Social Skirmish - First Show on TwitchTV

26 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Thu, 04/12/2012 - 17:25
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Social Skirmish - First Show on TwitchTV

CyReN posted on HBO about a new show they are starting tonight.

Hey guys, just wanted to give you guys a heads up tonight TheHaloCouncil will be launching a new show. We will be focusing on Halo news, debates, and other things from ALL perspective from casual to competitive. We are looking to make this huge and something FOR the community.

The show will air at 10pm est with U4ix, Best Man, and Cursed Lemon.

Link to stream - http://www.twitch.tv/thegamingcouncil

If you guys have any suggestions, questions, etc please leave them.

<3 CyReN

Social Skirmish is another show from The Halo Council.

Fri, 04/13/2012 - 06:58
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

From CyREN

Here's the show! Gave HBO a mention at the end.

Youtube - http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=RhZuT_BsMxk
MP3 - http://kiwi6.com/file/j41et54o77

Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:48
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

You should listen to the video for context for my opinions.

Around 6:24 they talked about excessive number of playlists and reduced map standardization through the use of FORGE.
I firmly believe this is indeed a problem. Too much variety creates lack of familiarity, increases confusion, increases lack of confidence followed by reduced enjoyment. What can really bedone about it though?
No FORGE means little to no community content.Bungie added gametypes the community asked for plus experiemented with others. Bungie tried to address the variety of communties by including theme specific playlists like Living Dead, Grifball and MLG.
If Bungie hadn't added these features then the community would have called the game backward and old school. I am confident the game would have been considered a failure.

All too often the theme of "everyone" expecting Halo 4 to be bad rings through loud and clear. This marginalizes the commentators, identifies them as the competitive minority and takes away from their credibility. I felt this was an unfortunate theme to be talking about. I was basically thinking effu guys. I really doubt "everyone" is thinking Halo 4 will be bad. In my opinion, the opposite is true. I really believe the commentators want Halo to succeed but they don't seem to understand a new successful Halo may or may not include them or their ways of thinking.

By the time 27 minutes passed I was getting quite pissed at these guys. When the commentators first started out in Halo there was no one like them to take to the Internet and crap on the product before it came out. They had the benefit of being first and learned the game without tainted fore-thought from opinionated unchangeable old geezers. Now here they are, basically in a role to influence new gamers opinions before they even get to play the game. This is an irresponsible position to take.

Wow at 32 minutes the commentators may actually like the Spartan Ops and episodic elements.
The comments on Sprint are ridiculous. In REACH perhaps the arguments have some validity but I doubt it. In Halo 4 with everyone having Sprint, everyone is equal at all times. Everyone can catch up or runaway. Perfect balance.

At 1:02 a commentator recognizes the importance of standardizing the sandbox between casual and competitive game play. I very much agree with that point of view. I'm sure his approach to standardization is not even close to mine or a casual player's approach. The only thing that should separate a lesser skilled player from the (Pros) is their skill. Nothing game related should separate them. A potential proof of this is the rather low population in the MLG playlist. It's just too different.

I stopped listening a few minutes after the composer discussion began.

I look at the cast of characters for the vidcast and I see three young men whose opinions on Halo are more cast in stone than dinosaurs are as fossils. I really recommend they wait for a completely new game, such as that from Bungie, and start afresh with no opinion to give or affect their attitude. It will be like a breath of fresh air for them and they can fall in love with a game all over again.

On a positive note, the soundtrack for the vidcast was great. :)

Fri, 04/13/2012 - 10:59 (Reply to #3)
Dixon_Tufar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2007 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

You should listen to the video for context for my opinions.

Around 6:24 they talked about excessive number of playlists and reduced map standardization through the use of FORGE.
I firmly believe this is indeed a problem. Too much variety creates lack of familiarity, increases confusion, increases lack of confidence followed by reduced enjoyment. What can really bedone about it though?
No FORGE means little to no community content.Bungie added gametypes the community asked for plus experiemented with others. Bungie tried to address the variety of communties by including theme specific playlists like Living Dead, Grifball and MLG.
If Bungie hadn't added these features then the community would have called the game backward and old school. I am confident the game would have been considered a failure.

All too often the theme of "everyone" expecting Halo 4 to be bad rings through loud and clear. This marginalizes the commentators, identifies them as the competitive minority and takes away from their credibility. I felt this was an unfortunate theme to be talking about. I was basically thinking effu guys. I really doubt "everyone" is thinking Halo 4 will be bad. In my opinion, the opposite is true. I really believe the commentators want Halo to succeed but they don't seem to understand a new successful Halo may or may not include them or their ways of thinking.

