This week's update kind of made me lose faith in 343.

#111dweeeeb2Posted 11/14/2012 12:56:49 PM
[This message was deleted at the request of the original poster]
#112lderivedxPosted 11/14/2012 1:09:39 PM
From: DeadKane | #109
What works in one game might not work in another game.


You're throwing out vague phrases that aren't specific at all and only are "correct" because they have a ton of interpretations. This doesn't make your argument good. It means you lack the ability to be concise.

without fracturing the community to the same degree.


So that's why they have 4 or 5 objective playlists?

still cover basically of the same ground


Doubles? Snipers? Grifball? BtB objective gametypes? These were in Reach (maybe not Grifball, but they've specifically made it a game type this time), but are not in H4 so far. How is wanting the same level of service "unreasonable?"

when I am talking about being unrealistic I am talking about having all of his specific expectations met and his reaction to them not being in the game after a single week


What? Expecting that you get the same level of service as previous titles?

the fact that they are not the same game isn't irrelevant.


Then how is it not irrelevant? Specifically.
---
0.999... = 1. Deal with it. If you disagree, I'm happy to show you why you're wrong.
GT: i derive dx
#113DeadKanePosted 11/14/2012 1:29:22 PM(edited)
From: lderivedx | #112
You're throwing out vague phrases that aren't specific at all and only are "correct" because they have a ton of interpretations. This doesn't make your argument good. It means you lack the ability to be concise.


I think that some of the changes to the gameplay, such as the heavy focus on loadouts, impacted the playlists that they included in the game. I was very clear in saying this earlier. In Reach, loadouts were more just part of the game and they were very controlled. That isn't the case in 4, where they were very much a focus of the game. 4, while feeling like an older Halo game in many ways, is the biggest expansion the series has ever done. For the first time ever, players have complete control over a variety of different factors which impact their individual gameplay. The fact that they do have less playlists doesn't shock me given the fairly drastic changes. I think that they wanted to use a limited number of playlists to determine how the game played. And it looks like they will be adding to the playlists

I specifically discussed loadouts and their impact earlier, albeit in less detail. I haven't been vague about this.

So that's why they have 4 or 5 objective playlists?


Yes. Not that I think it was the best way to go about it.

Doubles? Snipers? Grifball? BtB objective gametypes? These were in Reach (maybe not Grifball, but they've specifically made it a game type this time), but are not in H4 so far. How is wanting the same level of service "unreasonable?"


Snipers is an incredibly niche gametype. Doubles I agree on. Objective as well. And we are a week into Halo 4. What is unreasonable is giving up on 343 a week into the game. That is my major issues with how the TC has reacted to this. That being said, the gametypes you are discussing are not the same ones that he wants in.

I like Slayer Pro. I want to see more gametypes where there aren't loadouts or ordnance. That is my biggest issue with the online environment right now. Which can be changed by adding more playlists. One of the developers mentioned in a gameplay commentary that they were considering adding Objective pro, or FFA pro. And I want action sack back.


He basically wants more gametypes which ignore all of the work done on the loadout system which the game was designed around. And action sack.

What? Expecting that you get the same level of service as previous titles?


I've already addressed this.

Then how is it not irrelevant? Specifically.


See above.
---
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VWGoSc28B1M/0.jpg
#114lderivedxPosted 11/14/2012 1:31:41 PM
From: DeadKane | #113
such as the heavy focus on loadouts, impacted the playlists that they included in the game.


The only playlist this would apply to is Snipers, and they have Slayer Pro (and now SWAT), so this can't be a good argument against Snipers.

the gametypes you are discussing are not the same ones that he wants in.


See the original post. What you quoted is only a part of what he wants, and none of those were in Reach at launch, so his argument from the standpoint of expecting the same level of service doesn't work. However, it does for Grifball, Snipes, Doubles, and BtB objectives gametypes.

gametypes which ignore all of the work done on the loadout system


As I said, the only one this loadout argument would apply to is Snipers, and they have Slayer Pro (and now SWAT).

"Don't want to split the community" and "have 5 objective playlists" are not compatible, so that also is a weak argument.
---
I've been known to write some pretty good stuff from time to time. Just ask the mods. They probably know me like a brother by now. -MIxeD
#115DeadKanePosted 11/14/2012 1:44:14 PM(edited)
From: lderivedx | #114
The only playlist this would apply to is Snipers, and they have Slayer Pro (and now SWAT), so this can't be a good argument against Snipers.


I never said it was a good argument against snipers. I said snipers is a fairly niche gametype.

See the original post. What you quoted is only a part of what he wants, and none of those were in Reach at launch, so his argument from the standpoint of expecting the same level of service doesn't work. However, it does for Grifball, Snipes, Doubles, and BtB objectives gametypes.


