That would depend on why the match is so slow now wouldn't it. Lockout is slow yet everyone knows where every other enemy player essentially is at all times. You're just unable to push effectively or do anything about it; that's stupid. If it's slow because the two players don't know where each other are, that's also stupid. As someone mentioned earlier it's worth noting the difference between hunting and searching. Because then it comes down to luck of the draw as to who maintains a visual first by some chance. If it's slower through your exact reasoning, "long term gameplay formulation", then why can it not be long term gameplay formulation but fast? You're just giving breather room for no reason. Ever heard of speed chess? Chess tournaments aren't ever played without a timer for a reason; someone who's allowed to sit there and ponder out every indefinable scenario for several minutes isn't a brilliant player, they're just cautious. Someone who can see those same outcomes in only a moment and react accordingly, is the much smarter player. Same principle here (and the only other notable 1v1 fps ever made - Quake). Not to mention with any given passage of time the odds of knowing where an enemy player is standing are ever decreasing. If we 1v1'd on lockout and you lost visual of me for half an hour you wouldn't come screaming "it's the long term plan I see it! " Because for the record, there is no such thing as long term gameplay in a 1v1. You could play this card in larger player counts because there's a margin of difficulty towards migrating your entire team to one area while fending off the other players, but in a 1v1 what's the long term goal? You kill someone and then take their spot and that's it, they could be on a 15 kill hot steak and 1 death would wipe that slate clean because as of that moment, you're standing exactly where they stood doing exactly what they were doing. Unless you're going to design some progressively linear map that continues to change as one player gets kills, and then resets back for the other player after getting a kill (which would require a brilliant spawn system and an even more brilliant design), this long term gameplay literally does not exist in Halo 1v1s. This isn't quake with stacking health and shields and weapon limits high enough to support that. The ONLY way in which a long term plan in a Halo 1v1 should ever exist is if there were a set schedule of power weapons set to only spawn one time each as the match progressed and you fancied one of the weapons near the end of the list. But not only would that be easily abused but highly snowbally. Aka stupid. And remarkably shallow to the point where I don't even know why someone would feel that passionately about it. Once more, I'm not advocating for endless combat (even though I do prefer that), you can have geometry geared towards means outside of combat purpose. But that usually comes down to out maneuvering to other player which shouldn't ever be time restricted for the sake of it because it will always be more difficult to play under pressure. That should be rewarded. Halo doesn't have the mechanics for a 1v1 game anywhere outside of the "mid paced" to "octagon" time frame so why not build something that actually fits the mechanics that already play well in this sandbox. It's inherently more twitchy and there's nothing wrong with that, because Halo as a franchise has ALWAYS rewarded mechanical skill over mental skill, every single match you play is a testament to this. This game will always prioritize 1st: technical skill 2nd: short term execution, ..And THEN whatever other mentalities you're hoping for. That isn't going to change unless you fundamentally change a lot of gameplay settings.
Just curious aChunk or Multi, have either of you played the 1v1 map in discussion? I haven't personally, was just curious. Bigger than average scaling doesn't always correlate to slower gameplay. IMO, line of sight/segmentation and linearity play a much bigger role in H5 as you can move quite fast in this game compared to others. I think for most people the distastefulness of over scaled maps in H5 stems from most peoples dislike of non RR range battles. For me, I enjoy 1v1 gameplay where the players are always mentally engaged with eachother, be it thru movement or gun battles. The amount of kills are less important to me with this player count. I'm gonna finish my map "Swag Crow" from H2a to prove how constant mental engagement can be just as fun as constant RR range engagements. A good rule of thumb is that the larger your map gets in 1v1 the more open it should be. I'm a H2 kid and MLG 1v1 settings used Radar. This is AIDS to most people but I personally enjoy both 1v1 with radar and without. Its a totally differing mentality and each has its own set of Meta. Truth is, some people honestly enjoy extremely standoffish gameplay and others don't. So aChunk design for the gameplay you prefer as its just a forge map and likely won't be getting used by a vast amount of people.
