Halo 1 & 2 for PC
This topic has moved here: Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot
  • Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot
Subject: For Lack of a Better Shot

Hail, My name is Marcelino, I love Metal, Real Metal.
You can Love me or you can Hate me, and Haters gonna Hate. I work-out 5 times a week, dont't hate. I also play an Ibanez Bass Guitar and I have a Twin Brother(u jelly?).
Alternate XBL account. (Bungie.net)
Alternate Xbox LIVE account. (343industries)

So far, I have seen enough proof provided by DusK for me to be on his side for now.

  • 07.10.2011 4:02 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.


Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
In every game you mentioned, the team with more headshots won.

It's like you're not even trying.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
I don't blame you for not going through every game, but if you're not willing to find proof that my numbers are inaccurate or misleading, you can't call the math "fuzzy". I told you where it came from; I can't help it if you don't like what I found.

Apparently, it wouldn't be the first time you've been misleading.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
In the first game you pointed out, you neglected to mention that the top performer on the winning team had more kills with the BR than his teammates' sniper, sniper, and banshee kills--combined.

From a camp spot, which proves the point of one section of my original post.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
In Halo 2, vehicles blow up, the warthog is reasonable, and the banshee is more reasonable. Vehicles improved from Halo CE.

This I actually agree with, but so far remains the only way the game improved from Halo CE.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
Once again, the *top player* on the wraith/sword team, the one that Halo 2 deems *most skilled* used the BR, and got more kills with it than the wraith and sword combined. The guy with the wraith was garbage; he had four kills.

That guy spent most of his time up nice and high, too. Mostly kills from ledges and such. Is that part of the skill? Hanging out in camp spots waiting for people to stroll by?

  • 07.10.2011 5:15 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
It's like you're not even trying.

I thought my meaning was clear enough, but let me spell it out: in all of the *relevant* games you mentioned, the team with more headshots won.

Posted by: DusK
Apparently, it wouldn't be the first time you've been misleading.

Not sure what you're on about.

Posted by: DusK
From a camp spot, which proves the point of one section of my original post.

And disproves the main point, but fair enough. Yeah, people were able to have success camping. I had a decent amount of success running around.

Posted by: DusK
That guy spent most of his time up nice and high, too. Mostly kills from ledges and such. Is that part of the skill? Hanging out in camp spots waiting for people to stroll by?

It's a tactic. The skill is when they plunk people in the head with the BR, which both campers did. Everyone else spawns with a BR, giving every opponent a chance to eradicate those campers, or at least keep them in hiding by taxing their health.

  • 07.10.2011 8:52 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
I thought my meaning was clear enough, but let me spell it out: in all of the *relevant* games you mentioned, the team with more headshots won.

Well, of course people are going to resort to the weapon they start with.

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
And disproves the main point, but fair enough. Yeah, people were able to have success camping. I had a decent amount of success running around.

I wasn't aware that going -13 was "a decent amount of success."

Posted by: VintageRonJohnUC
It's a tactic. The skill is when they plunk people in the head with the BR

Not when the game aims for you.

  • 07.10.2011 9:06 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
Well, of course people are going to resort to the weapon they start with.

Not only that, I think I've done a good job of proving that whichever team was better with the starting weapon won the match over 80% of the time.

Posted by: DusK
I wasn't aware that going -13 was "a decent amount of success."

Everyone gets pummeled occasionally. One game is not an assessment of my success in Halo 2. My career totals (custom games included, and once my friends and I tried to rack up 30,000 suicides by rigging our controllers) are 5.8 kills, and 6.9 deaths. So an average of -1, with lots of zombies and dicking around factored in. I peaked at level 30, which is decent for Halo 2.

Posted by: DusK
Not when the game aims for you.

If that's true, then the game aims for everyone else just as much as the campers, and campers shouldn't be so tough to kill.

For clarification purposes: I'm not trying to claim that Halo 2 is a more competitive experience than anything else, simply that it's based on skill, and that levels were somewhat meaningful. You like to say "caters to bad players" and there's truth to that, hell Halo 2 sometimes served them a seven-course meal, but better players beat the bad players nearly every time when the rule set was meaningful. As in, Halo 2 can be played competitively, it just wasn't in the vast majority of matchmade games.

