Look into my soul! I like to just sit (crouching) on a corpse until it's resurrected owner returns to attempt to exact revenge. Usually after a glorious shank, and usually because they teabagged me (or my team) after a thoroughly unimpressive kill (or while they're down by 20).
I only teabag people that I killed while they were teabaging one of my teammates. Its usually just a quick couple drops. Unless I'm playing against Nutduster. Then its one long crouch and slowing move up and down his corpse. What do you make of that O wise one?
But I don't think you've ever actually killed me. Scanning memory... hmmm... maybe you teabagged me a time or two after Overdoziz killed me? I wouldn't be too proud of that, if I were you. Back to topic: uh, Halo 4. Who has pre-ordered, and who specifically went with the limited edition? I'm contemplating it, but it's so expensive.
Maybe twice. And definitely after OD killed you. I'm not proud. But I enjoyed every second! I pre-ordered the regular version. Because I'm a cheap bastard.
Lol, sorry dude. I think I'm gonna preorder the Collector's Edition tbh, though I never have for any past Halo game. I really like the DLC add in thing and past that you're paying like 7 quid for all the other trinkets which is fine by me. Even then, that's assuming on 800MSP DLCs, which I seriously hope 343 keep going with. Is there any indication to the contrary right now? Either way, I get that lots of people are dubious about shelling out for as yet unseen DLC, but I gotta be honest, I'm gonna buy them anyway. I've bought every single DLC so far because it's new and shiny, and by the time people decide whether they're good or not is way too long for me to wait, and you generally miss the rush on the new playlists by that point anyway. In this sense I'm a total sap, but I might as well admit that now and jump on the preorder bandwagon.
I feel the same way. I mean, in theory I would like to wait and see how much I like the game and if the DLC looks like it's "worth it," but in actuality I've played every single Halo game for its entire lifespan and bought every single piece of DLC. So really... who am I kidding? I don't really care much about the extras, but like you say, the additional price you're paying for them is pretty low.
I pre ordered the Limited Collecters Edition... because i feel like 343 might actually give us maps to forge on in some DLC.. and i want the map packs.. I would get the Halo 4 Xbox, but i already have the reach xbox, which i love because its silver and doesnt leave fingerprints.
It's MS..I doubt very highly that they'd ever release a 3 map mappack for anything less than 800. If anything, they'll up it to 1200 in an attempt to punish/make more money off the people who didn't buy the LE.
343 Industries vs Community - Halo 4 Gameplay at Comic-Con - Part I - YouTube Haven't seen this posted, apologies if it has been. Honestly I agree with the initial discussion insofar as Thruster and Pro Vision (I get cookies if that sticks) still look like the only worthwhile AAs, Hardlight and Holo have always looked meh. That gameplay looked great to me, because the versatility of Thruster as a permanent movement option could well do enough to offset the power of Pro Vision and make the choice between the two an interesting dynamic within the game. Seeing that Thruster strafe chucked in to a battle was pretty cool. Choosing between drastically increased awareness ability and a serious boost to movement options sounds like the kind of back and forth which fits right in to the main division of Halo player approaches (a focus on smarts and decision making vs. a focus on aggressive approaches and twitch reactions). Idk, I still don't see MLG getting too enthusiastic about either (though Thruster seems like it'd be more MLG friendly), but I have high hopes for the dynamic between those two AAs in high level vanilla play/ranked/whatever they have. EDIT: chrs, I worry about that as well. I agree that there's no possibility of them going below 800, but could they really get away with 1200? Don't even the CoD map packs give 5 maps for that price?
They would even put in crappy new features that represent a line of code if it meant justifying the raising of the 800 price to 1200.
If you think about it, if MLG picked this up, I think it would play well. lets say you have 4 players on red team, then you have the choice of Thruster, Pro Vision, Hardlight Shield. CTF on The Pit (Halo 4 style of course) but you have two people pick Thruster one have hardlight and the other Pro vision. 1 minute left in the game red team gets a hand on the flag. hardlight guy goes with the flag guy through the orange hallway, while the thruster pack guys along with the hardlight shield peeps defend off blue team and red wins the game. Thats honestly what i think MLG would be like if they picked up Halo 4. I think it would take a ton more stratgey and I personally would be more intersted if they picked it up and played it like this.
I think it all hinges on how Thruster works at high level play. On the one hand, it looks to be a smaller distance jump than Evade, and with Sprint being a given regardless of AA its place as a general movement aid will be diminished compared to Evade. On the other, it looks potentially useful for in-battle situations, and considering you can shoot whilst boosting it regains some value as a chasing mechanism/sprint counter. If it's useful enough to become integrated in to the movement meta game without being dominant (and doesn't get shot down by the anti change lobby at MLG) then it can sit as the inherent sacrifice required to gain awareness with Pro Vision. It'll be a careful balance, and other as yet undiscovered issues may arise from the dynamic they create together. But if it goes well then you could be right that it'd be worth one, maybe two team mates picking it to round out the team's capabilities.