By the time 27 minutes passed I was getting quite pissed at these guys. When the commentators first started out in Halo there was no one like them to take to the Internet and crap on the product before it came out. They had the benefit of being first and learned the game without tainted fore-thought from opinionated unchangeable old geezers. Now here they are, basically in a role to influence new gamers opinions before they even get to play the game. This is an irresponsible position to take.

Wow at 32 minutes the commentators may actually like the Spartan Ops and episodic elements.
The comments on Sprint are ridiculous. In REACH perhaps the arguments have some validity but I doubt it. In Halo 4 with everyone having Sprint, everyone is equal at all times. Everyone can catch up or runaway. Perfect balance.

At 1:02 a commentator recognizes the importance of standardizing the sandbox between casual and competitive game play. I very much agree with that point of view. I'm sure his approach to standardization is not even close to mine or a casual player's approach. The only thing that should separate a lesser skilled player from the (Pros) is their skill. Nothing game related should separate them. A potential proof of this is the rather low population in the MLG playlist. It's just too different.

I stopped listening a few minutes after the composer discussion began.

I look at the cast of characters for the vidcast and I see three young men whose opinions on Halo are more cast in stone than dinosaurs are as fossils. I really recommend they wait for a completely new game, such as that from Bungie, and start afresh with no opinion to give or affect their attitude. It will be like a breath of fresh air for them and they can fall in love with a game all over again.

On a positive note, the soundtrack for the vidcast was great. :)

 

Bolding mine.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  There's a lot of hype being built up, and we're all being sucked into it in some degree, but let's just hang loose and wait for more concrete details to emerge.  We just had the first dump of information that came out.  Let's see what's speculation first, shall we?

Mon, 04/16/2012 - 06:14 (Reply to #4)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

Bolding mine.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  There's a lot of hype being built up, and we're all being sucked into it in some degree, but let's just hang loose and wait for more concrete details to emerge.  We just had the first dump of information that came out.  Let's see what's speculation first, shall we?

Yes, there is a lot of hype and a lot of don't worries being said by 343i. It was under these same conditions that I lost Clan friend lists and functionality,  dual wielding, avatar prominently displayed on the armour, my favorite avatar (Subnova) from Halo 2 days, Elites in normal MM, Brute Shots and Choppers and some stuff I am forgetting at the moment. I've been caught with my pants down a few times.

That being said, the young commentators on the show spent a good chunk of their 1:40 shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and generally being overly skeptical. One of them even said he'd only played a few games of REACH.

Yes we should have guarded expectations and not fall prey to the hype but that doesn't mean the game won't stand on its own two feet and in its own good way. If I followed these people's advice I never would have bought REACH. With all of its flaws, REACH has been an incredible ride in many positive ways and I am happier for having played it.

Mon, 04/16/2012 - 08:21 (Reply to #5)
Dixon_Tufar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2007 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

Bolding mine.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  There's a lot of hype being built up, and we're all being sucked into it in some degree, but let's just hang loose and wait for more concrete details to emerge.  We just had the first dump of information that came out.  Let's see what's speculation first, shall we?

Yes, there is a lot of hype and a lot of don't worries being said by 343i. It was under these same conditions that I lost Clan friend lists and functionality,  dual wielding, avatar prominently displayed on the armour, my favorite avatar (Subnova) from Halo 2 days, Elites in normal MM, Brute Shots and Choppers and some stuff I am forgetting at the moment. I've been caught with my pants down a few times.

That being said, the young commentators on the show spent a good chunk of their 1:40 shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and generally being overly skeptical. One of them even said he'd only played a few games of REACH.

Yes we should have guarded expectations and not fall prey to the hype but that doesn't mean the game won't stand on its own two feet and in its own good way. If I followed these people's advice I never would have bought REACH. With all of its flaws, REACH has been an incredible ride in many positive ways and I am happier for having played it.

 

Compared to Halo 2 and 3, I've barely touched Reach.  I'm right there with them.

 

Also, you were upset about vehicles in a Halo game?  Do tell.

Mon, 04/16/2012 - 10:02 (Reply to #6)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

Bolding mine.

 

Pot, meet kettle.  There's a lot of hype being built up, and we're all being sucked into it in some degree, but let's just hang loose and wait for more concrete details to emerge.  We just had the first dump of information that came out.  Let's see what's speculation first, shall we?

Yes, there is a lot of hype and a lot of don't worries being said by 343i. It was under these same conditions that I lost Clan friend lists and functionality,  dual wielding, avatar prominently displayed on the armour, my favorite avatar (Subnova) from Halo 2 days, Elites in normal MM, Brute Shots and Choppers and some stuff I am forgetting at the moment. I've been caught with my pants down a few times.

That being said, the young commentators on the show spent a good chunk of their 1:40 shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and generally being overly skeptical. One of them even said he'd only played a few games of REACH.

