He's saying find a new way to incorporate it through design. You're right that's exactly how speed boost functions, he's saying push your designs to make speed boost function in a different manner. As multi found new functions with Arcanum.
The reason i said "what?" before was because you hadnt edited your post yet and simply had the single line and i hadnt realized where your train of thought was. I understand everything youre saying and its a good post, especially for people who may not have seen that perspective yet. You expressed a lot of viewpoints so i wont offer you with a lengthy rebuttal as frankly i dont have that intention. Just sitting here trying to offer a reply begins to tie in to so many situational concepts and game environments that its actually hard to express anything on this topic in a simple form. Also you really kind of talk about the weapons between the games as if theyre all mixed up together which really throws me off. You have each game that stands out dramatically when the #SK, maneuverability and TTKs collectively are compared. Then the subcategories those 3 include. Then the lines blur harder when you consider how those all factor in with each player count; 1v2, 1v3, 2v2, 4v4, etc. Id say what i want out of a halo primary gun is exactly what i said: 4SK burst fire with less spread: 4SK offers a fair multiplier in a 2v2 and 4v4 environment. In 1v3 a lone wolf could potentially last just as long as they would in a 1v2 and it wouldnt offer the 3SK or 5SK advantage. Slow TTK: Offers a fair amount of reaction time instead of insta death, also allows time to mix in other utilities like grenades, equipment and weapon switching to make reversals possible. Projectile shot; depending on the speed of the projectile primary, the walk and strafe speed should be balanced accordingly, which was perfect in H3. (no h5 boost **** if its projectile) H3 really just had the best opportunity to turn on someone in a 1v2 or 1v1 situation, even 1v3... using a wide range of options, rather than just a quick gun fight like in CE. It also rewarded team shooting for the simple concept that every shot was much more important. I dunno youre welcome to point out holes in my logic but nothing felt as right as H3 did. After sitting here thinking about all of this for like an hour i just keep coming back to the h3 gameplay making the most sense in many circumstances. Again like i said i believe youve convinced yourself that youre following some type of objective ruleset so that you have a way to reaffirm your own opinions. Yeah sure there are going to be concepts that create trends of good and bad playspaces but you act like it comes down to simple science. Frankly your logic seems to fail repeatedly or there wouldn't be a discussion. If thats still too complex of an idea for you then i cant say much more before this turns into what appears to be a heated discussion... which id rather avoid. I would however like to say that if subjectivity shuts down your mind then maybe youre not as complex of an individual as ive considered you. On the burst fire i agree only when the weapons shots arent consistent. Otherwise just like youre capable of sweeping one shot onto someones head to finish the kill, youre more capable of sweeping shots off target leading up to the no shielded encounter. For example imagine a sentinel beam vs a single shot weapon, both with the same TTK after a head shot. Assuming you'd need more consistent accuracy with the beam(or slow burst br) , which one is the easier kill? The single shot weapon ... im arguing with myself honestly because wheres the fun in any other weapon than the H3 BR. *closes mind to any rebuttle*
THANKS! I see that this mostly has to do with the changing of lighting color/intensity over segments of time. I'm not sure exactly how he did that. But my idea would actually incorporate a moving visible sun, and possibly some shifting shadows, with a fully night time and complete shifting of sun across the sky during the day. it's pretty ambitious, so I may only get so far with it... I have Caste Wars Reforged (almost finished) and then I need to get back to finishing my Star Trek mega-map before I can justify doing anything else - especially something so experimental.