Eh, I still like my same starts in Halo. I don't think it would be more strategy, just a differnt kind of strategy, more akin to teamwork and coordination in something like competitive TF2 or Tribes. Different people pick different classes to work better as a team. That's neat and all, but...there are other games for that. I like how Halo has had it different. Once again, if these were pickups or something, I think it would be really cool. I don't like the spawn choice. I suppose if they forced only one of each ability it would be pretty neat and still same starts per team, which I could tolerate well enough. I don't want to sound opposed to any changes. I just don't like changes to core principles I think of as synonymous with Halo now, like same starts. Pickups are cool, or everyone starts with the same AA but can earn others would be cool. I'd prefer if MLG did something like that. Thrusters are a combat/movement advantage and I'd like to see competition over this advantage and others like ProVision, which I see being an ability that could be hotly contested if it were a pickup. I think that would be interesting; make more significant pickup advantages and not just weapon advantages to spice up gameplay.
I believe it does add a layer of strategy. Armor abilities in Reach add a layer of strategy, in fact. That doesn't mean it's good for gameplay necessarily, however. I've thought for a long time that one thing that makes a sport or game work for competitive play is a certain beautiful simplicity, where the core of the game is basic but contained within that limited sphere is a huge amount of tiny variations in strategy that make it also complex. Halo is enduringly popular because of the original game, which was a wonderful example of what I'm talking about: two weapon slots to be filled by a couple of only eight weapons; two types of grenades; jump, shoot, melee, and 'nade each other. As a shooter game it's stripped down, yet the weapons all have their uses and the map designs for the most part encourage shifting strategies and fluid approaches to the game. Similarly, a sub-game like Capture the Flag, within the realm of Halo as a larger whole, is beautifully simple as well: two flags, steal the other team's while defending yours. Yet anyone who has ever played Halo CTF on a well-made objective map will wax rhapsodic about playing game after game, on the same map, because the game was so different every time. Basketball is a great game for the same reason: five guys to a side try to put the ball in the hole. There are other rules (more and more nowadays as the NBA tries to keep the scores high and the game fast) but at its core, it's not a complicated game - there's just one ball, there aren't ten different types of shots that all score different amounts of points, etc. (Football is a rare example I can think of where a game lost its beautiful simplicity and actually got better as a result, but in the process it lost its "anyone can play" appeal - backyard football barely resembles the sport played at the pro or collegiate level.) I also try to think this way when coming up with minigame ideas. They're already different from the main gameplay of Halo, so players are initially lost; you have to make it user-friendly for them to even understand and want to play it, yet it has to have enough complexity of strategy within itself to keep bringing people back to try to master the subtleties. Getting back to Reach and H4 though - I think armor abilities and such do add more strategy, but they may not make the game better; they may just make it more complicated, to a degree that is less fun. I'm sure we've all experienced situations in Reach where you're fighting a guy who goes into armor lock, and someone is nearby in camo (screwing up your radar) without you knowing if they're an enemy or ally, and bullets and grenades are flying in from... wherever, and a teammate is jet packing above you waiting to steal the armor lock kill, and somebody starts shooting HIM... etc. Those situations are pure chaos. I don't know that it benefits the game that decisions that are THAT complicated come up so often. It remains to be seen how H4 will compare - I'm certainly open to the experience (and have played a ton of Reach as well). But I understand why a competitive-minded group like MLG would reject all these options.
I agree wholeheartedly about the simplicity aspect that was most present in CE. If a game doesn't try to account for every situation and approach with a different weapon, ability or mechanic, and is designed right, then it can play itself and the variety comes from how the player reacts in the moment rather than from the number of situations, strategies and counters that the devs can think up. I think this is the core of what I'm hoping, in that choice between these two AAs has more potential to create an expanded yet not chaotic meta game. I'd like to reiterate that this is a hope, and when it comes to situations which revolve around the finer parts of balance then I have much more time for the "wait and see" camp in response to both positive and negative assertions. As for how it impacts upon the even playing field, this will all come down to how MLG seek to deal with loadouts at large. If there's a weapon choice nature to loadouts then you're making moves towards player specialisation, even if not such a strategically focused way as how AAs impact upon players' approaches and roles. Idk, I want to see it tried. There's a good chance it'll end up just like those who were (very briefly) obsessed with evade starts when Reach released, and we'll realise that these options aren't balanced right to include in tandem, or even perhaps in isolation. Interesting potential, though.
As far as AAs in MLG, if you could disable AAs by default in the game type, but enable them with CP you could effectively make a player's tactical choice of AAs a map pickup or personal ordnance. Actually, that might work nicely for Reach..