Doing a layout now, and was wondering which is better with weapon layout for an asymmetrical 2-4 player map: An excess of Tier One "starter" weapons Less Tier Two weapons Which is a more enjoyable experience? I know this is up to preference, but I'm curious about the pros and cons.
I think you're right... probably had to start with hitscan cuz Halo Online was in a state where it did not already have projectile rifles ready. They might have planned to do this later... (in another universe)
Everyone here will tell you to put no weapons on the map, be prepared for their ****ery. More people, more weapons; less leads to less. Tailor your weapons to your map and not vice versa. Start thinking about it when you're drawing your top downs.
Also only take all this as possibilities and not truths, for I am but a scrub lord in the forge world
My beef is that they (MS) could have telegraphed what they were going to do, considering what the changelog said 0.6 would contain and how it was built. There was enough lead time and details to brief their lawyers and proactively tell the ElDewrito team that this was most likely going to happen. It seemed like they were giving a greenlight by NOT giving a redlight.
Again, I don't know if this is B.S. or not, but Trunnks said last night on his stream that "well, technically it's not hitscan (BR) but the projectilve speed is so fast it seems instantaneous" So, perhaps we are calling something hitscan that isn't? Terminology may not matter, though...
well yeah, it's horribly sneaky of them to sit back, see how successful the thing, glean some knowledge and understanding from that - make them work for YOU on that knowledge gain, and then shut it down because you got what you needed out of it... "Uhh, yep. We need to make a PC Halo game". Well, duh!
I don't know anything about design but here goes nothing; I've seen you post several top down layouts which is cool but I'm curious if you have blockouts of those sketches to start of what you have in mind. Some pics of actual blockouts are worth much more to the few lost souls in this thread and they will reply much quicker when they can see the scale, segmentation and verticality. To some degree at least. You can even make WIP threads for those blockouts etc. There's lots of knowledge here if you know where to look. As for the pic, maybe less 90 degree angles. Forget the squares, they're still in your head lol. Freehand your next sketch and use a variant of angles, shapes and/or terrain etc. And listen to Icyhot, he can teach you a thing or two.
To address your points I'm gonna start a blockout tonight. Post some pics once it's done I add more detail/rounding once I get into the design. This is more of a template to go by, I work on the smaller details in the blockout @icyhotspartin gives me some help now and then (which I greatly appreciate ) I'll post some blockout pics as soon as I can. Thanks!
No, that's exactly what I was alluding to when in my last post I said "especially considering in the Halo engine making something switch from projectile to hitscan is literally as simple as cranking up the projectile speed to a ludicrous number" Some game engines have fundamentally different technologies with how they achieve hitscan weaponry, some call it line tracing where it draws an infinite line and checks for points of impact, others have different method. In Halo, changing a weapon from projectile to hitscan was always literally just cranking the number up until the projectile moves so fast it's essentially hitscan. I know this because I've seen the way modders worked in previous Halo engines on PC between Custom Edition and H2 Vista. The Pistol in Halo CE covers something like 250 in game units per tick..or something similar. Everything in CE was projectile based. In Halo 2 most of the weapons outside of the obvious Rocket Launcher/Plasma Rifle/Needler were changed to hitscan because at the time in 2004, internet speeds were abysmal. Most people still had dial-up. The code for Halo 2 weaponry is identical, however to make them hitscan they just cranked the values up to something like 10,000 in game units per tick, a value that's longer than any MP playspace. That's all it takes. That's why I don't buy the BS excuse of "well it made the game unplayable without lag compensation". Because 1: it's quite literally the same exact technology, the same tick rate, the same executions in game, nothing changes. There's no reason why lowering that value would break the networking. And 2: Lag compensation was likely already built into the engine considering Halo Online was originally meant for the Russian market and to run on low-end PC's with **** tier internet. Now, it's possible they dove in and played with the networking on their own and either broke something, deleted code, I don't know. But my guess is that they just wanted the game to be hitscan because they like how it felt.
I seriously think you should get into a conversation with the devs about this and post it. Not trying to sound condescending, I'm genuinely curious as to why and what really happened because I actually agree with you. They keep relaying the same simple awnsers whenever this gets brought up, so getting some more detail on their part would be nice.
Totally predictable. The company has an entire wing dedicated to the financial (and therefore IP) interests of the company, and this 'competition' using the legacy of the name is not acceptable. Of course, the irony is that it was their own project, that they had discarded, as both their new, official games languished AND DISINTEGRAGED UNDER THEIR WATCH. Incredibly embarrassing that is was so hot in the Halo world - even moreso now that it's been released to very positive reactions, and compared to the quality of the official products. It is doubly bizarre that they would even attempt to inject a globally popular superpower of a game into only the Russian PC Arena Market as freeware. Did the CIA not pay enough hush money for the servers to be bugged? Regardless, Microsoft has engaged in the most blatant and obnoxious 'own goal' we have witnessed since the Democrats stiffed Bernie in 2016 because they are exceedingly greedy - see Pournelle's Iron Law of Bureaucracy.