I think it's worth noting the line at which mechanical skill becomes overbearing, and Halo 5 is a perfect example of that, in which the team with superior accuracy usually wins. A mixture of both reaction and stratagem are required to make a great competitive FPS experience, but there's really no way to prove which is more important. Let's take Halo 1 for example. While the pistol battles in CE are crucial, I think a lot of people would agree with me in saying that movement prediction, pickup control, and grenade usage are combined more important than the reactionary skill set. Does this prove that strategy trumps reaction? No, but it proves that this is mostly subjective, and that any given FPS will lean towards one side depending on the games core pillars and map design.
Nah, I haven't played the map. On my end it's just a hypothetical/conceptual discussion. That part of your post I just quoted above...that's almost word for word what I said to Chronmeister a few days ago when I was talking about what's important to me in a 1v1. The Slow paced tactical game comment is easy to blow out of proportion, and will be interpreted different ways by different people. To me, your quote above describes the characteristics of a well paced 1v1. However, mental engagement and player interaction don't always equate to kills. When that's the case, some people would consider that slow paced. I would not. That's the only reason I've been engaging in this discussion...to try to point out the differences in perspective surrounding descriptions of pacing.
Anyone willing to test out a new Map/Gametype based on 1v1/2v2's later on this evening? It's soon to be published and it needs a few more community playtests before posting it.
nope, the discussion is all hypothetical. I'm sure chunks map plays fine honestly. It's not a fulcrum where you lose one thing and gain another. Halo has absolutely lost both mechanical and mental skill over the years. I'm just saying the concept of long term planning in Halo 1v1s is ridiculous. Halo has never been a game that promotes that kind of thinking and it never will be unless major changes can be made. This definition of your preferred 1v1 pacing works perfectly for me. The Lockout 1v1s that everyone loves are retarded.
I refused to do lockout 1v1s in H2. I didn't mind guardian 1v1s in H3 tho. In H2 It was sanc, warlock or midship for me.
Long term formulation implies thinking ahead, multiple steps in advanced. Now this is subject to change depending on the context, longterm formulation in chess is very different than that of an fps game like halo. So a 1v1 for example it would sound like this... I just lost the lead and os is coming up in 30, snipe is up and my enemy has shown through repitition that he will probably have it by the time i spawn, setting up for os. I could play it safe and sneakily grab the brute rifle bottom mid and try to get in close. Although i lost count of camo i know it was grabbed sometime after os, so i can assume again through repetition the enemy with snipe/os will have a LOS on camo to try and bait me. Now i have a probable estimate of his location i can work my way behind him without revealing my status, while he is tunnel vision focused on camo This was all within the context of chunks map. You can't get away with these kind of plays with a map/game encouraging constant pressure. Wether or not you like this style of play or not isn't the point. There is an entire grey area in between the extreme examples you gave, all fullfilling different tastes. The more pressure being applied reduces ones ability to think ahead. Being forced to make quick judgments, will always reduce ones decition making potential. It will just make it more flashy and exciting if he succeeds. Which can give a spectator the impression he is a genius. If you want to use extreme examples of players having unlimited time to make decitions i could flip it back on you and say try playing quake/ halo at 10x speed. By your logic that would mean the skill gap only goes up the more pressure and falability of the players rational thinking there is at hand. Now this obviously isn't the case, at a certain point it can get rediculous no matter which extreme you side with. There is always a balence to be struck
