Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts
|
|
|
||
|
||||
|
||||
|
||||
| Frequently Asked Forum Questions | |
|||
|
||||
|
|
|||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Search Older Posts on This Forum: Posts on Current Forum | Archived Posts | ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| ||||
| Re: Hey Wu...? | |
| Posted By: Louis Wu <halo@bungie.org> | Date: 3/21/12 8:19 a.m. |
In Response To: Hey Wu...? (RC Master) : I find a large number of his arguments unfair or unfounded : Which ones? The vast majority, actually. Very occasionally, I find myself in situations described by your examples and arguments... but it really is the minority of games I play (and I'm past 3500 competitive games at this point). I cannot remember the last time I saw a team in the lead fall back and NOT be aggressive, for example. In fact, the larger the skill gap, the MORE aggressive the winning team usually is (in my experience). Your discussions of Invasion gametypes I had to pass over; I have very little experience with them (I find the gametype to be dull and predictable, so I play it rarely). Hang on, I have to go back through HBO's front page to find the earlier parts (they don't seem to be linked on your site anywhere)... I certainly won't argue that objective-holding doesn't happen; that's one negative I've seen quite a bit of. But the other complaints you had didn't resonate at all with me. I did NOT understand what you were saying about winning teams in Neutral Flag taking the flab back to their own base - I've NEVER seen this happen (not ONCE that I can actually remember), and I have no idea why anyone actually WOULD. If you made a mistake, the other team would have the flag in scoring position! Why would you do that? (And again, in all the games I've played, others clearly agreed with that question, since nobody ever brought the flag back to their own base.) I've seen slaying without scoring in Speedflag - but rarely by people picking up flags. Your sentence "the carrier has less incentive to capture it and progress the game" doesn't apply very often in the games i've played; more commonly, the winning TEAM has less incentive to pick up flags and score them. (When you're carrying flags, you're more obvious to the other team; why would you put yourself in that position if you had no intention of scoring?) Your complaints about players needing to choose an aggressive role (shooting) or a passive one (objective-carrying) made no sense to me; I thought that was the whole POINT of objective games. If carrying the bomb did NOT render one player on attack nearly useless, for example, what would stop a better team from simply rollling over a worse one EVERY SINGLE TIME? My fondest Assault memories are all of games where we were outmatched, killing-skill-wise, and still came away with the win because we were sneakier or smarter. Your arguments make it sound like you don't consider it a win unless you score more points AND have more kills. Your only complaint about Oddball (that winning teams drop, but guard, the ball while slaying to extend the game) is, again, something I don't see very often; yes, it happens, but not the majority of the time. Oddball is one of my favorite gametypes. I completely reject your complaints about Hot Potato - the randomness of the explosions is THE ENTIRE POINT. You want time with the ball, you risk blowing up. That's the game. I obviously find this less frustrating than you do. I haven't been able to get a stockpile game in so long that I can't really address your arguments - but my recollection of games I've played doesn't square with your description; I can't remember 'non-confrontational' games. Your Headhunter complaints struck me as downright silly. If a vastly superior team allows their opponents to win by capturing only skulls of their own fallen teammates, THEY DESERVE TO LOSE FOR BEING STUPID; I've never seen anything REMOTELY like this. When teams are mismatched, the winning team in Headhunter is almost ALWAYS the more-skilled-at-slaying one (again, in my experience); Headhunter is NOT a gametype I've seen a lot of objective-holding on (or rather, objective-non-holding). The fact that picked-up skulls makes you more visible to the enemy is, again, THE POINT - I love that there's an instant 'equalizing' mechanism in the game. Again, the only reason I can see to complain about this is if you're someone who feels that you shouldn't ever have to suffer being killed by someone 'less good' than you are - to me, it seems like a pretty elitist complaint. I guess my biggest problem with all the segments you've released so far is that they describe the worst-case scenarios in each gametype... but suggest that those scenarios are common. My experience has been in almost every one of these cases that these worst-case are in fact very UNcommon, and in several cases nonexistent - so saying that the gametypes 'suck' because these POSSIBILITIES for unpleasant play exist is simply unfair. I've spent enough time on enough forums to know that there are plenty of people who do nothing but gripe about how awful Reach is, how 'unfun' it is to play... that has NOT been my experience, and in fact when I see unrelenting negativity from folks with thousands of games under their belt, I tend to ignore what they have to say, because if they really hated it that much, they'd find something else to do. Which is to say, I feel as though you've unfairly presented the situation in your discussion so far. (Clearly, you're doing that to set up the stage for your suggestions, coming at some point - but personally, I'd find your arguments more compelling if you didn't feel the need to exaggerate how bad the current situation is.) As always, these are personal opinions, and in fact I'm only presenting them because you asked. (I hadn't planned on participating in the discussion.)
| |
|
| Replies: |
The HBO Forum Archive is maintained with WebBBS 4.33. |