Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Hitmarkers :/

OP SHAD0W BULL3T

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
One of my main critiques if H5 multilayer us grenade hit markers. They let you know when someone is behind a wall when you might not have had any other way of knowing.
One of my main critiques if H5 multilayer us grenade hit markers. They let you know when someone is behind a wall when you might not have had any other way of knowing.
Which is awesome for flushing out the getting little Campers. I love it.

A clever Spartan would be able to tell from the sounds of the explosion if an enemy was inside the radius... So the hitmarker just simulates that.

Or they could just taste their salty tears on the wind.
Darwi wrote:
One of my main critiques if H5 multilayer us grenade hit markers. They let you know when someone is behind a wall when you might not have had any other way of knowing.
Which is awesome for flushing out the getting little Campers. I love it.

A clever Spartan would be able to tell from the sounds of the explosion if an enemy was inside the radius... So the hitmarker just simulates that.

Or they could just taste their salty tears on the wind.
Or they could have sighted your path and picked the corner strategically to get the jump. Grenade hit markers do not belong. It isn’t what grenades are used for. If it was supplemented with a grenade that didn’t cause explosive damage but instead gave the thrower identifying markers of people in corners or rooms then that would be fine or even the stun grenades. No one clears unknown corners with grenades...it just doesn’t happen.

campers will camp regardless but to assume every person that decides to grab a corner is a camper is just untrue. Look at any military or police unit. They stop before doorways/corners, stack on them then proceed. Or a perfect example would be an ambush. Or grabbing a corner as cover while your shield recharges.
I gotta agree, less on screen visuals will make for a more immersive experience in campaign, at the least it would be really awesome to be able to disable them.
I don't really care about the hitmarkers. It's easy to ignore them because I keep shooting at grunts until it's dead.
I envy you. I wish I could ignore those giants Xs. I love the visual feedback Halo offers in addition to the audio: Grunts yelping loudly as they're blasted backwards, bodies fumbling about under the shock of your weapons fire, fluorescent cyan blood splattering out and fountaining around them... All that is now obscured behind a big annoying X. Why? To what benefit? Is it more fun to have a giant X shooting out from the cursor? Or is it a much better experience to actually see the damage you're doing? The less a player needs to rely on their HUD, the stronger the game ends up being. There is no reason to shoehorn hitmakers into a Halo game whatsoever. There's a lot to like about what we've seen of Infinite. I can even tolerate the nonsensical yellow hexagons, but hitmakers? Really? What an unfortunate step in the wrong direction.

It's an easy fix. Let's hope someone at 343i is wise enough to see this.
I understand people like them of course, and the ping noise upon kill, but we should have a setting to turn them off across campaign and multiplayer. This way we can please those who do like them, and those who don’t (^^)b.
In multiplayer that would just put those who turn them off at a disadvantage I’d reckon.
Wasn't always this way. Before Halo turned into Call of Halo, we used our eyes to determine if we were doing damage to an enemy, looking for visual clues. Shields flaring, blood popping off of them, that sorta thing.
So. Playing some Halo 5 Arena today on Fissure (cool Forged map - me likee a lot).

Anyway... there were a couple of periods of some long range pistol play... taking potshots from one ledge to another across the map (round the time of rocket spawns). A couple of players on each side, ducking out, firing a few shots and then thrusting back into cover. Cat and mouse type thing.

Given the overall viewing distance plus the speed of thrusters it was really useful having that visual confirmation of a hit... so you could balance up the risk of staying out for another shot.

So it confirmed to me that hitmarkers can be useful.

Would the battle have been any less intense if neither side had hitmarkers? - probably as people would have been less adventurous staying out in the open if they didn't know for sure they had been scoring some hits.

Do such battles happen often enough to make them worthwhile? That's a harder one... but with the frenetic movement / changes in direction of Halo 5 I think they are useful. Probably not so much in the ploddier versions of Halo.

Will they still be needed on the Series S and X with higher resolutions and better graphic effects? - probably not (but that may be a moot point for those still playing on their XBONE at 800p).

Is it still cool to throw a grenade around the corner and flush out the enemy's hiding spot? - for sure :D
I don't like them me too, but if they are optional I would still keep them, they are useful when throwing nades even though they ruin the strategic aspect of the game.
I like the Hit markers but yea it can take away the immersion
Halo already had enough indication of hits like shield flare, the fizzling sound, and blood.

Hitmarkers honestly extend engagement ranges well outside the effective range of weapons. This is an issue primarily in Halo 5, but it's magnum is so over tuned its likely just a problem with Halo 5.

That being said, hitmarkers on grenades do not belong. They offer too much information in gunfights and are advantageous to the people aggressing. Blind grenades are a guess, you shouldn't be rewarded for guessing.
Darwi wrote:
So. Playing some Halo 5 Arena today on Fissure (cool Forged map - me likee a lot).

Anyway... there were a couple of periods of some long range pistol play... taking potshots from one ledge to another across the map (round the time of rocket spawns). A couple of players on each side, ducking out, firing a few shots and then thrusting back into cover. Cat and mouse type thing.

