Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
If you combine the life pool with Halo 5's ability to revive downed team members, the only people who deserve angry screams are the ones who aren't team players (then again, this is the internet we're talking about here...it's never about what's deserved). Thankfully, Halo: Reach plays great on the Xbone (glad to see that it was fixed and that the performance issues from the initial BC release were ironed out).
It really wouldn't be a solution for that reason. Especially given how likely people would be to revive others (basically, just as likely as they would be in ODST, "Fuck you noob,") even before you consider how insanely dangerous reviving anyone would be.
It's too bad, because otherwise it'd be a good idea, and would make for an interesting mini-Firefight mode. In full scale game, it'd just be an excuse to shit on players not as good as you, just like it was in ODST and Reach.
I don't miss those days.
Then they have nobody to blame for failing the Firefight but themselves. But, then again, I refuse to play with shitlords (which means I don't play random matchmaking) and stick with playing with friends (or, if nobody is online for me to play with, I'll just play solo)...so my perspective on personal accountability may be a bit skewed.
It's hard to encourage revivals when you're basically gambling with the sacred life pool. Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're done two lives instead of one?
That was the least fun part of Invasion and Firefight, constantly having that unfun goblin hanging over your back. Being responsible for all those efforts going to shit because you tried to contribute and got headshot three times in a row by different jackals with beam rifles.
Of course, I'm approaching this as someone who mains Mercy in Overwatch.
See, I view it from the flip side: "Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're down zero lives instead of one?" Personally, while I haven't had the misfortune of being headshot by beam rifled jackals over and over again, grav hammer brutes were my bane...but I would always make up for it by getting through the round and reclaim lives at the round's end.
And, while I love playing Mercy, I'm coming at this scenario from the perspective of playing Assault (medkits and defib paddles) in Battlefield and from playing 10 hours or so of CoD: Black Ops 3 campaign in co-op (where you can revive your partner(s)).
Both games where you're not drawing from a life pool (and from very good reason). Revivals are an appreciated gesture from a friend in singleplayer--in multiplayer, they sound a lot more like a desperate effort to break even (so at least you revived the attack and only one of you were killed in the process), while moving a player's focus from the targets to the support role.
You should revisit Battlefield if you think that: Battlefield is 100% life pool (which is why revives can actually sway the results in a match).
Sorry--I was distinguishing between a ticket pool (which is altered by other things, typically much more strongly, then player deaths, particularly territory captures and point events) and a strict life pool.
My own experience is Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. Where player deaths (and revives) can make a difference, but are far less determinate than which team holds victory areas for the longest, to the point where high-casualty suicide offenses are acceptable and preferred. I remember that being very different than the life pools in Reach and ODST.
Heh...I think for 80%-90% of my Battlefield matches are determined by flag caps. That other 10%-20%, though, has been swayed by a team denying ticket drain due to respawns. But, with Firefight, like I said, I stick to playing with RL friends and avoid playing with the random matchmaking crowd (which is why I also said at the beginning of this to allow a customizable range of players in Firefight from 1-8 instead of a hard 8 where matchmaker fills the empty spaces).
As I said, I could see it working as a sub-game mode for Warzone Firefight ("Firefight Mini", "Firefight with Revives"), with a smaller team and much, much fewer enemies per wave.
As actual Warzone Firefight, it sounds terrible and conjures up bad memories.
Compromise (by just changing up the name): split it into Warzone Firefight and Firefight Classic. As I stated way back when, Firefight was the only multiplayer mode I played in Reach (which, by the way, was the first Halo game since Halo: Combat Evolved I put any amount of time into...and much of that was because of Firefight)...and I would absolutely love to play Firefight using the Halo 5 systems (I keep trying to ADS in Reach and I just keep on wasting my precious grenades).
EDIT - but with WZ Firefight? I played a handful of rounds and came away just annoyed and generally pissed off with the mode. Definitely not going to be putting any more time into it.
I have already had far more fun with Warzone Firefight than any Firefight mode in Reach (and possibly even ODST, but ODST's Firefight was much better than Reach's to me personally). I pretty much realized that finishing the beta, and was not disappointed.
I should add, I would be completely onboard, right now, adding revives to Warzone Firefight (for a 50 or 100 point reward to the reviver, and the change noted on the downed player's stats and bypass respawn), rewarding altruistic players, etc. Just keep the lives pool out of it.
The funny thing is that I feel that the respawn timer, as it stands, is more punitive than the life pool. I mean, when there's a total of 5 minutes per round, and your respawn timer has you sitting out of the round for 30 seconds at a time (and not contributing anything to the team while waiting), that's going to be a bit more frustrating than losing a life or two from the pool (incidentally, being removed from the game for 30 seconds or so per death is infuriating enough for me that it's also the reason why I don't play DotA2).
I couldn't feel more differently--since, after all, you have no baring on other people's timer. That's a major reason why life pools are so awful.
It could absolutely use adjustment though.
Except for, y'know...removing a person from an 8-person team from the game for 30 or so seconds. Basically, you're talking about a 30 second power-play which can be compounded by the next guy who dies (because you're not a full team anymore).
Except for, y'know....dying in previous fire fight also removes you for a period of time (and I'm open to adjustment). And potentially removes another player permanently by consuming a life.
In either scenario you're not going to have a full team for some length of time (and that should absolutely use adjustment). Life pools are making it a team resource, which would be a terrible experience in quick-match Halo. Restarting an ODST Firefight because you know you don't have enough lives to get through to the wave you want to reach wasn't fun to me--I'd much rather take each wave, as it comes, with its own separate chances of success or failure. Personally, waiting through a longer respawn timer because I died beats not getting to respawn because someone else died--and I was so glad they didn't go that way during the beta.
Make it a sub-mode. Keep it far, far away from the current Warzone Firefight.
A couple of hypotheticals, pick through them as you will:
1) What if instead of every round raising the respawn time for everyone uniformly, instead it just raises the max respawn time and each player's cooldown time is dictated by how many times they've died during that round. For example, say the base rate in round 1 is 5 seconds increasing 3 seconds with each death to a cap of 10 seconds. This means your first death is 5 seconds long, the second is 8, and all further deaths are 10 seconds. Then when round 2 starts, you remain at your current respawn cooldown while the cap increases to 15 seconds so if you capped out that's 10, 13, 15 but if you didn't it's 8, 11, 14, 15. This would mean at the very least the first few deaths in a round aren't as punitive as they are now and at best if you're able to remain alive through an entire round you've got a leg up on the next round.
2) What if there was an armor mod (permanent) and/or power (consumable) that enabled you to revive teammates, assuming there was some appreciable compromise as part of taking it to balance it?
