Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

Sniper Rifle Lens Flare

OP Werewolf1619

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4
tsassi wrote:
I think it'd be more fun to not be able to tell where the sniper is right away and be forced to be more cautious/sneaky and also rely more on callouts. Really emphasizes the need of power weapon control even more. In something big like BTB/WZ it's more of a casual experience so I don't mind getting that information for free and you're also on much larger maps so it's nice to have that help locating the sniper.
If you're in a position where you would see the glare, this means that you will be in combat with the sniper within a second ("combat" including you being shot by the sniper even if you didn't see them), because the glare means that the sniper is already taking aim at you. For what you're thinking of, whether there is glare on the sniper scope is totally irrelevant on a small map, because on small maps there is no hiding: if you can see the glare, you can see the player that is emitting the glare. There is no advantage in being cautious when there is no scope glare relative to when there is. Consequently, it doesn't really affect the importance of power weapon control in any meaningful way.

WerepyreND wrote:
If you want to find someone use your eyes. If players are consistently having trouble picking out players from background or picking out certain weapons that is a failure on the developers part that needs a legitimate rework not tacked on bandaid solution.
This same argument applies equally well to bullet trails. Should we get rid of them, too?

There are two advantages that you're brushing aside here. First is faster recognition. If you deem this a "bandaid solution" to some perceived issue, you're missing this one. It's not that there needs to be some problem where players have significant trouble seeing other players from the background, but that this makes the recognition of the player (and in particular of their weapon) that is aiming at you faster, which is something you're not really going to be able to accomplish by any other means. Or at least the other means are substantially more obnoxious. Of course, another question is whether faster recognition is something you want, but since Halo has from its inception used very bright high contrast colors for its player models, it would seem that this is an integral part of Halo. In fact, this is a good feature for all the same reasons that less visual noise in map design is a good feature.

The second advantage is that unlike most other means of making players more visible, this works at a distance, which is very important for big team gametypes with large maps. Again, this is quite a subtle way of letting the player notice a sniper who is hiding behind some rock with only their head sticking out, who would've certainly gone unnoticed in all previous Halo games unless the player also had a Sniper Rifle. This, in turn, as I and UEG ShadowAngel pointed out, encourages snipers to be more mobile, which at least to me is an integral part of sniping in Halo and how it differs from other shooters.

The arguments against this feature to me seem mostly aesthetic (which is fine, I guess, but not very convincing), and the kind of "back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways" which assumes that because something was more difficult in the past, it shouldn't ever be made any easier.
Glare makes it easier for me to tell if the enemy has sniper and react to that. I see a glare and immediately thrust out of the way, I think it's more fun without getting that information blaring in my face immediately. However in BTB that becomes a slight problem to me when it's harder to get across the map to the sniper and if there's possibly several of them. Plus it's more casual, I don't mind getting that information for free.

The only thing I really liked about the glare in arena was using it to get enemies to back off because they can tell so easily, especially when you have no ammo, that's always funny lol
baaask wrote:
It seems like you guys are defending the addition of more casual-minded mechanics. And that's fine since Halo was built upon very simple mechanics, but why are you defending it in the first place? There was already a way to tell where a shot was coming from (the bullet trail), and it did not give you awareness of that shot before it was fired - which really works well with how much awareness you needed in previous games. Awareness is a skill. Scope-glint, like an endless list of 343's added mechanics, de-emphasizes the need for this skill.
For one, it makes the game more fun to me. The act of sniping seems more fun because if the enemy spartan is looking in my direction I know I have a short time to take the shot. This makes sniping more fun for me.

From the other end of the rifle, the bullet trail was never a fun or feasible way to find a sniper. The trail was about as useful as seeing which direction my brain matter projectiled out of. "Oh, good. Now I know there's a sniper hiding in the rocks of Valhalla. I can't wait to respawn." At least with the lens glare you know you're being targeted and you can attempt to engage in evasive maneuvers. It's more empowering from the target perspective.