  • 07.11.2011 8:10 AM PDT

Your arguement about aim assist is completely BS. First of all a new player isn't going to pick up a controller and kill a "seasoned pro" because of aim assist. You make it seem like it gets the kill for you but it clearly doesn't otherwise you'd never miss a shot and it would just be down to the first person who shot gets the kill however that's not always the case.

Power weapons have always and will always be apart of halo, complaining about them is complaining about Halo at it's core. If you don't like it simply don't play the game, because they're not going anywhere.

So basically from you're post what you're looking for is a game that:
a) has no aim assist
b) has only ONE weapon or multiple weapons that are essentially the same thing because no one weapon is stronger than the other.
c) has wide open maps (allowing people to hide easily and drastically reduces the speed of the game)

I'd like to say now that I think any game like that would get extremely boring very fast.

  • 07.13.2011 7:01 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: DudeGoToHeIl
So basically from you're post what you're looking for is a game that:
a) has no aim assist
b) has only ONE weapon or multiple weapons that are essentially the same thing because no one weapon is stronger than the other.
c) has wide open maps (allowing people to hide easily and drastically reduces the speed of the game)

I'd like to say now that I think any game like that would get extremely boring very fast.
Nope. That's not what he's saying. Not just one weapon, but for a game that has all the weapons balanced. Where if you're skilled enough, you can take down someone with any weapon you've got no matter what they have.

Also, if you have faster movement speeds (Which essentially all modern FPS games lack) then wide opened maps work. For an extreme version of this, look towards the game franchise "Tribes". Any console kid, which I'm assuming you are judging by your thoughts on what DusK was saying, would -blam!- themselves while playing that game. Be kicked into the ground so hard they would never want to look at the game again.

Starsiege Tribes is free for download right now and I'm sure your computer will be able to handle it. Download it, install it, connect to the private master server, and join the Brazil Annihilation Server (The one that usually has about 20 or so players on it) and see what happens.

[Edited on 07.13.2011 7:10 AM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 7:08 AM PDT

Halo 3

Not just one weapon, but for a game that has all the weapons balanced. Where if you're skilled enough, you can take down someone with any weapon you've got no matter what they have.

But shouldn't the player with a rocket launcher using the weapon at its finest defeat the player using a pistol at its finest when they meet at close range? With a series like halo, it would be impossible to incorporate your (or dusk's) idea of perfectly balanced weaponry.

But the fact that the weapons are made the way they are, to defeat the opponent using a weapon's core purpose/proficiency, is a type of strategy in choosing weaponry knowing when to use a specific weapon, and how to use the specific weapon. But of course there are exceptions: You could maximize the use of a specific weapon for other instances of battle such as the sniper, where if you are an expert with the sniper, you don't have to resort to mid-ranged weaponry when you face someone because you're good at no-scoping.

But the exceptions that I could mention (such as the sniper) regarding Halo only happen because the game's weaponry is unbalanced. The pistol in H2, for example, has too many weaknesses compared to its strengths. And the sniper's strengths overpower the weaknesses because of the fact that you can still aim perfectly without having to scope in, which is why it's possible to bring the sniper in at any range.

What I believe to be weapon balance: Each weapon has an equal amount of strengths and weaknesses. "Good for this, bad for that."

But I am in no way trying to say that this kind of "weapon imbalance" is a curse to the series. It still takes LOADS of skill to no scope like it was your job and is really fun to pull off
:D

[Edited on 07.13.2011 11:29 AM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 11:22 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: Ben2974
But shouldn't the player with a rocket launcher using the weapon at its finest defeat the player using a pistol at its finest when they meet at close range?

Not if the pistol user is better. That's what you're not getting; If you suck, you shouldn't be able to beat someone better. No weapon should ever give you an advantage over a player that has more raw skill than you.

You, of course, like games that have those weapons, because you suck at FPS. Same as Bootless, same as DudeGoToHell.