A couple of hypotheticals, pick through them as you will:
1) What if instead of every round raising the respawn time for everyone uniformly, instead it just raises the max respawn time and each player's cooldown time is dictated by how many times they've died during that round. For example, say the base rate in round 1 is 5 seconds increasing 3 seconds with each death to a cap of 10 seconds. This means your first death is 5 seconds long, the second is 8, and all further deaths are 10 seconds. Then when round 2 starts, you remain at your current respawn cooldown while the cap increases to 15 seconds so if you capped out that's 10, 13, 15 but if you didn't it's 8, 11, 14, 15. This would mean at the very least the first few deaths in a round aren't as punitive as they are now and at best if you're able to remain alive through an entire round you've got a leg up on the next round.
2) What if there was an armor mod (permanent) and/or power (consumable) that enabled you to revive teammates, assuming there was some appreciable compromise as part of taking it to balance it?
Point one I could potentially be behind--obviously, the last thing you want is, for example, one persons death to extend everyone's respawn time (or for that matter, any other person's respawn time, like in a staggered system). Invariably you run into the problem of discouraging people who die a lot rather than giving them an opportunity to improve (as they'd have fewers), but there's potentially a balance that could be made. I very much like the idea of a hard cap, but even wonder if what you've described is "too forgiving" (or is it insufficiently so?).
Point two is particularly fascinating for me, since if you check my BF3 profile, a good 90% of my time is assault with defib pack. That's past "specialization" towards "crippling". I'd be worried about the potential backlash of adding a proper reviving weapon or item in Halo, even after a few different support items exist (bringing back bubble shields and regen fields)--that's why I'd advocate adding singleplayer revivals just as a way for a passerby or a partner following you to revive you in the event of an accidental (for example, hit by a friendly vehicle) death rather than a overwhelming combat one, in return for points and a minor medal for their trouble. People freaked out about mantling and aiming down the sights (without actual accuracy increase) being introduced in Halo 5, and that's a radical multiplayer change as well. But that doesn't mean it's a bad one.
That being said, I'd want to avoid "classes" and simply make it an item or equipment. For example, depriving a player of carrying a second weapon, rather than forcing them into a class of weapons that are the ones "medics can carry." So I think you'd be on the right track, once the compromise was figured out.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
If you combine the life pool with Halo 5's ability to revive downed team members, the only people who deserve angry screams are the ones who aren't team players (then again, this is the internet we're talking about here...it's never about what's deserved). Thankfully, Halo: Reach plays great on the Xbone (glad to see that it was fixed and that the performance issues from the initial BC release were ironed out).
It really wouldn't be a solution for that reason. Especially given how likely people would be to revive others (basically, just as likely as they would be in ODST, "Fuck you noob,") even before you consider how insanely dangerous reviving anyone would be.
It's too bad, because otherwise it'd be a good idea, and would make for an interesting mini-Firefight mode. In full scale game, it'd just be an excuse to shit on players not as good as you, just like it was in ODST and Reach.
I don't miss those days.
Then they have nobody to blame for failing the Firefight but themselves. But, then again, I refuse to play with shitlords (which means I don't play random matchmaking) and stick with playing with friends (or, if nobody is online for me to play with, I'll just play solo)...so my perspective on personal accountability may be a bit skewed.
It's hard to encourage revivals when you're basically gambling with the sacred life pool. Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're done two lives instead of one?
That was the least fun part of Invasion and Firefight, constantly having that unfun goblin hanging over your back. Being responsible for all those efforts going to shit because you tried to contribute and got headshot three times in a row by different jackals with beam rifles.
Of course, I'm approaching this as someone who mains Mercy in Overwatch.
See, I view it from the flip side: "Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're down zero lives instead of one?" Personally, while I haven't had the misfortune of being headshot by beam rifled jackals over and over again, grav hammer brutes were my bane...but I would always make up for it by getting through the round and reclaim lives at the round's end.
And, while I love playing Mercy, I'm coming at this scenario from the perspective of playing Assault (medkits and defib paddles) in Battlefield and from playing 10 hours or so of CoD: Black Ops 3 campaign in co-op (where you can revive your partner(s)).
Both games where you're not drawing from a life pool (and from very good reason). Revivals are an appreciated gesture from a friend in singleplayer--in multiplayer, they sound a lot more like a desperate effort to break even (so at least you revived the attack and only one of you were killed in the process), while moving a player's focus from the targets to the support role.
You should revisit Battlefield if you think that: Battlefield is 100% life pool (which is why revives can actually sway the results in a match).
Sorry--I was distinguishing between a ticket pool (which is altered by other things, typically much more strongly, then player deaths, particularly territory captures and point events) and a strict life pool.
My own experience is Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. Where player deaths (and revives) can make a difference, but are far less determinate than which team holds victory areas for the longest, to the point where high-casualty suicide offenses are acceptable and preferred. I remember that being very different than the life pools in Reach and ODST.
Heh...I think for 80%-90% of my Battlefield matches are determined by flag caps. That other 10%-20%, though, has been swayed by a team denying ticket drain due to respawns. But, with Firefight, like I said, I stick to playing with RL friends and avoid playing with the random matchmaking crowd (which is why I also said at the beginning of this to allow a customizable range of players in Firefight from 1-8 instead of a hard 8 where matchmaker fills the empty spaces).
As I said, I could see it working as a sub-game mode for Warzone Firefight ("Firefight Mini", "Firefight with Revives"), with a smaller team and much, much fewer enemies per wave.
As actual Warzone Firefight, it sounds terrible and conjures up bad memories.
Compromise (by just changing up the name): split it into Warzone Firefight and Firefight Classic. As I stated way back when, Firefight was the only multiplayer mode I played in Reach (which, by the way, was the first Halo game since Halo: Combat Evolved I put any amount of time into...and much of that was because of Firefight)...and I would absolutely love to play Firefight using the Halo 5 systems (I keep trying to ADS in Reach and I just keep on wasting my precious grenades).
EDIT - but with WZ Firefight? I played a handful of rounds and came away just annoyed and generally pissed off with the mode. Definitely not going to be putting any more time into it.
I have already had far more fun with Warzone Firefight than any Firefight mode in Reach (and possibly even ODST, but ODST's Firefight was much better than Reach's to me personally). I pretty much realized that finishing the beta, and was not disappointed.
I should add, I would be completely onboard, right now, adding revives to Warzone Firefight (for a 50 or 100 point reward to the reviver, and the change noted on the downed player's stats and bypass respawn), rewarding altruistic players, etc. Just keep the lives pool out of it.
The funny thing is that I feel that the respawn timer, as it stands, is more punitive than the life pool. I mean, when there's a total of 5 minutes per round, and your respawn timer has you sitting out of the round for 30 seconds at a time (and not contributing anything to the team while waiting), that's going to be a bit more frustrating than losing a life or two from the pool (incidentally, being removed from the game for 30 seconds or so per death is infuriating enough for me that it's also the reason why I don't play DotA2).