Yes we should have guarded expectations and not fall prey to the hype but that doesn't mean the game won't stand on its own two feet and in its own good way. If I followed these people's advice I never would have bought REACH. With all of its flaws, REACH has been an incredible ride in many positive ways and I am happier for having played it.

 

Compared to Halo 2 and 3, I've barely touched Reach.  I'm right there with them.

 

Also, you were upset about vehicles in a Halo game?  Do tell.

I liked the Brute Chopper and I miss it in REACH.

I also liked the non-missle Hornet more than the Falcon. At least you could carry an objective holder.

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 14:17
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

 

This u4iX guy has replied in the MLG post by Killa_KC, regarding his Halo 4 testing. What is interesting is what I perceive as a complete about face about Halo 4 and the whole competitive process. The impression I got from the first vidcast was they were hardcore MLG and cared more about their ideals than whether a new Halo should succeed or not.

This post seems to show he finally gets it. You need people playing the game because it has an inviting environment and not chase them away by making their initial experience a complete crash and burn.

http://forums.majorleaguegaming.com/topic/270833-halo-4-preview/page__view__findpost__p__7756188

Fri, 04/27/2012 - 18:21 (Reply to #8)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

 

This u4iX guy has replied in the MLG post by Killa_KC, regarding his Halo 4 testing. What is interesting is what I perceive as a complete about face about Halo 4 and the whole competitive process. The impression I got from the first vidcast was they were hardcore MLG and cared more about their ideals than whether a new Halo should succeed or not.

This post seems to show he finally gets it. You need people playing the game because it has an inviting environment and not chase them away by making their initial experience a complete crash and burn.

http://forums.majorleaguegaming.com/topic/270833-halo-4-preview/page__view__findpost__p__7756188

Good God!

u4iX was being called a shill within the next few pages. His balls were getting busted so hard he said he was quitting that community.

Perhaps it will be very good for Halo REACH to not be on the MLG circuit for awhile.

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 17:51
Tristan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/31/2008 - 23:00

One thing that would be helpful for both sides to think about in the casual-vs-competitive discussion is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. I completely disagree that the game should be dumbed down for noobs by adding randomness (like reticle bloom, randomized power weapon spawns, shit like that), for the sake of lessening the dominance of skilled/smart players. Name one other sport that takes that approach. Does the NBA change the hoop size to the diameter of a baby swimming pool so that beginners can make more baskets and not lose as badly against someone who works hard and practices to get good, in order that more people will play a dumbed-down version of basketball and therefore increase the NBA's fanbase? No, because that approach makes zero sense.

Should the World Chess Federation introduce some randomized position changes every 10 moves, so that I won't lose as bad against Gary Kasparov, with the justification that "a good player should be able to adapt and win in any random situation without the structure of learned patterns"? (This is 343's argument for randomized power weapon spawns.) No, because the World Chess Federation isn't run by idiots.

The idea of dumbing down the game in order to sell more copies by flattening the difference between Ogre 2 and someone who plays 2 hours / week is a fundamentally flawed approach. Not one other sport does this.

Also, other sports don't take the anti-elitist approach of saying the casual player who doesn't understand the nuanced inner workings of the game should determine the game's design, and then force experienced players to work within a poorly-thought-out design. Should the NFL call me up and ask for my ignorant input on next year's rules for football and then expect the NFL players to just deal with what is sure to be a stupid design? No, because the NFL isn't run by idiots.

A skill-matching system that actually works is the solution to this problem. Kobe Bryant should by all rights absolutely destroy me in basketball. It would be a smack in the face to his tens of thousands of hours of practice to try and dumb the game down so I have a chance of beating him. The solution isn't to change the game so everyone has a chance to win against anyone, but to make sure that Kobe Bryant plays against other people his level and I play against people my level.

Take the randomized weapon spawns. This is completely unnecessary with a skill-matching system. If 8 noobs are playing together in the  same game and have no idea where or when the weapons spawn, then they already may as well be random since nobody knows the times or locations anyway. If some moderately skilled players know the locations but not the timing, then that's still practically randomized as far as timing goes, and there's no need to make it actually random. And if 8 highly skilled players are playing together and all know the times and locations, then that opens a whole new strategic (and very stimulating) meta-game of trying to outsmart and outstrategize the other team. Randomizing the weapons will only solve a "problem" when you have highly experienced players matched against beginners (to say nothing of how a random system will wipe out an entire dimension of Halo skill and strategy, the meta-game, that is the most fun aspect once it's learned). A functioning skill matching system solves all problems.