Not really. I've convinced myself I'm doing something proper through basic reasoning and using the last 17 years of Halo and arena shooters as a basis. Imagine going to a college debate between well studied apologists, one Christian and one Atheist. And at the end of a lengthy schpele filled with incredible viewpoints and debate the other stands up and goes, "Well yeah but that's your opinion" and sits down. That's essentially what you're doing. And not only is it incredibly insulting to anyone who actually took time to make conversation and reasonable points but you look like a complete dumbass. For someone as opinionated as you to put a religious claim in your gamertag I would think you'd be better versed in primitive debate. If you were even to mention the word 'opinion' or 'subjective' in a college debate/logic course you would be failed. It just has absolutely no other meaning behind it other than showing you have nothing worth saying. There's discussion because level design isn't hard science and some people are better than others at it. Xzamples and I don't even disagree with each other for how hard he's trying to play this gataway card that we look for two different things. We don't, that much is clear. I just don't see value in generic played out boring level design. Burst fire is sloppy for a utility weapon, that's all there is to it. The weapon that literally everything else is defined around in the sandbox is better off being clean cut and predictable otherwise things start to get, you guessed it, unpredictable. I shoot someone in H5 3 times with the pistol, call it out, and my nearby teammate knows he can just run up and punch him to kill him because he already has 3 shots in the body. Let's pretend that was a BR. "Hey man, I shot the guy in S2 I think with 7 bullets or 8 bullets? 2 and 1/2 bursts ish?" You have no idea if 1 melee will kill him or not. It's sloppy. Not to mention, again, it's literally easier to use. The second you turn a corner 1 shot in H3 you are ****ed if someone is standing there. I don't care about some ridiculous anecdotal where you once out BR'd the entire 8 other players on BTB with a single burst, the shittiest staff captain in the world can just sweep over your head and get 1 bullet to connect. The average TTK in H3 swat next to Reach swat is all the evidence I need of this. Despite the fact that in Reach the DMR had much higher aim assist and was hitscan, and the worst strafe in the series it was still harder for people to get kills than H3. Until you can accept this then your opinions on competitive viability won't mean much. And considering you've gone on record saying that Halo 3 doubles is not only the most competitive doubles of all time but the most competitive shooter of all time.....jeeze man I don't even know what to make of that.
The problem with Speed Boost isn't with the powerup itself, it's that the movement abilities weaken it to the point that it's essentially useless. Tron is a good example of this impact. The jump that utilized it in H2A can be done with sprint and thrust (don't even need clamber). In order to make Speed Boost effective in this scenario would require nearly doubling the distance. This, in turn, makes the engagement distances much longer than is optimal for the pistol. It's certainly still possible to build areas that uniquely utilize Speed Boost. It's general usefulness is greatly reduced in this game though. It's pretty useless as a core map pickup, which is what it was intended to be.
Well the even bigger issue is that the core speed increase is minute, almost unnoticeable. It basically just kills your strafe. All the speed comes from sliding and Spartan charging which is really weird.
@MultiLockOn I'm just going to have to continue to disagree, man. We look for the same thing in the sense that we look to find and create maps that meet our definition of a "good map", but a good map means something different to each of us. Our Angst vs Oblivion discussion is a pretty great example of that. The difference between you and I is that I don't think you need to "break barriers" to create original content. Like I said: I see the map's identity in the intricacies. Otherwise I'd call Storm Peaks Damnation, similar to how you feel High Guard is Boarding Action. But, I don't. I identify the differences, and see them as what gives the map its identity. Wow, I forgot about that sig. I can't even see it. I've made a bit of growth since those days, in how I view things. So, though the quote is funny, it's not something I'd say these days. I'd rather not go back into the judging conversation. It's just run its course. You aren't happy with the results. I get it. Hazard was mostly Seth's map btw. Four rooms in a square is Worthy. Angst is different. I made those two maps over five years ago, so yeah. The sexiest Octagon you've ever seen. Seriously though, I like No Ceilings. Nothing about that map is reminiscent of my style or preference. Besides the fact that, as Portaleer says, "It looks like it was made in '97.". In a way, everything we do in our maps has been done. Otherwise we wouldn't have the ability to create map that plays