I couldn't feel more differently--since, after all, you have no baring on other people's timer. That's a major reason why life pools are so awful.
It could absolutely use adjustment though.
Except for, y'know...removing a person from an 8-person team from the game for 30 or so seconds. Basically, you're talking about a 30 second power-play which can be compounded by the next guy who dies (because you're not a full team anymore).
Except for, y'know....dying in previous fire fight also removes you for a period of time (and I'm open to adjustment). And potentially removes another player permanently by consuming a life.
It's, literally, five seconds between death and respawn and the amount of downtime doesn't increase due to round or REQ level or whatever it uses to determine respawn time.
In either scenario you're not going to have a full team for some length of time (and that should absolutely use adjustment). Life pools are making it a team resource, which would be a terrible experience in quick-match Halo.
Time is also a resource. When you're dead and you can only look at the respawn timer tick down, you know that every second you're not contributing damage to the objectives, time is an even more restricted resource than the life pool.
Restarting an ODST Firefight because you know you don't have enough lives to get through to the wave you want to reach wasn't fun to me--I'd much rather take each wave, as it comes, with its own separate chances of success or failure. Personally, waiting through a longer respawn timer because I died beats not getting to respawn because someone else died--and I was so glad they didn't go that way during the beta.
When 6-7 of the team is dead with two minutes left and 3 of 3 wardens still up and shooting, I'll take the old Firefight system of fixed numbers (versus infinitely respawning enemies) and no time limit to whittle the objective enemies down over the unwinnable DPS race that is the current WZ Firefight.
Make it a sub-mode. Keep it far, far away from the current Warzone Firefight.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P
and yes, I am fully aware that that statement is applicable to my position, too...hence the :P
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
0
Options
Dyshow am I even using this gunRegistered Userregular
I do think firefight is a little over tuned at the moment.
I think it should be easy with a well organized team, doable with a semi-organized one, and difficult to those who don't care to use the REQs necessary and such.
But right now, enemies melt the necessary vehicles, players die super easily and basic enemies can take full clips of ammo to kill. To say nothing of the handful of nigh-impossible rounds you can run into.
As is, it's still fun to grind out req points with it though.
I'm the currently doing the trial just to finish the single player, I'm sure glad the cut scenes have my character doing all that fun stuff I'd hate to do as a player. Also I don't remember halo 4 much other than I hated the boring new weapons it introduced.
I would like some money because these are artisanal nuggets of wisdom philistine.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
If you combine the life pool with Halo 5's ability to revive downed team members, the only people who deserve angry screams are the ones who aren't team players (then again, this is the internet we're talking about here...it's never about what's deserved). Thankfully, Halo: Reach plays great on the Xbone (glad to see that it was fixed and that the performance issues from the initial BC release were ironed out).
It really wouldn't be a solution for that reason. Especially given how likely people would be to revive others (basically, just as likely as they would be in ODST, "Fuck you noob,") even before you consider how insanely dangerous reviving anyone would be.
It's too bad, because otherwise it'd be a good idea, and would make for an interesting mini-Firefight mode. In full scale game, it'd just be an excuse to shit on players not as good as you, just like it was in ODST and Reach.
I don't miss those days.
Then they have nobody to blame for failing the Firefight but themselves. But, then again, I refuse to play with shitlords (which means I don't play random matchmaking) and stick with playing with friends (or, if nobody is online for me to play with, I'll just play solo)...so my perspective on personal accountability may be a bit skewed.
It's hard to encourage revivals when you're basically gambling with the sacred life pool. Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're done two lives instead of one?
That was the least fun part of Invasion and Firefight, constantly having that unfun goblin hanging over your back. Being responsible for all those efforts going to shit because you tried to contribute and got headshot three times in a row by different jackals with beam rifles.
Of course, I'm approaching this as someone who mains Mercy in Overwatch.
See, I view it from the flip side: "Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're down zero lives instead of one?" Personally, while I haven't had the misfortune of being headshot by beam rifled jackals over and over again, grav hammer brutes were my bane...but I would always make up for it by getting through the round and reclaim lives at the round's end.
And, while I love playing Mercy, I'm coming at this scenario from the perspective of playing Assault (medkits and defib paddles) in Battlefield and from playing 10 hours or so of CoD: Black Ops 3 campaign in co-op (where you can revive your partner(s)).
Both games where you're not drawing from a life pool (and from very good reason). Revivals are an appreciated gesture from a friend in singleplayer--in multiplayer, they sound a lot more like a desperate effort to break even (so at least you revived the attack and only one of you were killed in the process), while moving a player's focus from the targets to the support role.
You should revisit Battlefield if you think that: Battlefield is 100% life pool (which is why revives can actually sway the results in a match).
Sorry--I was distinguishing between a ticket pool (which is altered by other things, typically much more strongly, then player deaths, particularly territory captures and point events) and a strict life pool.
My own experience is Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. Where player deaths (and revives) can make a difference, but are far less determinate than which team holds victory areas for the longest, to the point where high-casualty suicide offenses are acceptable and preferred. I remember that being very different than the life pools in Reach and ODST.
Heh...I think for 80%-90% of my Battlefield matches are determined by flag caps. That other 10%-20%, though, has been swayed by a team denying ticket drain due to respawns. But, with Firefight, like I said, I stick to playing with RL friends and avoid playing with the random matchmaking crowd (which is why I also said at the beginning of this to allow a customizable range of players in Firefight from 1-8 instead of a hard 8 where matchmaker fills the empty spaces).
As I said, I could see it working as a sub-game mode for Warzone Firefight ("Firefight Mini", "Firefight with Revives"), with a smaller team and much, much fewer enemies per wave.
As actual Warzone Firefight, it sounds terrible and conjures up bad memories.
Compromise (by just changing up the name): split it into Warzone Firefight and Firefight Classic. As I stated way back when, Firefight was the only multiplayer mode I played in Reach (which, by the way, was the first Halo game since Halo: Combat Evolved I put any amount of time into...and much of that was because of Firefight)...and I would absolutely love to play Firefight using the Halo 5 systems (I keep trying to ADS in Reach and I just keep on wasting my precious grenades).
EDIT - but with WZ Firefight? I played a handful of rounds and came away just annoyed and generally pissed off with the mode. Definitely not going to be putting any more time into it.
I have already had far more fun with Warzone Firefight than any Firefight mode in Reach (and possibly even ODST, but ODST's Firefight was much better than Reach's to me personally). I pretty much realized that finishing the beta, and was not disappointed.
I should add, I would be completely onboard, right now, adding revives to Warzone Firefight (for a 50 or 100 point reward to the reviver, and the change noted on the downed player's stats and bypass respawn), rewarding altruistic players, etc. Just keep the lives pool out of it.