Sat, 04/28/2012 - 21:32 (Reply to #10)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Tristan wrote:

One thing that would be helpful for both sides to think about in the casual-vs-competitive discussion is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. I completely disagree that the game should be dumbed down for noobs by adding randomness (like reticle bloom, randomized power weapon spawns, shit like that), for the sake of lessening the dominance of skilled/smart players. Name one other sport that takes that approach. Does the NBA change the hoop size to the diameter of a baby swimming pool so that beginners can make more baskets and not lose as badly against someone who works hard and practices to get good, in order that more people will play a dumbed-down version of basketball and therefore increase the NBA's fanbase? No, because that approach makes zero sense.

Should the World Chess Federation introduce some randomized position changes every 10 moves, so that I won't lose as bad against Gary Kasparov, with the justification that "a good player should be able to adapt and win in any random situation without the structure of learned patterns"? (This is 343's argument for randomized power weapon spawns.) No, because the World Chess Federation isn't run by idiots.

The idea of dumbing down the game in order to sell more copies by flattening the difference between Ogre 2 and someone who plays 2 hours / week is a fundamentally flawed approach. Not one other sport does this.

Also, other sports don't take the anti-elitist approach of saying the casual player who doesn't understand the nuanced inner workings of the game should determine the game's design, and then force experienced players to work within a poorly-thought-out design. Should the NFL call me up and ask for my ignorant input on next year's rules for football and then expect the NFL players to just deal with what is sure to be a stupid design? No, because the NFL isn't run by idiots.

A skill-matching system that actually works is the solution to this problem. Kobe Bryant should by all rights absolutely destroy me in basketball. It would be a smack in the face to his tens of thousands of hours of practice to try and dumb the game down so I have a chance of beating him. The solution isn't to change the game so everyone has a chance to win against anyone, but to make sure that Kobe Bryant plays against other people his level and I play against people my level.

Take the randomized weapon spawns. This is completely unnecessary with a skill-matching system. If 8 noobs are playing together in the  same game and have no idea where or when the weapons spawn, then they already may as well be random since nobody knows the times or locations anyway. If some moderately skilled players know the locations but not the timing, then that's still practically randomized as far as timing goes, and there's no need to make it actually random. And if 8 highly skilled players are playing together and all know the times and locations, then that opens a whole new strategic (and very stimulating) meta-game of trying to outsmart and outstrategize the other team. Randomizing the weapons will only solve a "problem" when you have highly experienced players matched against beginners (to say nothing of how a random system will wipe out an entire dimension of Halo skill and strategy, the meta-game, that is the most fun aspect once it's learned). A functioning skill matching system solves all problems.

The biggest problem is the bold-ed underlined part. It seems to be reasonably impossible to achieve this goal in unsupervised MM. Opportunism is rampant and skilled opportunists ruin everything for everybody. If a playlist is created for noobs, who do you find in there? Right, the opportunists. If you create a 1-50 ranking to keep the opportunists out they create twink tags. If a playlist is created for competitive players, it is so devoid of players it barely survives and the people who genuinely want to play in it are chased away by long wait periods.

So what is a developer to do? Their game only survives if there is population. The population only increases if people are having a good time and that time is worth something in that game. Bungie and 343i both know, unskilled players have to be given an edge and/or a reason to withstand the abuse received during their early forays. They know a huge number of players walk away after just one MM game and return to campaign and then out altogether.

Many of your examples employ standardised gameplay through most of the ranks. What should not be done is change a game's basic standards for competition. Modified standards are exactly what has been happening with MLG Halo.

Skilled players still win. If their margin of win discourages competitors from showing up to play, what is the point of being so skilled? If the games fails from lack of population, what is the point of being the best.

The following video is a very thoughtful presentation on professional gaming. Seems like a good time to drag it out.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/pro-gaming

Personally Tristan, I believe Halo 4 will be the most competitive Halo title yet while employing strategies which level the skill gap in MM in ways which will retain more new players. It has to or it will fail.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 09:32 (Reply to #11)
Dixon_Tufar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2007 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Tristan wrote:

One thing that would be helpful for both sides to think about in the casual-vs-competitive discussion is that it doesn't have to be one or the other. I completely disagree that the game should be dumbed down for noobs by adding randomness (like reticle bloom, randomized power weapon spawns, shit like that), for the sake of lessening the dominance of skilled/smart players. Name one other sport that takes that approach. Does the NBA change the hoop size to the diameter of a baby swimming pool so that beginners can make more baskets and not lose as badly against someone who works hard and practices to get good, in order that more people will play a dumbed-down version of basketball and therefore increase the NBA's fanbase? No, because that approach makes zero sense.

Should the World Chess Federation introduce some randomized position changes every 10 moves, so that I won't lose as bad against Gary Kasparov, with the justification that "a good player should be able to adapt and win in any random situation without the structure of learned patterns"? (This is 343's argument for randomized power weapon spawns.) No, because the World Chess Federation isn't run by idiots.