well. So with that logic, nothing we do is worth doing because we already know it will work. Your maps have basic concepts that are essentially impossible not to have, like height advantage. Since this is a proven concept, does that mean the map plays itself? No. Because it's how you approach those concepts that matter. Again, I feel the intricacies are what gives the map its identity. -------------------------------------------------- Yes, the principle is the same. But, Onslaught is the map that stayed in the circuit. Not by a random pick, because it was a much better approach to the two-base concept. So, I don't see that as a minute difference. Your boss wants you to make maps that don't create such a large skill gap, since Call of Duty has a massively casual player base. Excessive verticality is one of the ways you do that. I have no idea where the threshold of excessive verticality lies. Apparently it's eleven feet. Like I said: I'm not saying awkward just because I feel like it. Those things provide awkward experiences. It's just as logical to ignore those feelings as it is to pretend a LoS, or connection, or power position doesn't exist on the map. I never said the Oblivion teleporters were awkward. They're a bit unnecessary, but they don't have a negative impact on gameplay. Things like this have been done before, btw. Steep inclines are awkward because of how they look and feel when you're on them or when you watch someone use them. Its such an abrupt feeling going from flat ground to 45 degrees, and it even slows your movement. I am open-minded. But, when I feel a feature provides an awkward experience, I will be inclined to be against it. I'm not going to ignore my own logic and instinct. If you told me that, and had solid reasoning behind how they were a detriment to gameplay, I'd be fine with it. I guess we just don't agree about that. Anybody can create any map, until they don't. But this sounds like a discussion deeper than level design. It's a band-aid solution, because the source of the problem is Labyrinth. Instead of addressing that, you made it connect to the coffin room in an inconvenient way so it would take more time for players to get back to it. Yes, but what a incredible map entails means something different to us. @no god anywhere This has nothing to do with me saying my opinion is better. Just that everyone's opinion is different, and that Multi should have a bit more respect for that.
I just wanna revisit this whole "awkward" design choices thing. What a stupid sentence. I applaud Multi's "awkward" geometry because it is the only thing keeping the gameplay interesting. Every single example has a functional purpose, rather than just trying to be different, and if you can't see that, you're probably not as good of a designer. I'm not trolling either. Oblivion is very easy to traverse. you can literally just cross the middle pit by jumping across. If you can't find the intricate details in the map to use to your advantage, you are either not playing it enough, or are an unimaginative player who doesn't think outside the box. The map isn't too dark to notice these things either, that's a ***** excuse. The same one people used in H2A about metal. And if that is your excuse you deserve to do bad on it. When it comes to "awkward" geometry, you can't just say it is bad cause you find it awkward. I have never found it awkward, so who is right in this scenario? The creative and unique geometry that forces players to use their brains, or the player who can't adapt to anything that isn't swaddling them in a blanket. I wish people would realize how bland Halo is right now. We need crazy geometry and concepts to keep gameplay fresh. Especially in a hitscan game. I stopped playing matchmaking more than 6 months ago, because there is just no value in it anymore. I would rather gladly wait to get a 2v2 lobby going with skilled players and play the handful of maps that stand out from the rest. Even if I can only do that once a week or longer. Now I'll be the first to admit I want H3 back in all it's glory, but even I can admit the BR was trash. If it was fixed, I would still prefer that to a hitscan pistol. Yeah the BR is easier to use than a pistol, but I don't want another hitscan Halo in my life regardless. I'm not trying to be hostile either, just saying. lol
Funny thing. Hiking in Arizona I've climbed steeper inclines than the ones on Oblivion or even Trinity. To me they weren't too crazy.
I think what's getting lost in this discussion on awkwardness is that you can't just say inherently that something is or isn't awkward. It's a personal opinion/preference. Both sides are correctly describing their experience. Both are expressing it in a way that leaves the other feel they're stating it as a fact. Awkwardness is something that's up for interpretation. Telling someone something isn't awkward doesn't change their experience of feeling it's awkward. Telling someone something is awkward won't change the fact that it doesn't feel awkward to them. Both views are correct. If either side believes the other persons view is incorrect, it's because they're not open to alternative perspectives.