The funny thing is that I feel that the respawn timer, as it stands, is more punitive than the life pool. I mean, when there's a total of 5 minutes per round, and your respawn timer has you sitting out of the round for 30 seconds at a time (and not contributing anything to the team while waiting), that's going to be a bit more frustrating than losing a life or two from the pool (incidentally, being removed from the game for 30 seconds or so per death is infuriating enough for me that it's also the reason why I don't play DotA2).
I couldn't feel more differently--since, after all, you have no baring on other people's timer. That's a major reason why life pools are so awful.
It could absolutely use adjustment though.
Except for, y'know...removing a person from an 8-person team from the game for 30 or so seconds. Basically, you're talking about a 30 second power-play which can be compounded by the next guy who dies (because you're not a full team anymore).
Except for, y'know....dying in previous fire fight also removes you for a period of time (and I'm open to adjustment). And potentially removes another player permanently by consuming a life.
It's, literally, five seconds between death and respawn and the amount of downtime doesn't increase due to round or REQ level or whatever it uses to determine respawn time.
In either scenario you're not going to have a full team for some length of time (and that should absolutely use adjustment). Life pools are making it a team resource, which would be a terrible experience in quick-match Halo.
Time is also a resource. When you're dead and you can only look at the respawn timer tick down, you know that every second you're not contributing damage to the objectives, time is an even more restricted resource than the life pool.
Restarting an ODST Firefight because you know you don't have enough lives to get through to the wave you want to reach wasn't fun to me--I'd much rather take each wave, as it comes, with its own separate chances of success or failure. Personally, waiting through a longer respawn timer because I died beats not getting to respawn because someone else died--and I was so glad they didn't go that way during the beta.
When 6-7 of the team is dead with two minutes left and 3 of 3 wardens still up and shooting, I'll take the old Firefight system of fixed numbers (versus infinitely respawning enemies) and no time limit to whittle the objective enemies down over the unwinnable DPS race that is the current WZ Firefight.
Make it a sub-mode. Keep it far, far away from the current Warzone Firefight.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P
and yes, I am fully aware that that statement is applicable to my position, too...hence the :P
I'm glad to see you're aware of how awful you are, and how awful your tastes are. :snap:
We've already covered this--by the same criteria every time you die in the old system, you know you've extracted a cost on the rest of your team, one that a single player can potentially deplete for the entirety of the team, unintentionally or otherwise. That makes it a problem for not just the player, but the entire team. It's not something I want to go back--give me a penalty respawn over one person having a bad run and wiping out half our reinforcements or more in a single unlucky wave simply because they wanted to have fun and try a new strategy.
The worst you can play isn't going to potentially remove everyone else from the round if they only die once, as well as said player--I find that to be a good thing whether I'm one of the stronger players on my team, or weaker ones.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
It's like listening to people clinging to the old albums your favorite band made and wishing they should have just stayed the way they were instead of actually evolving and growing like normal functional things do. And every time a new album comes out, they get the release just like everybody else does, and make the same statements.
eta: Also, those people are even worse when they make a point of saying they didn't get the release.
tastydonuts on
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
It's like listening to people clinging to the old albums your favorite band made and wishing they should have just stayed the way they were instead of actually evolving and growing like normal functional things do. And every time a new album comes out, they get the release just like everybody else does, and make the same statements.
I don't blame people preferring older games--throughout the whole lifetime of Reach I preferred Halo 3 multiplayer. It does strike me as a little odd when people move away from personal complaints about design decisions and balancing to assuring me of just how wrong I am, and that I am not enjoying myself, but we're not having that right now.
It's tradition that every Halo release immediately gets shat on. I remember how livid some people were about the inclusion of Arbiter levels in Halo 2 (now easily one of my favorite parts of the game) when the game first came out. Then how livid people were that there was no Arbiter levels in Halo 3. When Reach hit, I'm pretty sure I thought the removal of dual-wielding was tantamount to being kicked in the nuts. Because I loved the hell out of dual-wielding and stubborn guy I was, never forgave Reach for lacking it.
It's a fine internet tradition.
EDIT: Plasma rifle with dual-wield option > Storm rifle. I will fight anyone IRL over that.
They have fundamentally gotten away from the kind of storytelling Bungie did with Halo 1-3, ODST and Reach. They rebalanced Reach for the worse in mine and many others opinion. Personally played about 4 months of Halo 4 which was a far cry from the thousands of hours is sunk into Halo, Halo 2, Halo 3 and Reach. The Halo games are the some of the few ones I bother to get all the achievements in.
Destiny has completely stolen my attention from Halo multiplayer. Halo 5 isn't bad but it... isn't very good either. I can have fun with it, but it doesn't feel like a real sequel to the Halo games I love. Not begrudging those who do enjoy the 343 games, but they make a lot of head scratching design choices. That, coupled with the REQ pack system and how little I care for Warzone... H5 was one huge disappointment for me. And I didn't even buy it, I got it as a gift!
Not trying to bring the thread down or start a flame war over which era is best or try to convince anyone to think the same as me. I just wanted more. Halo 2 Anniversary should have taken up a lot more of my time than it did, somehow they took a game I already loved and somehow messed it up. I say this as someone who owns the Special/Legendary of most of the games, owns action figures and read the books... I am the target market for their games. They just aren't appealing to me much these days.
The best analogy I can come up with is when a band breaks up and then later they reunite...but with every member replaced but the singer. It may sound similar but it just isn't the same anymore.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
If you combine the life pool with Halo 5's ability to revive downed team members, the only people who deserve angry screams are the ones who aren't team players (then again, this is the internet we're talking about here...it's never about what's deserved). Thankfully, Halo: Reach plays great on the Xbone (glad to see that it was fixed and that the performance issues from the initial BC release were ironed out).
It really wouldn't be a solution for that reason. Especially given how likely people would be to revive others (basically, just as likely as they would be in ODST, "Fuck you noob,") even before you consider how insanely dangerous reviving anyone would be.
It's too bad, because otherwise it'd be a good idea, and would make for an interesting mini-Firefight mode. In full scale game, it'd just be an excuse to shit on players not as good as you, just like it was in ODST and Reach.
I don't miss those days.
Then they have nobody to blame for failing the Firefight but themselves. But, then again, I refuse to play with shitlords (which means I don't play random matchmaking) and stick with playing with friends (or, if nobody is online for me to play with, I'll just play solo)...so my perspective on personal accountability may be a bit skewed.
It's hard to encourage revivals when you're basically gambling with the sacred life pool. Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're done two lives instead of one?
That was the least fun part of Invasion and Firefight, constantly having that unfun goblin hanging over your back. Being responsible for all those efforts going to shit because you tried to contribute and got headshot three times in a row by different jackals with beam rifles.