The idea of dumbing down the game in order to sell more copies by flattening the difference between Ogre 2 and someone who plays 2 hours / week is a fundamentally flawed approach. Not one other sport does this.

Also, other sports don't take the anti-elitist approach of saying the casual player who doesn't understand the nuanced inner workings of the game should determine the game's design, and then force experienced players to work within a poorly-thought-out design. Should the NFL call me up and ask for my ignorant input on next year's rules for football and then expect the NFL players to just deal with what is sure to be a stupid design? No, because the NFL isn't run by idiots.

A skill-matching system that actually works is the solution to this problem. Kobe Bryant should by all rights absolutely destroy me in basketball. It would be a smack in the face to his tens of thousands of hours of practice to try and dumb the game down so I have a chance of beating him. The solution isn't to change the game so everyone has a chance to win against anyone, but to make sure that Kobe Bryant plays against other people his level and I play against people my level.

Take the randomized weapon spawns. This is completely unnecessary with a skill-matching system. If 8 noobs are playing together in the  same game and have no idea where or when the weapons spawn, then they already may as well be random since nobody knows the times or locations anyway. If some moderately skilled players know the locations but not the timing, then that's still practically randomized as far as timing goes, and there's no need to make it actually random. And if 8 highly skilled players are playing together and all know the times and locations, then that opens a whole new strategic (and very stimulating) meta-game of trying to outsmart and outstrategize the other team. Randomizing the weapons will only solve a "problem" when you have highly experienced players matched against beginners (to say nothing of how a random system will wipe out an entire dimension of Halo skill and strategy, the meta-game, that is the most fun aspect once it's learned). A functioning skill matching system solves all problems.

The biggest problem is the bold-ed underlined part. It seems to be reasonably impossible to achieve this goal in unsupervised MM. Opportunism is rampant and skilled opportunists ruin everything for everybody. If a playlist is created for noobs, who do you find in there? Right, the opportunists. If you create a 1-50 ranking to keep the opportunists out they create twink tags. If a playlist is created for competitive players, it is so devoid of players it barely survives and the people who genuinely want to play in it are chased away by long wait periods.

So what is a developer to do? Their game only survives if there is population. The population only increases if people are having a good time and that time is worth something in that game. Bungie and 343i both know, unskilled players have to be given an edge and/or a reason to withstand the abuse received during their early forays. They know a huge number of players walk away after just one MM game and return to campaign and then out altogether.

Many of your examples employ standardised gameplay through most of the ranks. What should not be done is change a game's basic standards for competition. Modified standards are exactly what has been happening with MLG Halo.

Skilled players still win. If their margin of win discourages competitors from showing up to play, what is the point of being so skilled? If the games fails from lack of population, what is the point of being the best.

The following video is a very thoughtful presentation on professional gaming. Seems like a good time to drag it out.

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/pro-gaming

Personally Tristan, I believe Halo 4 will be the most competitive Halo title yet while employing strategies which level the skill gap in MM in ways which will retain more new players. It has to or it will fail.

 

We should probably define what "failure" would mean for Halo 4.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 10:11 (Reply to #12)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

We should probably define what "failure" would mean for Halo 4.

True.

For me, failure would be to not attract sustainable populations and sales which would prevent Halo 5 or 6 from being made.

Failure for the professional processes would be a lack of fan support such that Halo 4 would not be included. That all stems from a lack of population.

So I am hoping for success on both fronts since both help the other.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 10:22 (Reply to #13)
Dixon_Tufar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2007 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

We should probably define what "failure" would mean for Halo 4.

True.

For me, failure would be to not attract sustainable populations and sales which would prevent Halo 5 or 6 from being made.

Failure for the professional processes would be a lack of fan support such that Halo 4 would not be included. That all stems from a lack of population.

So I am hoping for success on both fronts since both help the other.

 

I don't think sustainable populations matter when it comes to the futures of Halo 5 and 6.  They're in it to sell massive copies of it, and they'll do that.  

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 10:55 (Reply to #14)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Dixon_Tufar wrote:

We should probably define what "failure" would mean for Halo 4.

True.

For me, failure would be to not attract sustainable populations and sales which would prevent Halo 5 or 6 from being made.

Failure for the professional processes would be a lack of fan support such that Halo 4 would not be included. That all stems from a lack of population.

So I am hoping for success on both fronts since both help the other.

 

I don't think sustainable populations matter when it comes to the futures of Halo 5 and 6.  They're in it to sell massive copies of it, and they'll do that.  

Maybe.

REACH's sales were similar to Halo 3 initially but I read hints it's not considered as successful because the total number of installed 360s were much greater for REACH than Halo 3. Total UU/24hrs was certainly less for most of its life so while it is still at 5 on the XBLive charts that is not nearly as good as Halo 3 did.