It doesn't really serve as a nerf to the rifle because if the sniper is good they still have the upper hand even with lens flare. They still have the opportunity to strike before their enemy can react. "Game awareness" is fine as a game skill and makes perfect sense for ranked play, but I rarely want to play ranked. I am more of a casual gamer if you can't tell (lol) and game awareness isn't something I want to have engaged every match. it's why I like the visual HUD icons for power weapons spawning and things like the sniper rifle lens flare. They make the game more fun for me because I don't want to have to have an internal timer for 3 items or have my game awareness senses running all the time. That's not fun for me.
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
The situational awareness argument doesn't really work in a game that goes out of its way to paint players with bright colors. Halo has always made finding the opponent on the screen easy, and scope glare is only a natural addition to that. Of course, if you want to argue that good visibility of players is a bad thing, go right ahead, but at least to be consistent you need to start convincing peoplthat red vs. blue is a bad color scheme for teams.

The other problem with the situational awareness argument is that it can be turned right on its head: maybe the sniper should've had more situational awareness to not stand right in the player's field of view? It's completely their fault that they got seen. Should've flanked the player.

The key in this encounter is who sees who first. It doesn't really matter when both players appear on each others' screens how fast they can recognize that there actually is another player on the screen, because the important part, the actual situational awareness, already happened seconds ago when they decided where to go. It happened when the player made the decision to run into the open, and when the sniper made the decision not to flank. There's no reason to expect a lower standard of situational awareness from the sniper than from the player.

The camper argument is kind of the same. Should a good player be able to figure out where a camper is on their own? Perhaps, but a good player should also be aware that camping is a really poor strategy when it is.

The general issue with your reasoning is that any design decision that can even remotely be overcome with skill can be justified or rejected with "a good player should...", because of course a good player should be able to adapt to however the game is designed. But "a good player should..." only concerns itself with a very limited subset of skill; that is, the skill of the alleged "good player", while ignoring everything else about the situation.
Sniper lens flare is fine. With a sniper, you've got a weapon that can one shot a player at any distance. And rather easily at that, because even I can use the sniper in Halo 5. The flare just gives vigilant players a chance to react and take cover, rather than getting killed out of nowhere. Players who aren't so observant will still get domed consistently, and it's not like it puts a big red arrow above the sniper's head. Especially since you'll only see the flare if you're facing them head on; it won't apply if you're using the sniper while flanking.
I think it's fine in big social modes like BTB and WZ but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
I think the sniper shouldn't be in most 4v4 matches at all (except for larger-than-average maps, maybe.) 343 has a habit of putting the sniper rifle on pretty much every single map in the game, even on tiny maps where it hardly fits, like The Rig. Maybe it's just me, but I think it's really tiresome that we have to deal with the threat of an insta-kill at any range in every single match.
I remember in Reach with the large canyon BTB map, where snipers were available around the map, but I never got constantly killed by snipers. Camping puts the sniper in a powerful position, but the trail alerts every other player to their position. Due to spawning and map layout, you could quickly get to the sniper with being seen, or at least close enough that your mid/ close range weapons became effective.

This was good because it allowed almost any player to be a good sniper, and games could be won easily if you knew how to move around and bait players to your last known position.

I don't personally like glare because it makes a good power weapon useless against the majority of players who know how to boost. But despite that I do see it's usefulness as a deterence to hard camping, but like someone else said I think its a bandaid solution to a more complex problem (map layout, movement mechanics, etc.)