Given the overall viewing distance plus the speed of thrusters it was really useful having that visual confirmation of a hit... so you could balance up the risk of staying out for another shot.

So it confirmed to me that hitmarkers can be useful.

Would the battle have been any less intense if neither side had hitmarkers? - probably as people would have been less adventurous staying out in the open if they didn't know for sure they had been scoring some hits.

Do such battles happen often enough to make them worthwhile? That's a harder one... but with the frenetic movement / changes in direction of Halo 5 I think they are useful. Probably not so much in the ploddier versions of Halo.

Will they still be needed on the Series S and X with higher resolutions and better graphic effects? - probably not (but that may be a moot point for those still playing on their XBONE at 800p).

Is it still cool to throw a grenade around the corner and flush out the enemy's hiding spot? - for sure :D
Long range and pistols shouldn’t be together. That’s what the BR, DMR, (rifles) etc. are for. I hate jumping into a match and it’s nothing but pistols, defeats the purpose of the sandbox when pistol beats everything. I know pistols have been an integral part of halo since the beginning but what purpose does the sandbox fulfill if I can equip a pistol and land shots 100m+ away.
I personally don’t mind hit-markers
Darwi wrote:
So. Playing some Halo 5 Arena today on Fissure (cool Forged map - me likee a lot).

Anyway... there were a couple of periods of some long range pistol play... taking potshots from one ledge to another across the map (round the time of rocket spawns). A couple of players on each side, ducking out, firing a few shots and then thrusting back into cover. Cat and mouse type thing.

Given the overall viewing distance plus the speed of thrusters it was really useful having that visual confirmation of a hit... so you could balance up the risk of staying out for another shot.

So it confirmed to me that hitmarkers can be useful.

Would the battle have been any less intense if neither side had hitmarkers? - probably as people would have been less adventurous staying out in the open if they didn't know for sure they had been scoring some hits.

Do such battles happen often enough to make them worthwhile? That's a harder one... but with the frenetic movement / changes in direction of Halo 5 I think they are useful. Probably not so much in the ploddier versions of Halo.

Will they still be needed on the Series S and X with higher resolutions and better graphic effects? - probably not (but that may be a moot point for those still playing on their XBONE at 800p).

Is it still cool to throw a grenade around the corner and flush out the enemy's hiding spot? - for sure :D
Long range and pistols shouldn’t be together. That’s what the BR, DMR, (rifles) etc. are for. I hate jumping into a match and it’s nothing but pistols, defeats the purpose of the sandbox when pistol beats everything. I know pistols have been an integral part of halo since the beginning but what purpose does the sandbox fulfill if I can equip a pistol and land shots 100m+ away.
Hitmarkers wouldn't be needed if engagement ranges weren't stretched so damn far to begin with, and I still don't really think they're needed at all. Pistols were only ever the main precision weapon in Halo CE and Halo 5. Precision weapons are the bread and butter of Halo, regardless of how that takes shape, but that doesnt mean that the pistol should outclass map pickup weapons at all.
I've personally been more fond of automatic starts in some cases because there's a chase to find better precision weapons on the map. This is rather moot in Halo CE because the magnum is insane, and in Halo 2 the base SMG is borderline unusable without dual wielding.The magnum is *imo* best in Halo 3, because it outclasses the AR, but isn't really useful outside of that. But in Halo 2 Anniversary and Halo 3, auto starts are actually pretty fun. The magnum in Halo 3 fits pretty well within the sandbox of auto start gamemodes, as its better than the AR, but a pea shooter against the BR. Dual wielding nitpicks aside, it's a pretty solid starting precision weapon, especially with the zoom removed from the pistol. It may be a hot take, but I genuinely believe Halo 3 plays better with auto starts and the magnum because of it's range limitations
Hitmarkers are at best redundant screen clutter and at worst an indicator that you have utterly failed to provide proper visual/audio feedback in a halo game. They serve no purpose and should be removed.
Darwi wrote:
So. Playing some Halo 5 Arena today on Fissure (cool Forged map - me likee a lot).

Anyway... there were a couple of periods of some long range pistol play... taking potshots from one ledge to another across the map (round the time of rocket spawns). A couple of players on each side, ducking out, firing a few shots and then thrusting back into cover. Cat and mouse type thing.

Given the overall viewing distance plus the speed of thrusters it was really useful having that visual confirmation of a hit... so you could balance up the risk of staying out for another shot.

So it confirmed to me that hitmarkers can be useful.

Would the battle have been any less intense if neither side had hitmarkers? - probably as people would have been less adventurous staying out in the open if they didn't know for sure they had been scoring some hits.

Do such battles happen often enough to make them worthwhile? That's a harder one... but with the frenetic movement / changes in direction of Halo 5 I think they are useful. Probably not so much in the ploddier versions of Halo.

Will they still be needed on the Series S and X with higher resolutions and better graphic effects? - probably not (but that may be a moot point for those still playing on their XBONE at 800p).