Of course, I'm approaching this as someone who mains Mercy in Overwatch.
See, I view it from the flip side: "Someone died, how about you try and do something good and make it so we're down zero lives instead of one?" Personally, while I haven't had the misfortune of being headshot by beam rifled jackals over and over again, grav hammer brutes were my bane...but I would always make up for it by getting through the round and reclaim lives at the round's end.
And, while I love playing Mercy, I'm coming at this scenario from the perspective of playing Assault (medkits and defib paddles) in Battlefield and from playing 10 hours or so of CoD: Black Ops 3 campaign in co-op (where you can revive your partner(s)).
Both games where you're not drawing from a life pool (and from very good reason). Revivals are an appreciated gesture from a friend in singleplayer--in multiplayer, they sound a lot more like a desperate effort to break even (so at least you revived the attack and only one of you were killed in the process), while moving a player's focus from the targets to the support role.
You should revisit Battlefield if you think that: Battlefield is 100% life pool (which is why revives can actually sway the results in a match).
Sorry--I was distinguishing between a ticket pool (which is altered by other things, typically much more strongly, then player deaths, particularly territory captures and point events) and a strict life pool.
My own experience is Battlefield 3 and Battlefield 4. Where player deaths (and revives) can make a difference, but are far less determinate than which team holds victory areas for the longest, to the point where high-casualty suicide offenses are acceptable and preferred. I remember that being very different than the life pools in Reach and ODST.
Heh...I think for 80%-90% of my Battlefield matches are determined by flag caps. That other 10%-20%, though, has been swayed by a team denying ticket drain due to respawns. But, with Firefight, like I said, I stick to playing with RL friends and avoid playing with the random matchmaking crowd (which is why I also said at the beginning of this to allow a customizable range of players in Firefight from 1-8 instead of a hard 8 where matchmaker fills the empty spaces).
As I said, I could see it working as a sub-game mode for Warzone Firefight ("Firefight Mini", "Firefight with Revives"), with a smaller team and much, much fewer enemies per wave.
As actual Warzone Firefight, it sounds terrible and conjures up bad memories.
Compromise (by just changing up the name): split it into Warzone Firefight and Firefight Classic. As I stated way back when, Firefight was the only multiplayer mode I played in Reach (which, by the way, was the first Halo game since Halo: Combat Evolved I put any amount of time into...and much of that was because of Firefight)...and I would absolutely love to play Firefight using the Halo 5 systems (I keep trying to ADS in Reach and I just keep on wasting my precious grenades).
EDIT - but with WZ Firefight? I played a handful of rounds and came away just annoyed and generally pissed off with the mode. Definitely not going to be putting any more time into it.
I have already had far more fun with Warzone Firefight than any Firefight mode in Reach (and possibly even ODST, but ODST's Firefight was much better than Reach's to me personally). I pretty much realized that finishing the beta, and was not disappointed.
I should add, I would be completely onboard, right now, adding revives to Warzone Firefight (for a 50 or 100 point reward to the reviver, and the change noted on the downed player's stats and bypass respawn), rewarding altruistic players, etc. Just keep the lives pool out of it.
The funny thing is that I feel that the respawn timer, as it stands, is more punitive than the life pool. I mean, when there's a total of 5 minutes per round, and your respawn timer has you sitting out of the round for 30 seconds at a time (and not contributing anything to the team while waiting), that's going to be a bit more frustrating than losing a life or two from the pool (incidentally, being removed from the game for 30 seconds or so per death is infuriating enough for me that it's also the reason why I don't play DotA2).
I couldn't feel more differently--since, after all, you have no baring on other people's timer. That's a major reason why life pools are so awful.
It could absolutely use adjustment though.
Except for, y'know...removing a person from an 8-person team from the game for 30 or so seconds. Basically, you're talking about a 30 second power-play which can be compounded by the next guy who dies (because you're not a full team anymore).
Except for, y'know....dying in previous fire fight also removes you for a period of time (and I'm open to adjustment). And potentially removes another player permanently by consuming a life.
It's, literally, five seconds between death and respawn and the amount of downtime doesn't increase due to round or REQ level or whatever it uses to determine respawn time.
In either scenario you're not going to have a full team for some length of time (and that should absolutely use adjustment). Life pools are making it a team resource, which would be a terrible experience in quick-match Halo.
Time is also a resource. When you're dead and you can only look at the respawn timer tick down, you know that every second you're not contributing damage to the objectives, time is an even more restricted resource than the life pool.
Restarting an ODST Firefight because you know you don't have enough lives to get through to the wave you want to reach wasn't fun to me--I'd much rather take each wave, as it comes, with its own separate chances of success or failure. Personally, waiting through a longer respawn timer because I died beats not getting to respawn because someone else died--and I was so glad they didn't go that way during the beta.
When 6-7 of the team is dead with two minutes left and 3 of 3 wardens still up and shooting, I'll take the old Firefight system of fixed numbers (versus infinitely respawning enemies) and no time limit to whittle the objective enemies down over the unwinnable DPS race that is the current WZ Firefight.
Make it a sub-mode. Keep it far, far away from the current Warzone Firefight.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P
and yes, I am fully aware that that statement is applicable to my position, too...hence the :P
I'm glad to see you're aware of how awful you are, and how awful your tastes are. :snap:
We've already covered this--by the same criteria every time you die in the old system, you know you've extracted a cost on the rest of your team, one that a single player can potentially deplete for the entirety of the team, unintentionally or otherwise. That makes it a problem for not just the player, but the entire team. It's not something I want to go back--give me a penalty respawn over one person having a bad run and wiping out half our reinforcements or more in a single unlucky wave simply because they wanted to have fun and try a new strategy.
The worst you can play isn't going to potentially remove everyone else from the round if they only die once, as well as said player--I find that to be a good thing whether I'm one of the stronger players on my team, or weaker ones.
The problem that you're missing, though, is that, dying 4 times basically places you in the "why did you even bother to show up" category just as much as dying 4 times in the life pool system. The main difference being that instead of being removed from the game entirely, as you are in WZ Firefight, you're still able to play in ODST/Reach. Removing a player from the game as punishment for dying is an epically shitty game mechanic that I absolutely despise. To put it in perspective, during the third round where the respawn timer is 30 seconds, death number five means you spent fully half the round staring at a countdown timer. You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that that's not a shitty way to handle things.
and if you say that's totally fair and it's entirely their own fault for being bad, you'll basically be saying that goosiest of sayings: "git gud"
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Finally played some Halo Firefight thing whatever the new stuff is annnnnnd yeah, I forgot that Spartans are made of wet tissue or something? I feel like I die when the enemies' gaze falls upon me and I can't even use a decent weapon like the DMR from the get go. That really kills me enthusiasm. Also, with the BMR I find I often run out of ammo and have to slog it to some fuckin' vendor point.
