It's weird you say that because I've always felt the power weapons literally didn't affect Oblivion games at all, they were just kinda there to be there. But of course we can play a pistol only match, those are the fights the map was designed around regardless. When you say fighting the map, I think trying to break a Lockout tower setup the entire game. That's fighting the map, because it's literally not letting you out play the other team. What you called "unintuitive pathing" is just balancing. Would you call a piece of cover someone is sitting behind "fighting the map" if it's fairly placed? As long as the map is fair in its entirely and isn't horribly obtrusive to navigate like disjunct floating platforms everywhere, then your death is to the other player and not the geometry.
I know the map wasn't designed with pick ups in mind, but they have had a tremendous effect on the gameplay in my experience. The Hydra dominantes the slope of the map, the Incin dominates the chapel, and the pistol is not quick enough to dispatch either one of those players when you spawn in a disadvantageous position. On top of that, you have to maneuver around the map (which is dark) to get an angle on them, and pretty much every vertical path requires you to jump twice to reach it. Everything else is a tunnel for AR fights. I just don't think it was built with the base gameplay of Halo in mind because I never feel agile enough to play on the map. I can't find any fault with the geometry as a stand alone design, but since the first game I played on it, I've wanted to play it in a different game. Hell, it would probably play exceptionally well in Halo CE (except for falling out of the teleporters lol)
You must've had some weird games because I've never seen the Hydra dominate anything ever lol. Incin has 50% charge. That means two charge shots every 3 minutes, or a single team wipe. Again, there's ridiculous room in the chapel to hide behind and duck shots. Saying it wasn't built with base Halo in mind just raises more questions than I even want to ask at this point.
I don't think there's anything wrong with a map doing it all lol what's wrong with that? If you are building it from the ground up, and control every aspect of the design, what's wrong with a map doing it all? That's not crazy at all lol It's difficult, but not crazy. I don't expect everyone to do that either, but theoretically, if a map does it all, it's an objectively better map, right? Look at HCS, if those maps were flexible between gametypes it would actually be interesting to watch. But there are certain maps that ONLY play strongholds, and every single HCS line up ends up feeling the exact same. If you design maps to be multifunctional, then you HAVE a diverse cesspool map pool. I think saying that is unattainable is naive.
This is exactly the point I was getting at. Thank you. This is hypocritical to me, in your first sentence you say that players should be able to control the pace of the game. In your second sentence, you say that a map with a slower pace is faulty. Passive play is the same thing as slowing the pace of the game. Aggressive play is speeding up the pace of the game. I would disagree that one is better than the other, and comes down to personal preference. If a team's only valid winning strategy is to play super aggressive (fast paced), that's not a good quality about the map in some people's opinion. If a team's only valid winning strategy is to play super passive (slow paced), that's also not a good quality of the map in other people's opinions. I'm trying to draw a distinct line here between pacing and strategy. To give another soccer analogy (NFL analogy would work well here too). Many different teams play the sport differently, you have some teams who are super aggressive, fast paced all the time and will run up the score 7-1 in a world cup semi final game. And then there are teams who will play slow, control the ball and make the opposing team over extend themselves opening them up for attack. There are also some teams who will take the aggressive approach at the start, establish a lead and then play more passive, controlling the ball reducing the chance the opponent has to score. I view all three of these as legitimate ways to win a game, never saying that one way to win is better than the other. Because people have different tastes and ways they like to play and enjoy the game. I carry this philosophy over to Halo. Here's a 5 minute game of sanctuary slayer that partially illustrates my point, Only 5 kills in the first 4:15 of the game. This is the slow paced part, teams are constantly communicating trying to get the advantage while not over commiting. Last 0:45, fast paced time with 9 more kills, one team dun goofed and they get collapsed on as the team with the advantage switches gears. It seems we have differing opinions regarding pacing. However, I do agree that maps with evolving strategies and meta's are more interesting than one which only has a singular strategy to victory. I think you misunderstood a key part about what @AceOfSpades said. He wasn't talking about "mastery" of the map, he was talking about understanding the basic layout in a reasonable amount of time. "No, I'm not saying that players should necessarily be able to understand all the intricacies of a layout on the first play through, but they should be able to understand basic routes and connections" - Ace Let's use Narrows, pit and guardian as an example: Narrows is super easy to learn, long rectangle with curved bridge and man cannon. The intricacies on narrows would be learning how to land in different places off the man cannon, jumping from Lift/flag to Top Mid from the details in the walls. Pit is also simple map to learn but it has it's bit of complexities and things youd have to practice to do consistently. Shortcut to Plat jump, plat to green flag throw keeping momentum, as well as shoulder glitch locations. Guardian while harder to learn than the other two examples had many visuals to help players orient themselves and learn the map faster. The more skilled players would learn the intricacies such as g1>g2, s1>s2 jumps, "...something I still don't have a great grasp of having played the map multiple times and having flown around it for hours in forge. Oblivion's layout is not the most intuitive in the world, you can't argue that. It has a certain degree of complexity that is hindered in its ability to be easily figured out by the dark and very contrasting lighting on the map." -Ace Compare how Ace talks about the layout, and how the lighting on the map makes it harder to find his way around. He didn't mention the glowing player models because it's irrelevant that the players glow if you don't know where the **** you're walking, nor is it a point he was arguing. Below is a perfect example of how the darkness absofuckinglutely affects the design. I was actually just flying around on the map (Oblivion) the other week and noticed a SECOND teleporter! I only noticed it because I was flying around OUTSIDE the map and went... "wtf is that doing there?" It's in a location where the player won't instinctively think to look down what's to be assumed just another lava pit. The intro camera only shows one teleporter so once the player likely finds the central one, they'll assume they found the one and only telly. But that's not the kind of feedback you're going to get with "focused testing" not that you care because they should "study it, and practice it." I highly doubt I'm the first one to discover that telly in a similar manner as well, considering the number of people who complain about the darkness and it's unintuitive location. Well said, pretty much describes my own opinions and does so tastefully and providing good feedback. +Rep .... This is likely going to be my last lengthy response for a while, I can't keep up with you guys who post every 20 minutes. Nor did I proof-read this.