Remove glare, please. And make maps that have very obvious sniper locations, but also easy to sneak around and flank/ grenade snipers. Glare just makes it too easy for any player to dodge the first shot and descope/ grenade snipers before a second shot is fired. Bullet trail is exclusive to the sniper and already made it more difficult to be an effective sniper, because it forced you to keep moving. Glare made effective snipers worthless because casual players don't have to strategize to catch snipers off guard, they just look for the glare and can easily descope them and toss a few grenades before they line up the shot.
tsassi wrote:
The situational awareness argument doesn't really work in a game that goes out of its way to paint players with bright colors. Halo has always made finding the opponent on the screen easy, and scope glare is only a natural addition to that. Of course, if you want to argue that good visibility of players is a bad thing, go right ahead, but at least to be consistent you need to start convincing peoplthat red vs. blue is a bad color scheme for teams.
The situational awareness argument works because players are painted brightly. The sniper glare is unnecessary since players are already easy to see; the maps are intentionally designed to not showcase colors that'll mask a player in a team match. I don't want less visibility, I just want consistency. Halo 5's lighting/color saturation level is more than sufficient enough to be on par with previous games (iirc a complaint about the beta was too dark, so they fixed that for launch).
tsassi wrote:
The other problem with the situational awareness argument is that it can be turned right on its head: maybe the sniper should've had more situational awareness to not stand right in the player's field of view? It's completely their fault that they got seen. Should've flanked the player.
I completely agree. If a sniper is being sloppy, it's completely their fault for dying. That has nothing to do with the glare, though, it's just the sign of an inexperienced player.
tsassi wrote:
The general issue with your reasoning is that any design decision that can even remotely be overcome with skill can be justified or rejected with "a good player should...", because of course a good player should be able to adapt to however the game is designed. But "a good player should..." only concerns itself with a very limited subset of skill; that is, the skill of the alleged "good player", while ignoring everything else about the situation.

The camper argument is kind of the same. Should a good player be able to figure out where a camper is on their own? Perhaps, but a good player should also be aware that camping is a really poor strategy when it is.
I'm not ignoring that at all– I agree with you that a good player adapts to everything the game throws at them. Halo 5's mechanics make it easier to dodge sniper fire, but avoiding snipers wasn't a problem to begin with. The maps are designed to make these things possible without the glare, and the addition of it discourages using the scope unless if you're going to fire and descope within a fraction of a second.

I know these next ones aren't from your reply to me, but this discussion is really interesting so I thought I'd comment on it too.
tsassi wrote:
There is no advantage in being cautious when there is no scope glare relative to when there is.
There is, though... a cautious playstyle goes beyond watching out for snipers. If you charge through a narrow area of the map, you may be greeted by a player with a shotgun around the corner and get taken out immediately. Similarly, if you're running out in an open area, you should always be careful if it seems too quiet. Someone start firing a SAW or a BR and take you out within seconds at a medium distance, or you might get blasted by a fuel rod gun and a SPNKR. None of those have any indication of being present (shotgun flashlights can be negated by facing a wall), and they can be just as lethal to unaware players as a sniper rifle.
tsassi wrote:
This same argument applies equally well to bullet trails. Should we get rid of them, too?
No, because bullet trails appear after the shot has been fired. If the sniper hit you, you're dead or your shields are now down. If they missed, it's completely on them and you'll likely be able to get to cover quickly or get in close enough to take them out. The bullet trail is designed for players to trace a shot back to an inexperienced sniper. That's how the game penalizes them. Like we agreed, this isn't just about "well a skilled player..." for just one side of the duel. There's always a chance for mistakes to happen.
tsassi wrote:
WerepyreND wrote:
If you want to find someone use your eyes. If players are consistently having trouble picking out players from background or picking out certain weapons that is a failure on the developers part that needs a legitimate rework not tacked on bandaid solution.
This same argument applies equally well to bullet trails. Should we get rid of them, too?
I would argue there is more than a semantic difference between "bullets came from that direction" and "Here is their exact position." I guess I am just not convinced there is enough of a problem with how the sniper has generally functioned for it to merit this change. Given a similar balancing solution is already in place why do we need a new one?
Quote:
There are two advantages that you're brushing aside here. First is faster recognition. If you deem this a "bandaid solution" to some perceived issue, you're missing this one. It's not that there needs to be some problem where players have significant trouble seeing other players from the background, but that this makes the recognition of the player (and in particular of their weapon) that is aiming at you faster, which is something you're not really going to be able to accomplish by any other means. Or at least the other means are substantially more obnoxious. Of course, another question is whether faster recognition is something you want, but since Halo has from its inception used very bright high contrast colors for its player models, it would seem that this is an integral part of Halo. In fact, this is a good feature for all the same reasons that less visual noise in map design is a good feature.
Why should you be able able recognize them faster? If there is no specific issue with players being able to recognize what weapon is being used against them then why make it easier? As you point out Halo has historically been pretty good about contrasting player models and as far as weapons are concerned its not as if there has generally been an entire set of sniper rifles to make identifying them difficult relative to the other weapons. So it already seemed to be working just fine so what has changed?
Quote:
The second advantage is that unlike most other means of making players more visible, this works at a distance, which is very important for big team gametypes with large maps. Again, this is quite a subtle way of letting the player notice a sniper who is hiding behind some rock with only their head sticking out, who would've certainly gone unnoticed in all previous Halo games unless the player also had a Sniper Rifle. This, in turn, as I and UEG ShadowAngel pointed out, encourages snipers to be more mobile, which at least to me is an integral part of sniping in Halo and how it differs from other shooters.
Why should those players be punished for someone else not seeing them? Again if its so bad that no one could be reasonably expected to see them I'm going to blame the devs for poor visual design. Likewise if a camper cannot be effectively punished for said camping after the fact then I am going to blame the devs for poor map design. More importantly I'm not convinced that this degree of "camping" has been a significant enough issue to warrant it. Battlefield has a similar system for scoped snipers but it has demonstrably had major problems with "bushwookies" in the past and even then I think there are some other problems with the design that has been as contributing factor.

