IDK, that pic reminds me of halo used to be like, big open and sandy ....reach didnt have alot of that and wether or not it looks particularly could at this stage in development isnt as important IMO
Oh, the chick from the Narnia films appears to be on this show. Any other actors/actresses of known that y'all can pick out?
First thing im doing is selling my limited edition copy of the series, that trailer was really lame :L
So I just realized 'None' is an option for Specializations and AA. Good. I don't like any of those AAs or Specializations anyway. Most of the latter can be negated with smart play and awareness (radar perks, ammo+, nade pickup) and I...just don't like AAs. Carbine/Pistol/None/None/None for me!
Even if you don't like that the AA's are included in the game there's absolutely no reason to pick "None" for both of your perks and for your AA. You'll be at a huge disadvantage.
I don't think so. None puts me in the same combat and movement situation as something like Camo or Hologram. The difference is a situational ability that I really don't want to use when I could instead focus on having better positioning and tactical awareness instead of worrying about the right time to use my little ability. As for the perks, I don't really see how that puts me at a disadvantage. Like I said, Ammo is easy enough to keep in check; I can always swap for another precision weapon if need be. Radar perks are silly. If you stay aware, you don't have radar problems. The shield recharge/infinite sprint are not my style, as I don't have a problem waiting a slight part of a second during recharge (I'm usually somewhere else entirely and moving out of combat anyway) and I think infinite sprint only increases the chance of recklessly sprinting into battle. Walking into an ambush is easier to fight off. The others, I don't care for either. Those are my examples. Not to mention that if indeed not having one puts me at a very signifigant disadvantage, it will mean that all of the abilities are game-changers (or even worse, only a few are and everyone uses them or dies) and I won't want to play a game like that anyway. So I don't see a problem with it. Tis my loadout and preference not to have them.
I don't care how hard you argue, you're not going to prove that not having BONUSES is better than having them. But, its your game, do whatever you want man.
So an aware player wouldn't be helped by having a radar while zoomed in? Doesn't it save the player the distraction of having to zoom out every few seconds, especially when a target could appear at that time, where you were aiming? That's happened to me. What about that "resupply" perk? Walshy described it as allowing players to pick up dropped grenades. You would have to use that just to play the same way as you could in any Halo game. Deciding when to sprint and when not to is always up to you. It could be useful on large maps. You're saying that you don't need AAs like Jetpack and the evade equivalent because you can just focus on positioning and you don't need radar perks because to use them would be to admit that you aren't aware. Even though you will regularly outplay some players and lose to others, a player with your skill but a different mindset, one who uses AAs and perks even simply to execute similar tactics such as proper positioning and awareness, will have a significant advantage over you. I wouldn't call Jetpack or an evade equivalent "situational". It's often hard to tell how much AAs help because of the wildly different skills that players are matched up against.
Yeah this. There's no point in forgoing advantages. With AAs, the worst that happens is you pick one and literally never use it. No disadvantage here, thus no advantage gained from not having one. The other (more likely) scenario is that you'll use it once in a blue moon and be glad you kept it in your back pocket. As for perks, it's not about use, it's about simple advantages. Pick and extra nade, infinite sprint, whatever. There is NO advantage to be gained from not having these things, and even if you don't actively want them, they'll act as a leg up. There is no possible logic to counter this, sorry.
On Ridgeline I think that the flag is way too far beyond the enemy's spawns in a place that is easy to camp. The fact that the sniper hills can be held by opposing teams doesn't really matter so much because the spawns on the other side of the base are enough to protect the flag. Any vehicles parked in front of the base can be easily naded by spawning players with movement AAs, and infantry can be held up at the entrances of the base with nades by one or two base defenders, at which point they can easily be dispatched by DMRs from those same spawners. You need to count on the other team not playing objective or perhaps maintaining an infantry presence on your side of the map to be successful (with vehicles, of course). The flag could be in front of the base, and the bomb plant point can be in the same place it is now. This would still give an aware team plenty of opportunity to stop flag runners, but it would make camping inside the base a vincible tactic.