I enjoy moderately paced gameplay. That's why I've always enjoyed 2v2. You can choose how to play the game more accurately than 4v4 or anything higher. I liked being able to slow gameplay down at my own choosing, either to set up from a loss, or calm down from a push. 1v1s on the other hand are different. Why on earth would you want a slow 1v1? 2v2s involve mentally calculating for 2 players, but in 1v1s, you only focus on 1 player, so why would it be slow? They are your only objective, so you should be actively seeking them out. For doubles I like to seperate the two players, and individually hunt them. That usually involves slowing gameplay down a bit. Not to what most people imagine either. Every idiot nowadays thinks you have to be sprinting and slide boosting because it's fast gameplay, but it's nothing if the sort. It's actually slower gameplay, but faster movement times. Gimme a break. H2 midship will play 1000 times faster than Truth could ever play, because it was compact and efficient. Truth is the Grand Canyon, that you never want to be anywhere low. HONESTLY, WHY DOES EVERYTHING BAD ABOUT HALO REVOLVE BACK TO SPRINTING AND ADDED MECHANICS
In what way was the example you provided "long term thinking". You're literally figuring out how to survive your current life and would involves a weapon that comes up within the following 30 seconds. How is any of that reasoning long term? What would short term thinking entail, thrusting in a gun fight? Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing more short term then figuring out what to do when the very next weapon spawns. At most you could be thinking about the next life and choose to forfeit a gunfight in order to spawn on the opposite end of the map to retrieve something but that's quite literally thinking 1 life in advance. That's as far as mental strategy in a 1v1 will ever go in Halo because power weapon cycles are cyclical. Seriously give me an example of you thinking 2 lives forward, better yet give me a convincing example of forethought of what you're going to be doing in a match the very next spawn. You can't because that's fundamentally not how Halo works. How can you possibly compare planning in advance in a game like chess where players set up a piece 15 turns prior for a trap, or Quake when a player forfeits an armor to grab a rocket to rocket jump to a mega health to get lightning gun ammo to regain map control to get the golden key. There's no example you could ever come up with in Halo that will ever require thinking this far in advance because all that matters in winning the current fight, or grabbing the next set of weapons, or in extremely rare circumstances in CE the weapon set AFTER the current. In fact the very example you provided could quite literally be primal instincts for anyone in that situation. And yes, if everything was played at 10x speed it would be 10x harder, I don't understand what kind of logistical corner you were hoping to back me in with that reasoning but that's the exact point I'm getting at. What's more difficult, making an educated chess move within 1 minute or 10 seconds? How about deciding between the upcoming OS and Camo on Optic Prison with 3 minutes of down time instead of 30 seconds? Making educated decisions with elongated periods of time is easy. Doing it under pressure is hard, and emphasizes technical skill. Like I've already said, this isn't a fulcrum where you lose one thing and gain another. You're quite literally advocating for dumbing things down by slowing them down and gaining nothing in return except perhaps appealing to the lowest common denominator of players. Your reasoning is so off basis now I don't know what to tell you.
It's almost like you guys are describing the same thing, but using different (I would even say completely opposite) terminology. Which is exactly the point I've been trying to make for the last day, lol. I guess I should just give up.
If that were true then we wouldn't have been able to respond to one another with actual disagreements.
He started talking about long term thinking. You said there's no such thing as long term thinking in Halo 1v1's. He described an example of what he considers long term thinking in Halo 1v1's. You disagreed that what he described was 'long term thinking'. To me, you've been arguing over terms, because you each have a different idea of what those terms mean in this context. You even said as much in your previous post: "In what way was the example you provided "long term thinking". You're literally figuring out how to survive your current lifeand would involves a weapon that comes up within the following 30 seconds. How is any of that reasoning long term? What would short term thinking entail, thrusting in a gun fight? Don't be ridiculous. There's nothing more short term then figuring out what to do when the very next weapon spawns." If he had described it as short term thinking you would've agreed with him, which means that you're disagreeing about the terminology. Disregard the terms you're each using when describing gameplay scenarios, and I think you're actually agreeing with each other.
I'd be inclined to agree with you if the original comments on the matter weren't clear. "Slow gameplay is tactical and promotes long term thinking." No real way to misinterpret that, I think he just got confused along the way and scattered for anecdotal examples to fit his need.