This is why I play the Division and Destiny a whole lot more.
0
Options
Dyshow am I even using this gunRegistered Userregular
Finally played some Halo Firefight thing whatever the new stuff is annnnnnd yeah, I forgot that Spartans are made of wet tissue or something? I feel like I die when the enemies' gaze falls upon me and I can't even use a decent weapon like the DMR from the get go. That really kills me enthusiasm. Also, with the BMR I find I often run out of ammo and have to slog it to some fuckin' vendor point.
This is why I play the Division and Destiny a whole lot more.
It's a good deal harder than the beta for warzone firefight was, I personally think they took the "too easy" complaints during that to heart a little too well.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
“I used to draw, hard to admit that I used to draw...”
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
Yup, already doing just that. Was just hoping that they would've cleaned up the audio tracks and maybe used modern instruments when they updated the songs (as opposed to variations on a theme (where the theme is players vs. AI)).
Oh well, I've said my peace (and then some) and am just rehashing what I've said before with different words. On a different note, are there any other modes in Halo 5 that are cooperative in nature (aside from the campaign)?
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
Yup, already doing just that. Was just hoping that they would've cleaned up the audio tracks and maybe used modern instruments when they updated the songs (as opposed to variations on a theme (where the theme is players vs. AI)).
Oh well, I've said my peace (and then some) and am just rehashing what I've said before with different words. On a different note, are there any other modes in Halo 5 that are cooperative in nature (aside from the campaign)?
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
Yup, already doing just that. Was just hoping that they would've cleaned up the audio tracks and maybe used modern instruments when they updated the songs (as opposed to variations on a theme (where the theme is players vs. AI)).
Oh well, I've said my peace (and then some) and am just rehashing what I've said before with different words. On a different note, are there any other modes in Halo 5 that are cooperative in nature (aside from the campaign)?
warzone firefight
As my old high school creative writing teacher would say: "Show, don't tell."
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
I remember the complete havoc map pack releases caused with every single multiplayer base since 2.
Yeah, warzone firefight is fun, and works well within the Halo 5 MP system. The old firefight should stay in the past.
I'm so glad they did away with the life pool. The time limits might be harsh, but so were the life pools--and those involved a lot more angry screaming at someone for dying too often.
Good riddance.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
Keep listening to the old music then.
Yup, already doing just that. Was just hoping that they would've cleaned up the audio tracks and maybe used modern instruments when they updated the songs (as opposed to variations on a theme (where the theme is players vs. AI)).
Oh well, I've said my peace (and then some) and am just rehashing what I've said before with different words. On a different note, are there any other modes in Halo 5 that are cooperative in nature (aside from the campaign)?
warzone firefight
As my old high school creative writing teacher would say: "Show, don't tell."
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
Wait...what? Firefight in Reach didn't have respawning weapons (they had an initial two-weapon drop at the beginning of a round, but that was it and the weapons didn't respawn (and was randomized during the next drop), and cowering inside buildings didn't help you get non-shit weapons you didn't bring in with your class. However, there is something to be said for spawning in as one class, intentionally fragging yourself to drop your grenade launcher/shotgun, come in with the drop-shield and pick up your former launcher/shotgun in combination with your AR.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
Wait...what? Firefight in Reach didn't have respawning weapons (they had an initial two-weapon drop at the beginning of a round, but that was it and the weapons didn't respawn (and was randomized during the next drop), and cowering inside buildings didn't help you get non-shit weapons you didn't bring in with your class. However, there is something to be said for spawning in as one class, intentionally fragging yourself to drop your grenade launcher/shotgun, come in with the drop-shield and pick up your former launcher/shotgun in combination with your AR.
Sorry I wasn't clear--I meant the special weapon drops like the rocket launcher (which were obviously better than the ones you spawned with). And really, I don't think I'd do anything to encourage killing yourself in that firefight mode, at least classic firefight. But I'm also the person who'd get killed three times in a row by the same brutes spamming gravity hammers and fuel rods--I wasn't good at it (and I don't recall ever completing it, as I did in ODST).
I really shocked you've never had that defensive wave--they were in the beta, I'm fairly certain, and my first firefight match last week had one of them as well. Very strange.
They also unambiguously confirmed that Brutes are coming to Halo 5 over the weekend, so that's kinda neat
I didn't play Halo 4 but I think that most of the forerunner enemies are not fun to fight at all
I'm on the fence about this. On one hand, Brutes were one of the worst parts of Reach firefight for aforementioned reasons, and I generally prefer fighting more mobile enemies (as well as vehicles), that includes Forerunner enemies (really, there needs to be more excuses to kill Warthogs in a game). It would really depend on how they're implemented, either in the holding the fort down mentality, or as a more mobile assault group.
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
Wait...what? Firefight in Reach didn't have respawning weapons (they had an initial two-weapon drop at the beginning of a round, but that was it and the weapons didn't respawn (and was randomized during the next drop), and cowering inside buildings didn't help you get non-shit weapons you didn't bring in with your class. However, there is something to be said for spawning in as one class, intentionally fragging yourself to drop your grenade launcher/shotgun, come in with the drop-shield and pick up your former launcher/shotgun in combination with your AR.
Sorry I wasn't clear--I meant the special weapon drops like the rocket launcher (which were obviously better than the ones you spawned with). And really, I don't think I'd do anything to encourage killing yourself in that firefight mode, at least classic firefight. But I'm also the person who'd get killed three times in a row by the same brutes spamming gravity hammers--I wasn't good at it (and I don't recall ever completing it, as I did in ODST).
I really shocked you've never had that defensive wave--they were in the beta, I'm fairly certain, and my first firefight match last week had one of them as well. Very strange.
I will admit that the matchmaker seems to delight in sending me in mid-match (but it's usually in the middle of the first wave where people are leaving because they're tired of facing off against a couple of Wardens at REQ tier 1.
And I constantly suicided with the grenade launcher so I could double-up on primary weapons. Of course, this is also when I play solo or with either my brother or college friends who know I like my explodey weapons and my healy bubble.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I'm not sure what the takeaway message is supposed to be here...except that I must be playing some weird Bizarro-World version of WZ Firefight. So far, I haven't seen that "Kill X number of Prometheans/Covenant" objective (literally every objective in the matches I've played has been 0/2 or 0/3 Wardens, Knights, or a 0/2 Deacon Pipaps)...and every single time I've poked my head out to try to help pour damage into an objective target, I get about 3 or 5 bullets in (not bursts from a battle rifle), I get one-shot by the target.