MS/343i are throwing a ton of resources into Halo 4. The intent is to garner massive sales and fans in support of what may be the first huge MS game on the NextBox. I suppose Halo 5 is a given if it is for the NextBox but if it struggles then I don't think Halo 6 is cast in stone.

It's a matter of timing, I think.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 13:57 (Reply to #15)
Tristan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/31/2008 - 23:00

DEEP_NNN wrote:

Many of your examples employ standardised gameplay through most of the ranks. What should not be done is change a game's basic standards for competition. Modified standards are exactly what has been happening with MLG Halo.

 

That's exactly my point. The World Chess Federation doesn't see a need to dumb down chess in order to grow the casual player base. The FIQ (international bowling organization) isn't making bumper lanes that are only 20 feet long the standard to attract people who can't bowl the normal way.

The problem is that Bungie (and maybe 343, we'll see) didn't understand their own game enough to see the glaring flaws. This is the equivalent of a bunch of minivan-driving soccer moms deciding that Tee Ball is more fun and accessible, and then expecting Major League Baseball to replace all their pitchers with plastic tees (and then calling anyone who disagrees an elitist).

MLG may be too closed-minded, but Bungie gets most of the blame for creating multiplayer games with so many obvious balance problems. If you want specific examples, I have a long list.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 14:20 (Reply to #16)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

Tristan wrote:

MLG may be too closed-minded, but Bungie gets most of the blame for creating multiplayer games with so many obvious balance problems. If you want specific examples, I have a long list.

Does your long list of examples include way to attract and keep casual players? That is what the issue is.

I accept your comments regarding what it takes for a game to be officially competitive. What I do not like is how the game-of-the-season has it's base traits changed such that it is essentially a different game. If the sandbox has weapons/AA/vehicles reduced in number and variety and physics/movement unchanged then it makes it much easier for more casuals to be motivated to move into competitive processes. When weapons act differently, shields are different, health is different, jump height is different, xy movement is different, that's when casuals say adios. They just had a tough row to get into a new game and then they have to re-learn it for something they may or may not be interested in. On average, they vote no the most.

Again I say, I hope the standard Halo 4 sandbox is adequate for competitive FPS requirements. If it isn't and it gets re-jigged for pros then we are right back where we are right now. Hell, even if Halo 4 has an incredible spectator mode we'll still be right where we are now because only fans of the game will watch this stuff and they want to watch what they play and not something different they don't aspire to.

Everyone has to think more players, more players. Then some kind of competitive process may work.

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 22:57 (Reply to #17)
Tristan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/31/2008 - 23:00

I agree that drastically different settings for default and competitive gametypes is bad and a roadblock to getting more viewers.

The issue is that what you're proposing is fundamentally a question of trying to "fix" the fact that good players beat bad players. That is the way games work. If they don't work like that, then what is the point of playing? That's why games are fun, is the challenge of using your brain to work within the game's parameters to outplay someone else. Ever wonder why nobody likes to just sit around flipping coins all day? Because there's no mental stimulation of thinking and figuring out how to win.

You can try to lessen the fact that good players beat bad players, which is what Bungie has tried to do over the years. They didn't like how people learned to use timers in H:CE, so they tried to "fix" this by changing the weapon spawns so that power weapons won't respawn until dropped. In doing so, they took a system that was completely fair (the weapon spawns regardless of what either team does) and promoted fluid gameplay around the map, and they replaced it with a system that guaranteed a monopoly (e.g. only one sniper rifle can be on the map at a time, like Colossus, and the only team that knowns when to look for the next one is the team that got the previous spawn and probably already has map control). It also promoted camping instead of map flow. The strategies became about getting the power weapon and setting up in a good spot where the other team can't do much. Like Zanzibar TS, where teams would get both snipers and go set up on the beach where you have to run across the open to get within BR range. No need to worry about any other part of the map since the weapons will never respawn until you drop them. This brilliant solution didn't fix anything but only promoted cheap tactics that were either boring or downright enraging, depending on if you're on the giving or receiving end.

Just look at the championship finals from one of MLG's Halo 2 events in 2005 on Colossus Flag. StK (3D / Final Boss) got the first beam rifle, and then IGS (later Carbon) couldn't even get out of their base while OGRE 1 went 24-0 with the beam rifle. By the end of the game IGS had given up and was just spinning in circles looking at the ceiling. It doesn't take an Einstein to see the problem here, but apparently it was lost on Bungie.

