doesn't let you get away free of harm for hiding for 10 seconds, and may make you think twice about your strategy. On the other hand, fast regen would bring a faster speed to a relatively slow shooter, and would encourage extreme teamwork (maybe too much, if you want a 50/50 individual/team focus). It really depends on what type of game you want it to be and what skills you want highlighted. However, I do think automatic regen is better than health because you don't have to run around like crazy and to find a sparse commodity.
THOUGHT: What about having a slow automatic regeneration (let's say you have 30 health points, regenerate 10 per 30 seconds, or whatever you decide), but also have healthpacks for instafixes? I haven't thought much about it, so let me know your thoughts.