Posted by: Ben2974
But I am in no way trying to say that this kind of "weapon imbalance" is a curse to the series. It still takes LOADS of skill to no scope like it was your job and is really fun to pull of
:D

ROFL

No. No-scoping in H2 takes zero skill. You're flat-out FPS retarded if you think it does.

More later. Got a lot of catching up to do.

  • 07.13.2011 11:34 AM PDT

Halo 3

No it will be impossible for the guy with the pistol to defeat the rocket launcher at close range because the pistol takes a few bullets to kill the opponent while the rocket launcher takes one shot. That's what I mean by weapon balance. The guy with the pistol SHOULDN'T defeat the guy with the rocket launcher at CLOSE RANGE. It would be illogical for the guy with the pistol to have the advantage in this case, and for you to say that that's weapon balance, is plain ridiculous.

You are addressing the difference in skill level, though. If you are not as good, in general, as the guy holding the pistol in the close range duel, you'd still have the upper hand because of the power weapon you're holding, which in this case would be the rocket. The fact that the rocket has major splash damage and is supposed to be aimed at the floor makes up for the lack of the "not as good" player's skills when you compare them to the person holding the pistol.

But here's the catch: The rocket would be completely futile in the hands of that "not as good" player if he were to meet with the guy holding the pistol at close to mid-range. The guy with the rocket now has to incorporate a lot more skill (which we will assume he does not have) in order to pull it off and kill the guy with the pistol. The pistol, now, has the advantage over the rocket launcher. That's the idea of weapon balance.

It's still possible to defeat the guy with the pistol, but it is very unlikely because the rocket launcher is not being used advantageously.

  • 07.13.2011 12:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent

I'm not dissing games that base all skill on what weapon someone is carrying instead of lone skill, I'm just defending the games that do emphasize player skill over the "Who has the better weapon." scenario.

(By the way, I know that it sounds like I'm dissing those games in the first sentence of this too, but trust me, I'm not. Just stating how it is. Like you said, Rocket beats Pistol player.)

Edit: I posted right as you were posting, so, I'll just reply here. If two players meet on any Halo, one has a Rocket Launcher and the other a Pistol, the Rocket Launcher player will either win or blow each other up (Close - Mid Range). The only case you wouldn't have that is if the opposite player has brain damage or is a 50 year old who has never played a FPS. (Lawlz at my dad)

[Edited on 07.13.2011 1:00 PM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 12:57 PM PDT

Halo 3

Well I also don't believe that it's the case of whoever has the better weapon because in my theory, all weapons are equal. It depends on how convenient the situation is for the weapon you're holding at the time and how you put the weapon to use, which also may depend on the skills of your opponent and their own ability to manipulate your own use of the weapons.




[Edited on 07.13.2011 2:20 PM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 2:19 PM PDT

It's not that I particularly like Ben's version of weapon balance (nor do I think it's plausible to implement, in any video game), but this caught my eye:
Posted by: DusK
Posted by: Ben2974
But shouldn't the player with a rocket launcher using the weapon at its finest defeat the player using a pistol at its finest when they meet at close range?

Not if the pistol user is better. That's what you're not getting; If you suck, you shouldn't be able to beat someone better. No weapon should ever give you an advantage over a player that has more raw skill than you.

Let's extrapolate what DusK is saying. If no player ever has an advantage over another because of the weapon they have, then every weapon should be just as good as the sniper from across the map. That makes no sense, and as others have pointed out, you'd just have different art on guns that all behave nearly identically.
Posted by: DusK
No-scoping in H2 takes zero skill.

Lolyes

Edit: that means I agree.

[Edited on 07.13.2011 4:27 PM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 4:26 PM PDT

Halo 3

I was referring to Halo 3 with the no-scope thing. I do believe it's easier to pull off in H2 than it is in H3, but that's just me.

It's not that I particularly like Ben's version of weapon balance (nor do I think it's plausible to implement, in any video game), but this caught my eye

Well, what are your thoughts!?

[Edited on 07.13.2011 9:29 PM PDT]

  • 07.13.2011 5:18 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Legendary Member

Halo 1&2 PC forum's resident OC ReMixer. Like rockified and metalized video game music? Subscribe to my YouTube channel.