@MultiLockOn This is me looking at the pillar closest to light rifle while standing in front of the light rifle. Halo 5 brightness is at 5 and I used the DVR, so I have not edited the image at all. I don't think the contrast was this bad when the map was posted, but I can't say for sure because my TV was also brighter back then. @BodeyBode I said that a map that rewards passive play at the expensive of aggressive play is a problem because then games will end up not reaching the score limit. Adrift and Sword Base are other examples of maps that reward passive play. Onyx gameplay on these maps was usually under 10 kills because the best way to play the map was to camp a room. I think passive play should be possible and not impossible. Ideally, you should be able to speed up or slow down the match. Sanctuary either plays super passive or super aggressive, but a passive team is going to get destroyed by an aggressive team. Whereas if you play Sword Base, Adrift, or Lockout passively, you're probably going to win against the aggressive team every time. Lockout isn't as bad as those two, but it still had that issue. Sure, at the end of the day there may be people who think rewarding passive play is fair, but once again, the devs wont allow a Forge map like that into matchmaking, and the community at large dislikes maps like Overgrowth that reward passive play.
The videos on my channel are significantly brighter than it is now so it would make sense that lighting updates changed it. I wasn't commenting on lighting though I've been asking about your remarks on "unintuitive pathing" and "fighting the map" because that doesn't make sense to me.
I don't really care about score limit unless it's a game type like extermination. Which i acknowledge is a controversial opinion. I'm only vaguely familiar with sword base because I hated reach. I wouldn't attribute sword bases issue to pacing. Rather a lack of counter strategies to the dominant strategy. If there isn't any way to counter camping lift room then it's not a pacing issue. It's a strategy issue. I don't want to reward passive play and I don't want to reward aggressive play. I want to reward smart play. Using the optimal strategy and counter strategy, and counter-counter strategy and so on. While executing it better than the other team. I'm drawing a large line between pacing strategy
Maps generally have pacing issues BECAUSE they have balance and strategy issues. Where else does pacing issues come from? It's because there was no way to break setups that you just had to sit there and wait. Also what differentiates "smart play" from "fast play" because they're essentially the same thing. I'll use speed chess as an example. There's a reason chess around the world is played using speed chess, it's because it makes making good decisions harder. That doesn't make speed chess more aggressive, or have less thought. It's the same exact amount of thought as normal chess, but you only have a few seconds to do it. THAT is what makes it so difficult. If players were given infinite amount of time so sit and analyze every single piece on the board before making their decision a few hours later; where is the skill in that? There is none, because you're given an infinite amount of time to make the same smart play that could've been made in just ten seconds to a truly skilled player. Halo and any FPS is no different. There's no discernible difference between rewarding aggressive play and rewarding smart play other than the fact that you have to be aggressive you have to be smart while doing it. THAT is why it's so important to promote aggressive style maps. It rewards teams that think on their feet.
Terrible analogy. chess is static and halo is dynamic. Go watch that sanctuary video I posted and try to argue that they had an infinite amount of time to analyze what the enemy team is doing. They were constantly trying to predict where the enemy players were, checking different angles, teammates screens, anything to get an edge. Also, smart play and fast play are two different things completely. I think you're failing to see the difference between strategy and pacing that I've been trying to explain. Chess has aggressive moves that are good moves and aggressive moves that would not be good to make. It also has passive moves that are also good and bad to make. It depends on many different factors what the best moves are. Additionally regardless how fast the clock moves, players can still set up defenses in a passive way while waiting for their opponent to make a mistake. Don't confuse speed at which they're required to move with style of play.
I just wanna say that THIS is the sort of conversation that we should be having on this site, not the flame wars that have occupied WAYWO and other threads recently. Good job guys
I feel like we're just confusing terminology at this point. If it's a discussion of offense and defense, then I agree that neither is inherently good or bad because it depends on what is smart in that moment. But if it's a discussion on camping, then I think everybody would agree that camping is not good game design. Camping carries the stigma that you are rewarding players for not moving from a certain spot. I consider the type of gameplay on Lockout to be "camping", but it's not to the extreme that Sword Base or Adrift are. Playing slowly or "defensively" isn't necessarily camping however. There are plenty of times where it's smarter to wait for weapons to spawn or exploit a break in the enemy's lines. Camping just happens to also be a passive playstyle, and I think it's one of the few objective criteria by which we can hold against maps.