The problem with having the flag in front of the base would be that it then goes from being (I'll admit) very hard to grab it in a vehicle run, to insanely easy. You could almost perform a drive by pick up, and the scale of the map/BTB in general means that respawns wouldn't allow for a counter to this. I'm pretty sure it'd be a case of getting a couple of players down (since rarely do you see a concerted effort by a whole team to defend base in BTB) and then getting a near guaranteed pick up, with little recourse for the defending team to stop this run once it's started (the main problem of balance with BTB maps being the nature of vehicle objective runs like this). I feel that a better approach would be just some help dislodging campers in the base. Funnily enough, whilst I totally see your point in principle, I'm always surprised at how rarely this comes up as a problem for me. Once in a blue moon I'll run in to a determined group of 3 or 4 who camp the base to hell, and it's frustrating, but I think the main advantage of BTB is that you can rely on the general demographic to avoid such bloodyminded slow play more often than not. But anyway, to address the problem when it does come up, I'd say that something closer to a front entrance on the base (thus giving LoS down in to the back where people can camp) would go a lot further than having flag out front. I'd probably go with a window rather than a door, though a generous one which enabled some serious suppressive fire/nades rather than one, tight, easily avoidable LoS. Idk, this is just occurring to me now, but I maintain that having flag out front would cause more trouble than it'd solve.
I'm not trying to argue that it's better not to have them, just that I would prefer not to bother myself with them, as I see them as being relatively useless for my play-style. So I'm bucking the system. Maybe I'll pick Holo for the laughs, and to remind myself with those assassinations that this is a game. It's just my preference to do this, and if it puts me at a slight disadvantage, so be it. If each perk offers a signifgant advantage, or like I said if only a few offer signifigant changes and advantages, then I don't see myself playing this game much anyway. I just would rather not use anything that acts like a perk in Halo. It's one of the last games I can do that in and I enjoy that part of it and the simplicity of it more than having a small bonus. I know it sounds silly and stubborn, but this is just my personal primary loadout. On Ridgeline, I agree with Peg in that a window would most likely solve the problem. If not, and if there are a lot of them camping the base, that means far less contention for the rockets and pro pipes that can be used to rout them out for 10 seconds to nab the flag. I think it isn't too bad. But I didn't like Boardwalk at all. Too many open and rather long spaces made it out to be a scope war in my experience. Not much interesting happening unless you played Multi-Team.
OK, that's fair enough. No one can really argue with what helps you find the game more fun, and if that includes forgoing advantages which you feel hurt the game (and honestly I agree on many levels) then fair play. Yeah, the more I look at Boardwalk in map design terms, the harder I find it to defend. To be honest, I think a lot of the reason I like it is that the overall layout and lines of sight are really conducive to DMR and Sniper play, and I'm a sucker for that.
I suppose it really just depends on the skill of the players and whether they like to play objective or not. Considering how far away the spawns are and how quick most decent- level DMR kill times are, and how every player spawns with two frags, even 4 defenders would make an open flag zone a hellzone, but you're right, most matchmaking games don't come close to that. Some of the BTB players that I am playing with right now (who I would expect to be those types of players considering their rank) are not objective-minded because they just want to play with the worst players the MM system will give them and get massive sprees. We would easily push players on Ridgeline back to their base and non sniper side, but we would have to get 4 of our players to that base if no opponents quit, even though they weren't nearly as good to pull a flag. Believe it or not, I was thinking the same thing about Ridgeline before I played with good players, though. I think Standoff is a good model for such a similar map because it has spawns behind and on either side of the base, not 100% of them in front or to either side in front. I think your solution is a good one, but it's a shame that that couldn't be done even in forge.
Yeah, that's the real problem with BTB in terms of balancing for competitive play. It's pretty damn rare that you get a group of dedicated players, and even rarer that you get two teams of these facing off against one another. At this stage, even if the dedicated team go in without the mentality of just going for sprees, it's almost a matter of course for them to go on such rampages unless they deliberately play with one hand. I should really try going over to BTB.net and seeing what it's like in that context, looks like it could potentially be hella fun.
The more I focus efforts playing other team games (mostly Tribes, in this context), the more I realize how interesting a competitive BTB dynamic could be. I think I may do that as well. On BTB, I hope H4 does a better job with BTB than Reach does. This stems beyond maps, as in good sight lines, good uses for short-range weapons and good vehicle paths and mechanics. Does anyone know how the Warthog felt when driving in comparison to Reach, H3 and other games? I feel like that alone could make a serious impact on vehicles in BTB seeing as its the most iconic and probably most common vehicle in BTB.
Does it bug anyone that the points go in increments of 10? I always thought it was dumb in other games how games would end at say 1000, instead of 100. It over complicates things, and I was happy Halo went in 1 point increments. But that's not even true anymore.
Ya that was just for infinity Slayer.. which from what i've seen. im not really a fan of. its a gametype thats moving far from what halo is.