Yeah. That's right. I don't have a 50 in H3. I never got Onyx in Reach. If a game sucks too much, I won't even bother trying for such trivial "accolades". Besides, I've done way more things that take far more skill and talent than anything that can be done in a video game.

Posted by: Ben2974
You are addressing the difference in skill level, though. If you are not as good, in general, as the guy holding the pistol in the close range duel, you'd still have the upper hand because of the power weapon you're holding, which in this case would be the rocket. The fact that the rocket has major splash damage and is supposed to be aimed at the floor makes up for the lack of the "not as good" player's skills when you compare them to the person holding the pistol.

This completely destroys any actual skill factor in the encounter, turning it into a first-person who-is-holding-a-better-weapon instead of a first-person shooter.

Weapons should be circumstantial, yes, but not so much so that a significantly more skilled player is virtually guaranteed to lose against a lesser one.

I gave a prime example in my original post regarding UT's handling of weapons. You should give that game a shot, try out a real skill-based FPS. Hang out on the bottom of the scoreboard where baddies like you belong.

  • 07.13.2011 10:59 PM PDT

Halo 3

Weapons should be circumstantial, yes, but not so much so that a significantly more skilled player is virtually guaranteed to lose against a lesser one.


You can dodge those predicaments by playing smart. The player that doesn't know how to face the strengths of a weapon goes out in hiding so that the weaknesses of a weapon are exposed, therefore the person camps and is considered a noob.

Also,

I've been playing Battlefield 2 and currently Team Fortress 2. In regards to the aiming and hitting aspect, I'm doing very well, but there is much for me to learn such as map layouts, objectives (TF2 only), and team play.

[Edited on 07.14.2011 9:21 PM PDT]

  • 07.14.2011 6:17 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: DusK
I gave a prime example in my original post regarding UT's handling of weapons. You should give that game a shot, try out a real skill-based FPS. Hang out on the bottom of the scoreboard where baddies like you belong.
Putting all the negativity besides, Ben, you really should try out either UT or Quake some time if you haven't. This isn't me trying to say any game is better than another but more of a recommendation towards a game. Just go to http://www.quakelive.com, make an account, and start playing. It's absolutely free and I assure you that you won't regret it. It's one of those games every PC gamer has to play at some point. (Either Quake III Arena or Quake Live.)

[Edited on 07.14.2011 7:19 PM PDT]

  • 07.14.2011 7:17 PM PDT


Posted by: DusK
This completely destroys any actual skill factor in the encounter, turning it into a first-person who-is-holding-a-better-weapon instead of a first-person shooter.

Sometimes. What about when they're both holding the same weapon? Halo 2 Vista might be a giant Fiesta-fest, but we know that's not standard for the deceased Xbox matchmaking, which meant ample showdowns featuring two players with BRs or SMGs + pistol/plasma rifle. I think it's also worth noting that sometimes the player with the far superior weapon (for the situation) might have made a smart move to gain that advantage. For example, a player being out classed with the BR escaping around the corner and crouching, only to pull out a shotgun and lure in his opponent. Even if the player with the BR has more "raw skill", he should have the brains not to walk into that kind of trap. A bit of skill shouldn't grant the privilege of walking around the map killing everyone worse than you without a dose of smart play.

Posted by: DusK
Weapons should be circumstantial, yes, but not so much so that a significantly more skilled player is virtually guaranteed to lose against a lesser one.

It strikes me that there's a range where you're right. At the close end of mid range, the better player should prevail regardless of weapon. It's at this range that the rocket launcher is clearly a bit overpowered. I understand your complaints there and about the sword (an unlimited, often more effective shotgun). The sniper is also a bit ridiculous. Yet the beautiful part is, you can remove all three of those (though I think the sniper *could* be left in) and play Halo 2 competitively. Like I said, Bungie's playlists weren't usually designed for hardcore play, but that doesn't mean it's impossible or that the game isn't based on skill.

I suppose now is as good a time as any to state my anecdotal beliefs about weapon balance. First I'll speculate about how I think things develop the way they do, then I'll explain what I'd like to see out of a game's weapons.