Beyond that I just broadly disagree with the idea of making Halo maps so large and complex to make us of that "advantage", its why I don't agree with increasing player counts in core Halo games.
Quote:
The arguments against this feature to me seem mostly aesthetic (which is fine, I guess, but not very convincing), and the kind of "back in my day we had to walk uphill both ways" which assumes that because something was more difficult in the past, it shouldn't ever be made any easier.
It isn't an issue of making others suffer because I had to. It is about whether the previous incarnations crossed the line from being fair to actively hampering the enjoyment of others. If that is the case I want to have that discussion not just wave my cane around at those young whippersnappers.
For one, it makes the game more fun to me. The act of sniping seems more fun because if the enemy spartan is looking in my direction I know I have a short time to take the shot. This makes sniping more fun for me.
That's fair. I have fun figuring out where they are based on the information given to me in the game thus far. Most times they are easy to spot. If they got into an advantageous position without me or my teammates noticing good on them.
Quote:
From the other end of the rifle, the bullet trail was never a fun or feasible way to find a sniper. The trail was about as useful as seeing which direction my brain matter projectiled out of. "Oh, good. Now I know there's a sniper hiding in the rocks of Valhalla. I can't wait to respawn." At least with the lens glare you know you're being targeted and you can attempt to engage in evasive maneuvers. It's more empowering from the target perspective.
This argument really only stands with very large maps. On maps like the Pit, for example, I like the bullet trail and I feel it relays just enough information to the player (e.g. general location of sniper, and that a sniper is in the hands of the opposition). I don't think any more needs to be given, even in a casual game.
Quote:
It doesn't really serve as a nerf to the rifle because if the sniper is good they still have the upper hand even with lens flare. They still have the opportunity to strike before their enemy can react. "Game awareness" is fine as a game skill and makes perfect sense for ranked play, but I rarely want to play ranked. I am more of a casual gamer if you can't tell (lol) and game awareness isn't something I want to have engaged every match. it's why I like the visual HUD icons for power weapons spawning and things like the sniper rifle lens flare. They make the game more fun for me because I don't want to have to have an internal timer for 3 items or have my game awareness senses running all the time. That's not fun for me.
Whether it is a nerf to the rifle itself or not doesn't concern me. It is indirectly nerfed. That's not a big deal. They unnecessarily changed a game mechanic which was completely fine and seamless to the simple gameplay I love. That's my beef with it. It's a smaller version of something like power weapon announcements that, while small in and of itself, does change the gameplay a significant amount.