I did. Which is why I specifically addressed those gametypes (the quoted ones) in my response, though I didn't clarify the distinction in terms of his posts. Additionally, I said several of the playlists you discussed should be included. I also speculated as to why I think that they started with a smaller number of playlists: the addition of highly customizable loadouts.

As I said, the only one this loadout argument would apply to is Snipers, and they have Slayer Pro (and now SWAT).

"Don't want to split the community" and "have 5 objective playlists" are not compatible, so that also is a weak argument.


Except adding more pro style playlists is impacted by the loadout argument. And I said that adding that many objective playlists wasn't how I would have done it.

But all of this ultimately comes back to my issues with his reaction, which is giving up on a company that produced a pretty excellent game (it's first game as a distinct entity) because they haven't added the playlists he wanted a week after release. Wanting the gametypes in is one thing. Giving up on the company because they are not in a week after launch is something completely different. That is what is unreasonable.
---
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VWGoSc28B1M/0.jpg
#116starlin17Posted 11/14/2012 1:38:42 PM
That1Guyy posted...
A week and all they can do is add SWAT and split the objective gametype?

Literally all they have to do to add Doubles, FFA objective, Snipers, Griffball, or any other playlist we've been asking for is to set the matchmaking parameters and the gametype settings.

"We're going to listen to the community, but they better expect to arbitrarily wait so we can do things 'our' way." -343


Uhm, have you done any research into this? They are putting all the game types on rotation. Some will stay around semi-permanently. They will drop/add game types on a regular basis. If certain rotational ones are deemed extremely popular by the community then they will drop one of the "semi-permanent" modes and add the temporary one to the semi-perm list. This is intentional. It's not that all they added was 2 MP modes (by the way they added another 5 spartan ops as well so...). So it's not that they are being lazy and only giving you a taste. There is method to this madness. They don't want a flood of playmodes that overwhelm players and then get almost no one playing them.


http://www.examiner.com/article/first-halo-4-multiplayer-playlist-update-coming-next-week-with-swat


"We will maintain a static set of playlists and feature one or two “rotational” playlists on top of that," community manager Jessica Shea wrote on Halo Waypoint. "We will be monitoring trends and statistics closely so we can react accordingly to your preferences and likes. For instance, if one of our rotational playlists consistently holds a higher population than one of our static playlists, we will consider swapping them out based on player demand. The process will be fluid and based on numbers, and we’re extremely excited about the benefits of our new approach."
---
xbox GT: StarlinX
#117That1Guyy(Topic Creator)Posted 11/14/2012 1:46:07 PM
DeadKane posted...
What you just described is exactly what your attitude has been though. You're complaining about the current game not providing enough, and saying that you're losing faith because new features are not being provided. What I described is pretty simple logic. It doesn't make any sense to add a ton of new playlists when the game is still so fresh for people.


The features I'm asking for are not new in any sense of the word.

And once again, I want to know why you expected these playlists to be added in a week after release.


Because they're already in the game, just not in matchmaking. There is nothing special about adding them that could require additional development time.

I'm fairly certain it wasn't that high, but I can't find any documentation from the initial release. I could be wrong on that.


Even if I'm a few playlists off, my point stands.
---
Perfection. Where everyone fails.
If you expect nothing you can be happy for everything.
#118DeadKanePosted 11/14/2012 2:00:38 PM(edited)
From: That1Guyy | #117
The features I'm asking for are not new in any sense of the word.


Not new as in revolutionary, but new to the game's multiplayer matchmaking.

Because they're already in the game, just not in matchmaking. There is nothing special about adding them that could require additional development time.


As people have said, it's not just about development time. Others have covered that point already. Basically, it's more than just adding it in.

Even if I'm a few playlists off, my point stands.


Yup. There were more playlists in Reach.
---
http://i.ytimg.com/vi/VWGoSc28B1M/0.jpg
#119LugovesPosted 11/14/2012 1:49:52 PM
jeriausx posted...
MetaIGearRex posted...
0NotoriousLynx0 posted...
Goes to show how impatient gamers are.

---
"I want to see more of Lugoves' posts. That *%$# cracks me up." - mrvercetti
#120lderivedxPosted 11/14/2012 2:02:16 PM
From: DeadKane | #115
I also speculated as to why I think that they started with a smaller number of playlists: the addition of highly customizable loadouts.


I don't see why this would be an issue preventing 343 from having Snipes, Doubles, or BtB objective.

I said snipers is a fairly niche gametype.


And was a reasonably popular one in Reach.
---
You hate even numbers? Are you one of those people that only eats certain colors of M&Ms? -skiergamer23
GT: i derive dx