I think Bungie tends to put too much muscle behind their new toys. This could be because Bungie either wants the shiny new weapon to see use or because they simply don't know its potential. Examples include:

Halo 2 sword: Do I need to write an explanation for this one? It was significantly downgraded in Halo 3, to essentially 10 uses per pickup. And it had to play nice with the Hammer, which was surprisingly well balanced.

Halo 2 dual-wielding (in general): There were so many solid DW options in Halo 2 (SMG + Plasma Rifle, SMG + Pistol, SMG + SMG, Plasma Pistol + Pistol) that blasting away and then melee attacking was the next best thing to having the shotgun or sword. I thought the ease of access made this a good balancing feature, although Bungie wasn't happy since they made it worthless in Halo 3.

Halo 3 Brute Spikers: What! you say? You say that Brute Spikers were trash in Halo 3? In the full version that's true, but in the Beta testing Brute Spikers were practically the only viable dual-wielding option. Bungie nerfed them accordingly, and upgraded dual SMGs to an almost-usable tier.

Halo Reach: Armor Lock. When you stick them and they go into armor lock, they deserve to blow up on the spot. Lock that grenade inside the shield.

I suppose I'd like to see something similar to Ben's, with all weapons being roughly equitable in close mid-range battles. I do not believe, however, that it's at all *possible* for developers to truly make their weapons even in strength. So ideally that's what I want, but I'm not holding my breath.

The rocket launcher is obscene because of what it is--a -blam!- rocket launcher. Bungie should've taken that thing out in favor of a sensible grenade launcher with less splash damage and a small window to get out of dodge, save for a great shot.

  • 07.14.2011 7:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Vidyum
  • user homepage:

Not for the faint of heart.

DUDE I THOUGHT THIS WAS CLOSED OMG NINJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LOCK THREAD PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

  • 07.14.2011 7:43 PM PDT

Something smells fishy...

Posted by: Vidyums
DUDE I THOUGHT THIS WAS CLOSED OMG NINJAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA LOCK THREAD PLZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

Why should it be locked? There's nothing wrong with an adult conversation is there?

  • 07.14.2011 7:55 PM PDT

Halo 3

Dual spikers were NOT trash at melee range or at a range too far for sword/shotgun/hammer. They killed exceptionally fast- faster than dual SMGs. But other than that, they were not worth picking up.

It's just another example of unbalanced weaponry in the Halo franchise.
___________________________

To Dr Syx:

I will keep that in mind. But for now, i'm in college using campus connection that regulates how much downloading activity I can have each week. I already got a message saying that i've used 60%+ of my 10 gigabyte weekly download limit...most likely due to not having the specified maps that servers hosts in TF2; the maps download automatically when I double click to join the match.

[Edited on 07.14.2011 9:54 PM PDT]

  • 07.14.2011 9:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Vidyum
  • user homepage:

Not for the faint of heart.

Posted by: Barnacle_Blast
Why should it be locked? There's nothing wrong with an adult conversation is there?
Because at the time of this thread's inception everyone seemed to hate each other (or DusK for that matter...).

  • 07.15.2011 12:39 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Noble Heroic Member

"A life lived for others is the only life worth living" - Albert Einstein

"I have your RCON right here." - Iggwilv

"Always my pleasure to be lazy." - InvasionImminent


Posted by: Ben2974
To Dr Syx:

I will keep that in mind. But for now, i'm in college using campus connection that regulates how much downloading activity I can have each week. I already got a message saying that i've used 60%+ of my 10 gigabyte weekly download limit...most likely due to not having the specified maps that servers hosts in TF2; the maps download automatically when I double click to join the match.
Ah, got to hate download limits. :/

  • 07.15.2011 4:14 AM PDT

Something smells fishy...

Posted by: Vidyums
Posted by: Barnacle_Blast
Why should it be locked? There's nothing wrong with an adult conversation is there?
Because at the time of this thread's inception everyone seemed to hate each other (or DusK for that matter...).

But currently this thread seems to have evolved into more of a debate than a heated argument.

Plus I think it's healthy to have such debates on this forum during which people can express their opinions.

  • 07.15.2011 6:54 AM PDT