I am pretty much a casual gamer in Halo as well. I just enjoy the competitive mechanics put forth in the original Halo's, since they reward a curious mind interested in taking advantage of them. I don't like information given to me that I don't feel is deserved I guess. To me, that isn't fun.
baaask wrote:
They unnecessarily changed a game mechanic which was completely fine and seamless to the simple gameplay I love. That's my beef with it. It's a smaller version of something like power weapon announcements that, while small in and of itself, does change the gameplay a significant amount.
I like these little changes game to game. I'm admittedly a very flexible Halo fan, but I like each game to have it's own mechanics and quirky touches. I think the only mechanic or change I've hated has been armor lock in the history of Halo games, so this falls into one of the many changes I enjoy.
Halo 5 is a quick game and all power weapons have a glare (like the shotgun, snipers and pretty sure the rocket launcher has a dull red shine). It makes sense in Halo 5 for gameplay because they are otherwise easy to miss.

But if Infinite is a return to classic, it wouldn't make much sense to keep it at all. I gotta agree with literally everyone else in this thread.
I definitely agree
Halo 5 is a quick game and all power weapons have a glare (like the shotgun, snipers and pretty sure the rocket launcher has a dull red shine). It makes sense in Halo 5 for gameplay because they are otherwise easy to miss.

But if Infinite is a return to classic, it wouldn't make much sense to keep it at all. I gotta agree with literally everyone else in this thread.
I definitely agree
I just think they should have an option to turn it off in custom games for Halo 5 and not have it in Infinite.
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
In that case, though, matchmaking balance would pair them with people around their skill level. Ranked playlists with extremely aggressive players are one thing, but Social Arena’s only annoying snipers tend to be campers or people who get lucky and spawn with a Nornfang in Super Fiesta. Snipers have always been easy to take out, even by regular casual players (I’m one of them, I rarely play Ranked unless if I’m with a couple tryhard friends). If it was such a big issue, the glare or some other form of sniper identication would have been added years ago.
The sniper glare is unnecessary since players are already easy to see; the maps are intentionally designed to not showcase colors that'll mask a player in a team match.
Is it unnecessary, or does it make dodging sniper fire easier?

I completely agree. If a sniper is being sloppy, it's completely their fault for dying. That has nothing to do with the glare, though, it's just the sign of an inexperienced player.
The point is that in your argument you implicitly assumed that the sniper should have the avdantage of lesser visibility in a situation where both players in the encounter already appear on each others' screens, but there was really no justification for this assumption.

tsassi wrote:
This same argument applies equally well to bullet trails. Should we get rid of them, too?
No, because bullet trails appear after the shot has been fired. If the sniper hit you, you're dead or your shields are now down. If they missed, it's completely on them and you'll likely be able to get to cover quickly or get in close enough to take them out. The bullet trail is designed for players to trace a shot back to an inexperienced sniper. That's how the game penalizes them. Like we agreed, this isn't just about "well a skilled player..." for just one side of the duel. There's always a chance for mistakes to happen.
The argument I was responding to was "If you want to find someone use your eyes". This argument does not distinguish between whether the marker that identifies the sniper appears after or before the shot. It simply states that you don't need a marker to find a sniper. This argument applies equally well to bullet trails. Some other argument may not, but this argument does.

WerepyreND wrote:
I would argue there is more than a semantic difference between "bullets came from that direction" and "Here is their exact position." I guess I am just not convinced there is enough of a problem with how the sniper has generally functioned for it to merit this change. Given a similar balancing solution is already in place why do we need a new one?
But this is not a similar solution, because it allows you to identify the sniper even if they haven't shot.