Is it still cool to throw a grenade around the corner and flush out the enemy's hiding spot? - for sure :D
Long range and pistols shouldn’t be together. That’s what the BR, DMR, (rifles) etc. are for. I hate jumping into a match and it’s nothing but pistols, defeats the purpose of the sandbox when pistol beats everything. I know pistols have been an integral part of halo since the beginning but what purpose does the sandbox fulfill if I can equip a pistol and land shots 100m+ away.
If it's any consolation, I think someone had a Carbine.

And that's the thing... it was quite difficult to land the shot at that range... and with everyone ducking in/out of cover the hitmarkers were useful as there was too much distance and movement to be sure you made a hit. Any other visual representation was lost, especially at 800-900p resolution.

It's a somewhat constrained situation where you need to take the shots, pistol or otherwise, not necessarily for the kill, but to create opportunities for team-mates to get the rockets. But it illustrates that hit markers are useful when other visual confirmation doesn't really work (distance, screen resolution, and advanced movement).

I like them in Halo 5... but they are not a deal breaker going forward.
WerepyreND wrote:
Hitmarkers are at best redundant screen clutter and at worst an indicator that you have utterly failed to provide proper visual/audio feedback in a halo game. They serve no purpose and should be removed.
The visual feedback falls down in Halo 5 with the enhanced mobility, especially at a distance (only 800-900p resolution).

But I agree, audio hit-marking would work just as well.

Especially if the around the corner grenade audio hit-marker was the anguished wail of a chicken -yoink- camper. ;)
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Hitmarkers are at best redundant screen clutter and at worst an indicator that you have utterly failed to provide proper visual/audio feedback in a halo game. They serve no purpose and should be removed.
The visual feedback falls down in Halo 5 with the enhanced mobility, especially at a distance (only 800-900p resolution).

But I agree, audio hit-marking would work just as well.

Especially if the around the corner grenade audio hit-marker was the anguished wail of a chicken -yoink- camper. ;)
So they failed to provide proper audio/visual feedback. Trying to justifying. its addition due to resolution is laughable. If "enhanced mobility" is a contributing factor to hitmarkers(which is a questionable claim but I digress) all the more reason to remove "enhanced mobility" as well.

Also audio feedback does not = audio hitmarkers. Especially not for grenades, stop trying to justify getting free information for chucking explosives. You either know that and enemy is in a certain position in which case you do not need the hitmarkers or you don't know for certain in which case you don't deserve free information for guessing.
Grenade hitmarkers in general is just stupid. It's fun to throw a grenade around a corner and wait with bated breath, hoping it lands correctly, and if it does, seeing the medals pop up is confirmation enough. There are many instances in Halo 3 and Reach that someone threw a nade around a corner, clipped me, but I stayed crouched and they ran past, thinking nobody is there and leading to an assassination. Hitmarkers on grenades turn them into 'see if there are people around that corner' bombs and not 'see if this will kill anything around that corner and suppress anything at isn't dead' bombs.
As for hitmarkers on guns... visual feedback is a thing that 343 seemed to either downplay substantially or outright ignore, and I am firmly in the camp of 'do we really need it though?'
As for hitmarkers on guns... visual feedback is a thing that 343 seemed to either downplay substantially or outright ignore, and I am firmly in the camp of 'do we really need it though?'
This is why I think their pursuit of a T-rating is a bad thing. Part of the reason that Halo has always gotten M-ratings is because the games have had so much blood. Having zero blood at all, like Halo 5 does, means that hit markers are borderline required because there is otherwise no visual feedback once shields pop. I don't know if it's Microsoft making them shoot for a T-rating, or 343 themselves, but it needs to stop.
WerepyreND wrote:
Darwi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
Hitmarkers are at best redundant screen clutter and at worst an indicator that you have utterly failed to provide proper visual/audio feedback in a halo game. They serve no purpose and should be removed.
The visual feedback falls down in Halo 5 with the enhanced mobility, especially at a distance (only 800-900p resolution).

But I agree, audio hit-marking would work just as well.

Especially if the around the corner grenade audio hit-marker was the anguished wail of a chicken -yoink- camper. ;)
So they failed to provide proper audio/visual feedback. Trying to justifying. its addition due to resolution is laughable. If "enhanced mobility" is a contributing factor to hitmarkers(which is a questionable claim but I digress) all the more reason to remove "enhanced mobility" as well.

Also audio feedback does not = audio hitmarkers. Especially not for grenades, stop trying to justify getting free information for chucking explosives. You either know that and enemy is in a certain position in which case you do not need the hitmarkers or you don't know for certain in which case you don't deserve free information for guessing.
Halo 5 is only 800-900p. If you are presumably going for subtle visual clues in lieu of hit-markers then they will be difficult to see at distance... especially if players are thrusting etc. I prefer the consistency of the current hit-marker.

And if enhanced mobility stays (fingers crossed) then hit-markers are even more useful.

As for 'nading round blind corners. I don't see a huge problem with a different sound for grenade shrapnel vs Spartan armour or shields. Keep the campers honest. :)
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4