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
Wait...what? Firefight in Reach didn't have respawning weapons (they had an initial two-weapon drop at the beginning of a round, but that was it and the weapons didn't respawn (and was randomized during the next drop), and cowering inside buildings didn't help you get non-shit weapons you didn't bring in with your class. However, there is something to be said for spawning in as one class, intentionally fragging yourself to drop your grenade launcher/shotgun, come in with the drop-shield and pick up your former launcher/shotgun in combination with your AR.
Sorry I wasn't clear--I meant the special weapon drops like the rocket launcher (which were obviously better than the ones you spawned with). And really, I don't think I'd do anything to encourage killing yourself in that firefight mode, at least classic firefight. But I'm also the person who'd get killed three times in a row by the same brutes spamming gravity hammers--I wasn't good at it (and I don't recall ever completing it, as I did in ODST).
I really shocked you've never had that defensive wave--they were in the beta, I'm fairly certain, and my first firefight match last week had one of them as well. Very strange.
I will admit that the matchmaker seems to delight in sending me in mid-match (but it's usually in the middle of the first wave where people are leaving because they're tired of facing off against a couple of Wardens at REQ tier 1.
And I constantly suicided with the grenade launcher so I could double-up on primary weapons. Of course, this is also when I play solo or with either my brother or college friends who know I like my explodey weapons and my healy bubble.
Yeah, that's kind of a big consideration, given how the Firefight works, to put mildly.
EDIT: I would add I do miss the grenade launcher. The quintessential "most useless useful weapon."
Well, I will admit that it becomes more of a liability as the set goes on and the number of bodies that will shunt a grenade back onto you start piling up...
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
Well, you just don't bounce it off the floor then.
That's just sacrilegious to the very essence of the grenade launcher!
But yes...point-blank floor bounces with the launcher are generally a bad idea. Even if it does result in oftentimes hilarious consequences (setting off a chain-reaction of grenades, plasma grenades, and other volatile objects nearby).
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I guess there's also the solution of just not detonating the grenade when you see if flying back in your face. Which is harder than it sounds, admittedly.
I guess there's also the solution of just not detonating the grenade when you see if flying back in your face. Which is harder than it sounds, admittedly.
The fuse activates when it hits the ground (if you're just firing them off like a regular weapon)...so it detonates a hair less than a second after the first ground contact. Otherwise, yes, keeping the trigger depressed would be the only way to avoid a thoroughly comedic ragdolling fate.
| Origin/R*SC: Ein7919 | Battle.net: Erlkonig#1448 | XBL: Lexicanum | Steam: Der Erlkönig (the umlaut is important) |
I had trouble using it at long distances effectively in the anti-infantry role (and occasionally in really hectic scenarios in close combat), and to disable faster moving vehicles (did I mention I wasn't good with it)?
Posts
Except for, y'know....dying in previous fire fight also removes you for a period of time (and I'm open to adjustment). And potentially removes another player permanently by consuming a life.
In either scenario you're not going to have a full team for some length of time (and that should absolutely use adjustment). Life pools are making it a team resource, which would be a terrible experience in quick-match Halo. Restarting an ODST Firefight because you know you don't have enough lives to get through to the wave you want to reach wasn't fun to me--I'd much rather take each wave, as it comes, with its own separate chances of success or failure. Personally, waiting through a longer respawn timer because I died beats not getting to respawn because someone else died--and I was so glad they didn't go that way during the beta.
Make it a sub-mode. Keep it far, far away from the current Warzone Firefight.
1) What if instead of every round raising the respawn time for everyone uniformly, instead it just raises the max respawn time and each player's cooldown time is dictated by how many times they've died during that round. For example, say the base rate in round 1 is 5 seconds increasing 3 seconds with each death to a cap of 10 seconds. This means your first death is 5 seconds long, the second is 8, and all further deaths are 10 seconds. Then when round 2 starts, you remain at your current respawn cooldown while the cap increases to 15 seconds so if you capped out that's 10, 13, 15 but if you didn't it's 8, 11, 14, 15. This would mean at the very least the first few deaths in a round aren't as punitive as they are now and at best if you're able to remain alive through an entire round you've got a leg up on the next round.
2) What if there was an armor mod (permanent) and/or power (consumable) that enabled you to revive teammates, assuming there was some appreciable compromise as part of taking it to balance it?
Point one I could potentially be behind--obviously, the last thing you want is, for example, one persons death to extend everyone's respawn time (or for that matter, any other person's respawn time, like in a staggered system). Invariably you run into the problem of discouraging people who die a lot rather than giving them an opportunity to improve (as they'd have fewers), but there's potentially a balance that could be made. I very much like the idea of a hard cap, but even wonder if what you've described is "too forgiving" (or is it insufficiently so?).
Point two is particularly fascinating for me, since if you check my BF3 profile, a good 90% of my time is assault with defib pack. That's past "specialization" towards "crippling". I'd be worried about the potential backlash of adding a proper reviving weapon or item in Halo, even after a few different support items exist (bringing back bubble shields and regen fields)--that's why I'd advocate adding singleplayer revivals just as a way for a passerby or a partner following you to revive you in the event of an accidental (for example, hit by a friendly vehicle) death rather than a overwhelming combat one, in return for points and a minor medal for their trouble. People freaked out about mantling and aiming down the sights (without actual accuracy increase) being introduced in Halo 5, and that's a radical multiplayer change as well. But that doesn't mean it's a bad one.
That being said, I'd want to avoid "classes" and simply make it an item or equipment. For example, depriving a player of carrying a second weapon, rather than forcing them into a class of weapons that are the ones "medics can carry." So I think you'd be on the right track, once the compromise was figured out.
It's, literally, five seconds between death and respawn and the amount of downtime doesn't increase due to round or REQ level or whatever it uses to determine respawn time.
Time is also a resource. When you're dead and you can only look at the respawn timer tick down, you know that every second you're not contributing damage to the objectives, time is an even more restricted resource than the life pool.
When 6-7 of the team is dead with two minutes left and 3 of 3 wardens still up and shooting, I'll take the old Firefight system of fixed numbers (versus infinitely respawning enemies) and no time limit to whittle the objective enemies down over the unwinnable DPS race that is the current WZ Firefight.
Well, that's just, like, your opinion, man. :P
I think it should be easy with a well organized team, doable with a semi-organized one, and difficult to those who don't care to use the REQs necessary and such.
But right now, enemies melt the necessary vehicles, players die super easily and basic enemies can take full clips of ammo to kill. To say nothing of the handful of nigh-impossible rounds you can run into.
As is, it's still fun to grind out req points with it though.
pleasepaypreacher.net
I'm glad to see you're aware of how awful you are, and how awful your tastes are. :snap:
The worst you can play isn't going to potentially remove everyone else from the round if they only die once, as well as said player--I find that to be a good thing whether I'm one of the stronger players on my team, or weaker ones.
tbh, I'm really at the point where I'm just sick of people rose-tinting Reach and/or the Bungie era Halo games.