I'm just going to keep this short: Who's right? Nobody, really. You could throw things in a map, and have players move around it like molasses, and some would still find enjoyment in it. Hence, the subjectivity of map design. I am only telling him my perspective. Seeing how he's creating maps for Treyarch, he's going to have to acknowledge the importance of accessibility. But, as long as his audience is himself and his friends in forge, he can make whatever he wants. This is where Career would say that a map that the general player wouldn't enjoy is a **** map, but I don't necessarily agree with that either.
Using your analogy im the one trying to express that all you can do is recognize the trends. Youre the one trying to prove that something doesnt exist. Its just unrealistic. Youre always right though. If i was a chick you'd be the egotistical bad guy id want to ****. Just saying. HMU BB
Remember when 343 didn't put forge maps in Halo MM... This is all this conversation boils down to for me. We can all agree there are much more interesting and diverse experiences in forge maps than anything 343 will ever promote though MM. Sad.
I just want to point out that largerfiend liked one of my posts. So that pretty much confirms i was wrong. Im really sorry multi, my bad bro.
Can we get some spoilers in these essays you guys are writing? My thumb is getting tired from scrolling and I'd like to be able to aim when I get home
If there's one thing I've learned from @MultiLockOn , it's to do what the player doesn't expect you to. Whether it's a ramp that cocks to the side, a path that's broken into two, or a door that isn't really a door - I've rarely looked at one of Multi's maps or a decision he made on someone else's and thought "Well, this is done for the sake of being different." Whether it's awkward or not is, as @a Chunk said, up for interpretation. Awkward is a point of view. I've looked at my maps and said the paths I created were awkward, and have had other people (good players in fact) tell me they were fine. Who was right, me the designer or the players? There isn't really any geometry on Oblivion that isn't doing something intentionally. Some paths slow the player down, others redirect them elsewhere; some walls block sightlines, others offer directional cover to keep you moving. I agree that it can feel awkward on account of being disorienting or difficult to see, but I would attribute to the ambient lighting. So let's remove lighting from the equation. If the player finds it awkward on account of it being unfamiliar or difficult to traverse, I think that's a good thing. A difference in perspective within that context is expected, and comes along with acknowledging that every map has a target audience based on how "accessible" it is to players. Treyarch is clearly adamant on appealing to their target audience , so perhaps that is why they are reluctant to introduce new things, especially after the recent backlash. (343 could take a lesson from them.) However, if the player finds it awkward on account of it not making sense, or being unnecessary, well I'd disagree with them. This obviously exists in many people's maps, but I rarely experience it in Multi's designs. I think P3 is awkward on this map. I remember when I saw it before I knew anything about Halo and I had no idea you could jump up there. It doesn't look like a walkable surface, it tilts the player at a weird angle, and it converges with the ceiling in a way that artistically doesn't make much sense to me. Yet if you change any of that, the map would probably break.
Yes, "awkward" geometry is subjective. What Multi has been trying to get at, and has been largely ignored by everyone here so far, is that ideas are only awkward until you get used to them. The perfect example is Treyarch. Their only expressed reasoning for avoiding vertically is that it is awkward, yet everyone here can agree that vertically is enormously useful for a designer and fun as hell for the player. Acting like you have learned of every useful design tool possible and that anything outside of those tools is awkward, even as something as harmless and simple as a dirt path on a slight angle, is incredibly pompous and close-minded. It's the same mistake Treyarch is making. You're just a few steps ahead. One point that really pisses me off was when you we're referring to the broken staircase on Oblivion and said that nobody had done that sort of geometry before because it was awkward. You just went from calling geometry on Oblivion objectively awkward, to your normal "WAHHHHH IT'S MY OPINION" all while discrediting Christians creativity by saying that the reason we haven't seen that in a map before is because it is objectively awkward, not because it's a new encounter. You're arguments are a jumbled mess of contradictions, and it's obvious to me that you've come to realize that as you've slowly backed out of the discussion with the cop out answer of "we just like different things". As far as the H3 ****... I don't know what to say other than anyone who has jumped through enough intellectual hoops to come to that ridiculous conclusion probably isn't worth arguing with.