WerepyreND wrote:
Why should you be able able recognize them faster? If there is no specific issue with players being able to recognize what weapon is being used against them then why make it easier? As you point out Halo has historically been pretty good about contrasting player models and as far as weapons are concerned its not as if there has generally been an entire set of sniper rifles to make identifying them difficult relative to the other weapons. So it already seemed to be working just fine so what has changed?
Because we can always make it better? If you can see that there is a player with a sniper rifle aiming at you in 0.2 seconds instead of 0.4, that's an improvement to the clarity.

I'm not making some hugely passionate stand for this feature, because frankly, its effect on the game is really small, and in Halo it's traditionally reasonably easy to identify players and roughly what type of weapon they have as you said. However, I also don't see reason to be against small nonobnoxious improvements like this. That is to say that I wouldn't want a huge icon of whatever weapon a player is holding float above their head, but I really can't find anything against something that naturally embeds into the weapon's design.

WerepyreND wrote:
Why should those players be punished for someone else not seeing them? Again if its so bad that no one could be reasonably expected to see them I'm going to blame the devs for poor visual design. Likewise if a camper cannot be effectively punished for said camping after the fact then I am going to blame the devs for poor map design. More importantly I'm not convinced that this degree of "camping" has been a significant enough issue to warrant it. Battlefield has a similar system for scoped snipers but it has demonstrably had major problems with "bushwookies" in the past and even then I think there are some other problems with the design that has been as contributing factor.
If there is a player sitting on the other side of a BTB map partially behind an object, you are not going to see their player model unless you zoom at their exact location with a high magnification scope. It would be unreasonable to blame any player for not seeing them. It would also be unreasonable to blame the visual design since we're talking about a couple of pixels here. I could also comment on the poor map design argument, but I'm going to pass that because that's not really relevant, because I think Halo should by design discourage all kinds of camping and make it as ineffective a tactic as possible.

Whether this sort of camping is a significant issue is a matter of opinion. It happens in BTB from time to time on some maps. However, since the glare already exists as a solution, is easy to implement, and has no adverse effects, I don't see a reason not to have it, no matter how small the problem.

WerepyreND wrote:
It isn't an issue of making others suffer because I had to. It is about whether the previous incarnations crossed the line from being fair to actively hampering the enjoyment of others. If that is the case I want to have that discussion not just wave my cane around at those young whippersnappers.
I think looking at this from the position of "do we need this" is misguided, because really, I don't think we need it. However, it helps a bit. It's an occasionally useful, harmeless, "nice to have" feature. I wouldn't miss it if it was gone, but I see no reason not to have it.
I think there should be sniper lens flare in Halo Infinite, not having will just promote camping imo.
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
So we should just start making games easier and easier? Halo was already easy to pick up and play. I would argue that Halo 5 is harder to just pick up play than Halo 2 and 3. I wish 343 would let us figure things out on our own instead of just straight giving us the information we should be acquiring through experience and learning.
baaask wrote:
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
So we should just start making games easier and easier? Halo was already easy to pick up and play. I would argue that Halo 5 is harder to just pick up play than Halo 2 and 3. I wish 343 would let us figure things out things on our own instead of just straight giving us the information we should be acquiring through experience and learning.
Although Halo 5 has quite a few more mechanics, most geared toward competitive play, I still find it easier to learn than the classic Halo games. Mainly because when I get shot, I know where it's coming from. Whereas in Halo 2, for instance, my screen could start flashing red but I'd have no idea where I'm getting shot from. Maybe I find it difficult because these days, most of the people who pick Halo 2 in MCC are ones who are really damn good at the game, but that's a whole nother rabbit hole.