It's like listening to people clinging to the old albums your favorite band made and wishing they should have just stayed the way they were instead of actually evolving and growing like normal functional things do. And every time a new album comes out, they get the release just like everybody else does, and make the same statements.
eta: Also, those people are even worse when they make a point of saying they didn't get the release.
I don't blame people preferring older games--throughout the whole lifetime of Reach I preferred Halo 3 multiplayer. It does strike me as a little odd when people move away from personal complaints about design decisions and balancing to assuring me of just how wrong I am, and that I am not enjoying myself, but we're not having that right now.
It's tradition that every Halo release immediately gets shat on. I remember how livid some people were about the inclusion of Arbiter levels in Halo 2 (now easily one of my favorite parts of the game) when the game first came out. Then how livid people were that there was no Arbiter levels in Halo 3. When Reach hit, I'm pretty sure I thought the removal of dual-wielding was tantamount to being kicked in the nuts. Because I loved the hell out of dual-wielding and stubborn guy I was, never forgave Reach for lacking it.
It's a fine internet tradition.
EDIT: Plasma rifle with dual-wield option > Storm rifle. I will fight anyone IRL over that.
Destiny has completely stolen my attention from Halo multiplayer. Halo 5 isn't bad but it... isn't very good either. I can have fun with it, but it doesn't feel like a real sequel to the Halo games I love. Not begrudging those who do enjoy the 343 games, but they make a lot of head scratching design choices. That, coupled with the REQ pack system and how little I care for Warzone... H5 was one huge disappointment for me. And I didn't even buy it, I got it as a gift!
Not trying to bring the thread down or start a flame war over which era is best or try to convince anyone to think the same as me. I just wanted more. Halo 2 Anniversary should have taken up a lot more of my time than it did, somehow they took a game I already loved and somehow messed it up. I say this as someone who owns the Special/Legendary of most of the games, owns action figures and read the books... I am the target market for their games. They just aren't appealing to me much these days.
The best analogy I can come up with is when a band breaks up and then later they reunite...but with every member replaced but the singer. It may sound similar but it just isn't the same anymore.
Except in this case, I'm still playing Reach and preferring its Firefight over the one in 5. So it's not so much "rose-tinting" but more disliking nearly every change that's been made to the mode.
The problem that you're missing, though, is that, dying 4 times basically places you in the "why did you even bother to show up" category just as much as dying 4 times in the life pool system. The main difference being that instead of being removed from the game entirely, as you are in WZ Firefight, you're still able to play in ODST/Reach. Removing a player from the game as punishment for dying is an epically shitty game mechanic that I absolutely despise. To put it in perspective, during the third round where the respawn timer is 30 seconds, death number five means you spent fully half the round staring at a countdown timer. You can't sit there and tell me with a straight face that that's not a shitty way to handle things.
This is why I play the Division and Destiny a whole lot more.
It's a good deal harder than the beta for warzone firefight was, I personally think they took the "too easy" complaints during that to heart a little too well.
Keep listening to the old music then.
Yup, already doing just that. Was just hoping that they would've cleaned up the audio tracks and maybe used modern instruments when they updated the songs (as opposed to variations on a theme (where the theme is players vs. AI)).
Oh well, I've said my peace (and then some) and am just rehashing what I've said before with different words. On a different note, are there any other modes in Halo 5 that are cooperative in nature (aside from the campaign)?
warzone firefight
As my old high school creative writing teacher would say: "Show, don't tell."
I remember the complete havoc map pack releases caused with every single multiplayer base since 2.
Those were the days, right?
In the end of the day, that's all you can do, right?
Oof you must be having a bad time
I didn't play Halo 4 but I think that most of the forerunner enemies are not fun to fight at all
Yeah, that's extremely weird--I get those as often, or more so, than specific enemy targets. They're very common wave events, especially for 2, 3, and to a lesser extent 4. Not that I particularly mind either, but it's actually a very common wave. Defense, especially area rather than target defense, seems like a very rare wave to encounter.
Personally I'll take it over cowering inside buildings waiting for the only non-shit weapon on a level to respawn in Reach firefight. At least ODST didn't have that issue.
Wait...what? Firefight in Reach didn't have respawning weapons (they had an initial two-weapon drop at the beginning of a round, but that was it and the weapons didn't respawn (and was randomized during the next drop), and cowering inside buildings didn't help you get non-shit weapons you didn't bring in with your class. However, there is something to be said for spawning in as one class, intentionally fragging yourself to drop your grenade launcher/shotgun, come in with the drop-shield and pick up your former launcher/shotgun in combination with your AR.
Sorry I wasn't clear--I meant the special weapon drops like the rocket launcher (which were obviously better than the ones you spawned with). And really, I don't think I'd do anything to encourage killing yourself in that firefight mode, at least classic firefight. But I'm also the person who'd get killed three times in a row by the same brutes spamming gravity hammers and fuel rods--I wasn't good at it (and I don't recall ever completing it, as I did in ODST).
I really shocked you've never had that defensive wave--they were in the beta, I'm fairly certain, and my first firefight match last week had one of them as well. Very strange.
I'm on the fence about this. On one hand, Brutes were one of the worst parts of Reach firefight for aforementioned reasons, and I generally prefer fighting more mobile enemies (as well as vehicles), that includes Forerunner enemies (really, there needs to be more excuses to kill Warthogs in a game). It would really depend on how they're implemented, either in the holding the fort down mentality, or as a more mobile assault group.
I will admit that the matchmaker seems to delight in sending me in mid-match (but it's usually in the middle of the first wave where people are leaving because they're tired of facing off against a couple of Wardens at REQ tier 1.
And I constantly suicided with the grenade launcher so I could double-up on primary weapons. Of course, this is also when I play solo or with either my brother or college friends who know I like my explodey weapons and my healy bubble.
Yeah, that's kind of a big consideration, given how the Firefight works, to put mildly.
EDIT: I would add I do miss the grenade launcher. The quintessential "most useless useful weapon."
Well, I will admit that it becomes more of a liability as the set goes on and the number of bodies that will shunt a grenade back onto you start piling up...
That's just sacrilegious to the very essence of the grenade launcher!
But yes...point-blank floor bounces with the launcher are generally a bad idea. Even if it does result in oftentimes hilarious consequences (setting off a chain-reaction of grenades, plasma grenades, and other volatile objects nearby).
The fuse activates when it hits the ground (if you're just firing them off like a regular weapon)...so it detonates a hair less than a second after the first ground contact. Otherwise, yes, keeping the trigger depressed would be the only way to avoid a thoroughly comedic ragdolling fate.
Lots of fun, but sometimes useless.
Sending more balls of explodey love downrange in a shorter time-span? Gotta rack up those Killamanjaros, dawg.