Here's another example: they didn't like how people spawned with a pistol on Blood Gulch in CE and could be very effective with it if you can aim and use smart positioning (in other words, they didn't like the way people who were good at the game won too much). So what was their solution for Coagulation? Spawn everyone with an SMG with an effective range of 20 feet, put a whooping two BRs per base (with enough ammo for [i]maybe[/i] 4-5 kills at typical Coagulation ranges), and then the two sniper rifles. Except instead of solving the "problem" of a better aimer winning too many fights, now the problem is even worse. WTF am I supposed to do against a BR with my SMG if the guy is more than 20 feet away, much less against a sniper? At least before you could shoot back and the only thing holding you back was your aim (which can be learned). Now you're just fucked because your SMG may as well be shooting confetti beyond 20-25 feet. Simply brilliant. Not to mention how utterly shitty the core game mechanic is of "run around with a short range spray gun, wait till you're close enough to see the texture of their armor, and then you both hold the trigger down and spam bullets until the guy with the better connection wins."

But even aside from the solution being worse than the "problem" (if you can call the better player winning a problem), why would you even want to take the game in this direction? A bad idea in small amounts is still a bad idea. You've got two ends of the spectrum here. One is a "may the best man win" paradigm, and the other is a completely randomized coin toss where anyone can win and there's no way to become good at the game because it's total chaos. One of these ends of the spectrum is clearly better than the other. If the other end is a terrible idea (and it is), then why would you want to move things in that direction at all? Randomized chaos in small amounts is still randomized chaos and a bad idea.

There's no perfect solution. Like you said, even a skill-matching system will be skewed by new accounts. But trying to remove the learnability of the game by adding more and more randomness so that smart players have fewer and fewer ways to figure out how outplay lesser players will likely create more problems than it solves (like Halo 2's weapon spawns) and is an inherently flawed concept that goes against the very purpose of any kind of game.

Everyone wants instant gratification these days. Everyone wants to be a winner without putting in the effort to become good at something, whether it's Halo or learning the piano.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 09:30 (Reply to #18)
jtgjr007's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 7 months ago
Joined: 06/21/2005 - 23:00

Tristan wrote:

I agree that drastically different settings for default and competitive gametypes is bad and a roadblock to getting more viewers.

The issue is that what you're proposing is fundamentally a question of trying to "fix" the fact that good players beat bad players. That is the way games work. If they don't work like that, then what is the point of playing? That's why games are fun, is the challenge of using your brain to work within the game's parameters to outplay someone else.

 

So why did MLG create their own "drastically different" settings in the first place and not remain content with the "challenge of using ther brains to work within the games parameters to outplay someone else?"

They decided that their way was more competitive or whatever, and now the community is more fractured as a result. All your other sport analogies break down when compared to Halo for the reasons DEEP already mentioned. It's not a fair comparison. Baseball, chess, and basketball are FUN when played by regular people. MLG Halo is not fun when played by regular people. MLG took all the fun elements out in order to make it suit their needs. MLG changed the game, all the developers are doing is trying to make both parties happy while bringing in new players.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 10:28 (Reply to #19)
DarthTabasco's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2011 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

jtgjr007 wrote:

...They decided that their way was more competitive or whatever, and now the community is more fractured as a result. All your other sport analogies break down when compared to Halo for the reasons DEEP already mentioned. It's not a fair comparison. Baseball, chess, and basketball are FUN when played by regular people. MLG Halo is not fun when played by regular people. MLG took all the fun elements out in order to make it suit their needs. MLG changed the game, all the developers are doing is trying to make both parties happy while bringing in new players.

"MLG is not fun when played by regular people". Well, that is certainly up for debate. The settings are quite fun when played in an atmosphere of similarly skilled opponents. I played in a Halo league for a few years comprised of "average" players and we had a blast. In fact, some of THE best games of Halo I've ever played in were from this league, in which we specifically played MLG maps and gametypes.

The purpose of the league was to give average players a chance to play the MLG settings with balanced teams to hopefully ensure well played matches. I avoided the MLG playlists because it was too hard to find legit games and many of my friends felt the same. We didn't avoid the MLG playlist because we didn't like the settings.

I'm speaking more toward this having happend in H3. We tried to contiue the league with Reach, but it just wasn't the same and people lost interest.

You have to compare apples to apples. When you say a sport is fun when played by "regular people", this is only accurate if regular people are playing against regular people.

How much fun would a high school basketball team have against an NBA team?

Trust me, "regular people" can and do enjoy playing MLG.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 10:50 (Reply to #20)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DarthTabasco wrote:

Trust me, "regular people" can and do enjoy playing MLG.