As for giving information to the player, I don't recall 343 giving any extensive tutorials about multiplayer. They do teach the players how to use new mechanics (such as Spartan Charge) in the campaign, but I've never seen any in-game text or tutorial explaining what that sunlight-looking flare is on that rooftop in Warzone.
Rhydon65 wrote:
baaask wrote:
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
So we should just start making games easier and easier? Halo was already easy to pick up and play. I would argue that Halo 5 is harder to just pick up play than Halo 2 and 3. I wish 343 would let us figure things out things on our own instead of just straight giving us the information we should be acquiring through experience and learning.
Although Halo 5 has quite a few more mechanics, most geared toward competitive play, I still find it easier to learn than the classic Halo games. Mainly because when I get shot, I know where it's coming from. Whereas in Halo 2, for instance, my screen could start flashing red but I'd have no idea where I'm getting shot from. Maybe I find it difficult because these days, most of the people who pick Halo 2 in MCC are ones who are really damn good at the game, but that's a whole nother rabbit hole.

As for giving information to the player, I don't recall 343 giving any extensive tutorials about multiplayer. They do teach the players how to use new mechanics (such as Spartan Charge) in the campaign, but I've never seen any in-game text or tutorial explaining what that sunlight-looking flare is on that rooftop in Warzone.
Giving information to the players via in-game things, like spartan callouts, power weapon callouts, and sniper-lens flare. Not literally.
baaask wrote:
Rhydon65 wrote:
baaask wrote:
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
So we should just start making games easier and easier? Halo was already easy to pick up and play. I would argue that Halo 5 is harder to just pick up play than Halo 2 and 3. I wish 343 would let us figure things out things on our own instead of just straight giving us the information we should be acquiring through experience and learning.
Although Halo 5 has quite a few more mechanics, most geared toward competitive play, I still find it easier to learn than the classic Halo games. Mainly because when I get shot, I know where it's coming from. Whereas in Halo 2, for instance, my screen could start flashing red but I'd have no idea where I'm getting shot from. Maybe I find it difficult because these days, most of the people who pick Halo 2 in MCC are ones who are really damn good at the game, but that's a whole nother rabbit hole.

As for giving information to the player, I don't recall 343 giving any extensive tutorials about multiplayer. They do teach the players how to use new mechanics (such as Spartan Charge) in the campaign, but I've never seen any in-game text or tutorial explaining what that sunlight-looking flare is on that rooftop in Warzone.
Giving information to the players via in-game things, like spartan callouts, power weapon callouts, and sniper-lens flare. Not literally.
Oh right. It's been such a long time since I've played Halo 5, I actually forgot callouts were a thing.
baaask wrote:
tsassi wrote:
but shouldn't be in 4v4 and smaller playlists.
Why though?
If a player walks out into the open with no situational awareness, it’s completely their fault for being killed by a sniper. The counter-argument is that no glare encourages camping, but a good player should be able to figure out where a camper is on their own. It’d be like adding an alarm to the motion tracker if someone’s trying to creep up behind you and get an assassination.
Most people aren’t “good” players. Most are causal average players and don’t care to learn. For a balance competitive side I 100% understand both sides and where they are coming from but for a casual standpoint which most players will be it’s easier for them
So we should just start making games easier and easier? Halo was already easy to pick up and play. I would argue that Halo 5 is harder to just pick up play than Halo 2 and 3. I wish 343 would let us figure things out things on our own instead of just straight giving us the information we should be acquiring through experience and learning.
I find it the opposite for me. If it wasn’t for my extensive love for Halo and playing all the previous games when I picked up Halo it would of been stupid hard to get use to playing this particular Halo where with the other games one game smoothly transitioned to the other games without much change. They do help the players out but why is that a bad thing? It gives them a helping hand (not by much I’ll add) while old school players or new players who got really good at H5 don’t need it. People who don’t need it are generally in my opinion at a higher skill lvl than those who don’t so you shouldn’t be matching them anyways. Even In Social 343 has a hidden ranking in place (MMR). As I said before I 100% see the side you’re coming from but on the other hand if they are throwing small little hints that doesn’t effect gameplay what so ever I think it’s fine.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 4