I agree on the the pacing being tied to the balance in many cases. I disagree that there's no difference between rewarding aggressive play and rewarding smart play. There are many, many situations in which aggression is a terrible idea, regardless of what decisions you make in the time after the decision to be aggressive. Sometimes there's literally no way to think your way out of a decision to play aggressively. There's a time and a place for both aggressiveness and passivity. Many times it's not even the balance of the map that determines whether aggression or passivity are the smart approach. It's very often determined by things like how many players are alive on each team, where the objective is located relative to all the players in the match, what the current score is and how much time is remaining in the game, and so on. I've been content to stay out of this because I like both of you, and you've both made legitimate points. However, I have to call you on the fact that you're giving XzampleZ a hard time about judging your map without playing it. You've said repeatedly that you don't need to play a map to know how it plays, that you can tell how it will play without ever having played on it. You've even said that tests run by lower level (non-elite) players are essentially irrelevant. And if XzampleZ isn't a top tier player and able to play the map with other top tier players, then there would be no point in him playing the map and offering feedback based upon his playtests anyway, because you would deem it irrelevant and inaccurate. So which is it? Does someone need to play your map to tell you how your map plays, or is it possible to relay an objective assessment of how it will play (even if it goes against what playtests have demonstrated) without having played it. It can't go both ways. It's either one or the other.
I think you get what I'm saying now. I'm not talking about camping. I don't care for camping. If a team gains a lead and decides to hold an area because they think they can milk the clock a little bit, and potentially lure the enemy into making a foolish push, when they should have slowed down and collected themselves. I'm all for that! Especially when that area they're trying to hold has some way to counter it
I did watch the video, I've probably seen every Sanc match since Halo 2 in 2004. It plays Slayer disgustedly stupid which is why teams hate playing it. It's a matter of hoping to catch someone out of position while you have a sniper and they have no clue what's going on on the other side of the dividing wall. "Go watch that sanctuary video I posted and try to argue that they had an infinite amount of time to analyze what the enemy team is doing. They were constantly trying to predict where the enemy players were, checking different angles, teammates screens, anything to get an edge. " They don't LITERALLY need an infinite amount of time but having only 5 kills happen in the first 5ish minutes of a game is a crime, especially in a 4v4. That's brainless and cowardly. Yet it's the right way to play Sanctuary because why the **** would you push? If you actively want to do something you're punished for it, that's bad game design and bad level design. You're better of just sitting there for the next X amount of minutes until the next sniper drops; which in H2/H2A is actually never because they don't drop until they're used up. So why ever push if you're up a kill. The final chaos in the last 45 seconds is only because the team played sloppy and positioned themselves in dumb ways trying to push. "Chess has aggressive moves that are good moves and aggressive moves that would not be good to make. It also has passive moves that are also good and bad to make. It depends on many different factors what the best moves are." You're confusing terminology here which is understandable because level designers don't actually have a book or anything. When I say every map should reward aggressive playstyle, I mean it should reward whichever team is actively doing something and making decisions. Yes, chess and good and bad aggressive moves. The point is that they're making the move quickly is what makes it admirable, especially if it were the right move. Because doing anything is easy when it's slow. Doing anything is hard when it's fast and that's all it comes down to. So when I say aggressive play, I mean forcing players to make decisions as quick as you possibly can. That's aggressive, which I admit isn't the best word choice. I suppose just saying "playing fast" is easier for people to understand. Whatever the best move to make is, make them do it fast. If I see you approaching across a courtyard on your knees scooting your ass like a snail, and I have to choose between two paths to assault you from, I can take my sweet time. If you're sprinting at me, I have less time. That's the only difference. " Additionally regardless how fast the clock moves, players can still set up defenses in a passive way while waiting for their opponent to make a mistake. Don't confuse speed at which they're required to move with style of play." Yes, let players do what they want and make your maps flexible. The point is that they should be doing it fast, once again. Nothing about that sanctuary game was fast until the final seconds, there's no decisions or thought process that goes into that. You just watch your LOS and do your best to communicate with your team what you see. 1: I address that above. When I say aggressive I just mean forcing the players to make decisions quickly, not necessarily bullrush the spawn every two seconds. And we're literally talking about what type of speeds maps should be geared towards so anecdotal player counts and player deaths don't really play a role. The point is that the team making decisions is the one winning. 2: I at least LOAD UP a map before I **** on it. I don't go on forums after looking at a picture and tell someone their ego is too big to accept the map's flaws. Without ever even listing what those are. EDIT: In fact when I have a problem with a map I don't talk about it publicly on the forums at all. I just talk to the author in a party if I ever catch them alone. I don't think I've ever made it a case to talk bad about a map except the winners of the doubles contest because it was more about the judging. I didn't even comment on Bad Blood I don't think.