I've played MLG settings a few times and it was okay. I liked it, though much of the theory behind it was lost on me. What I didn't like was the switching gears to the different speeds and jump heights etc. Since my interest in it was minimal I had to just cross it off my to do list. The REACH TU came along and muddied the waters even worse. So the end result is MM has lost what little appeal it had for me in the first place. I really struggle to keep it in my head how I have to play differently with the TU and MLG. I don't have as much problem switching to vanilla SWAT as I do TU and MLG.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 11:06 (Reply to #21)
DarthTabasco's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 years 9 months ago
Joined: 10/09/2011 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

DEEP_NNN wrote:

DarthTabasco wrote:

Trust me, "regular people" can and do enjoy playing MLG.

I've played MLG settings a few times and it was okay. I liked it, though much of the theory behind it was lost on me. What I didn't like was the switching gears to the different speeds and jump heights etc. Since my interest in it was minimal I had to just cross it off my to do list. The REACH TU came along and muddied the waters even worse. So the end result is MM has lost what little appeal it had for me in the first place. I really struggle to keep it in my head how I have to play differently with the TU and MLG. I don't have as much problem switching to vanilla SWAT as I do TU and MLG.

Well, I wasn't trying to imply everybody should love MLG. I have played very few MLG MM games in Reach but I do enjoy the current settings.

Plus, you have to figure if your attitude is to "cross it off my list", then perhaps you may not be as open to having fun with the settings...lol

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 18:05
LegendcalledJim's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 9 months ago
Joined: 02/13/2009 - 23:00

It always amazes me how developers really have no idea how to make a good multiplayer game.  Reach was released with so many obvious problems. Reach was play tested right? Or was it just a big circle jerk. H2 and H3 had problems and some where never fixed, but in the end the core gameplay was really good for competitive and casual alike.

 

I have high hopes for H4, but Frankie did scare the shit out of me with the random droppod shit and makes me wander if they learned anything from Reach.

 

Also whats makes a casual or competitive gamer. If you play multiplayer doesn't that make you competitive. Sure some are really competitive and others just try to get by, but don't we all want to win. Losing sucks for everyone.

 

 

Sun, 04/29/2012 - 18:24 (Reply to #23)
DEEP_NNN's picture
Offline
Last seen: 2 years 10 months ago
Joined: 07/03/2005 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

LegendcalledJim wrote:

It always amazes me how developers really have no idea how to make a good multiplayer game.  Reach was released with so many obvious problems. Reach was play tested right? Or was it just a big circle jerk. H2 and H3 had problems and some where never fixed, but in the end the core gameplay was really good for competitive and casual alike.

 

I have high hopes for H4, but Frankie did scare the shit out of me with the random droppod shit and makes me wander if they learned anything from Reach.

 

Also whats makes a casual or competitive gamer. If you play multiplayer doesn't that make you competitive. Sure some are really competitive and others just try to get by, but don't we all want to win. Losing sucks for everyone.

 

 

Casual is a loose term and not well defined. Same pretty much goes for competitive. I tend to think of casuals as people who like to play the game the way it comes out of the box and spends more time in the playlists which are less demanding of them as an individual. They also tend to be in customs if they have friends. They like the less serious games like Rocket Hog etc.

Seriously competitive players tend to play as a team and partake of tournaments where they can. They do not like the sillier games. They also seem to care more about their level/rank/status that is a result of their efforts.

Everyone wants to win but casuals tend to care less when they don't win.

Inexperienced players are undefined competitively. They are easily influenced by how good or how poorly they do. These players are the fuel for a game's longevity. Developers have got to do a better job at keeping these people playing.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 10:25
Tristan's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 6 months ago
Joined: 08/31/2008 - 23:00

It doesn't have to be one or the other. Halo: CE was fun for people of all different skill levels (if it wasn't, Halo 2 would never have even been made). It also happened to work extremely well from a competitive standpoint. I agree that MLG goes too overboard with stripping everything out, but that doesn't mean that every gimmick Bungie puts in the game will work for high-level play. Default Halo has had a lot of problems that would break the game for high level play because Bungie didn't think things through. In other words some things needed to be stripped down, others could have been left in.

I don't play Starcraft 2, but from what I understand it's a game that manages to be both fun and highly competitive at the same time. Lesser players have lots of fun with it, and it also rewards skill and smarts and is on the "may the best man win" end of the spectrum. And because the developers designed the game well, you don't have to take out a bunch of bad ideas to make the game appropriate for playing when lots of money is on the line, so there is only one version of Starcraft 2, not a casual and competitive version. I'm not sure how they deal with the "problem" of good players beating bad players.

Mon, 04/30/2012 - 22:10
Dixon_Tufar's picture
Offline
Last seen: 8 years 3 months ago
Joined: 12/15/2007 - 23:00
Currently Playing: 

True story.  If compromise is at the heart of this, you're not exactly budging on this.  Vanilla Halo 4 (as we know Halo now) will never be competitive Halo (unless you want to call it MLG).  

Join our Universe

Connect with 2o2p