Forums / Games / Halo Infinite

The return of Health Bar?

OP AlibutOne

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
I don't think I'm in for the Halo CE health system. The gameplay in CE was a lot slower than what we see in Halo 4 and 5. They aren't going to make different systems for campaign and multiplayer, nor should they. I can see the reasoning behind the old health system, but many of the best multiplayer Halo games just had shields. Adding the CE health system requires health packs to be placed around the map, like BF5. Not into it.
maxammo365 wrote:
The gameplay in CE was a lot slower than what we see in Halo 4 and 5.
Not really. For the average player all Halo games are about as fast with minor variations since the developers have been very consistent with maintaining the pace, for instance, by enlarging the maps as the maximum movement speed of players increases. Thus the most significant variations come from weapon kill times which have seen minor variations, changes in how often the player moves at maximum speed which has become rarer since the introduction of sprint, and changes in the likelihood of a player escaping an encounter which has become more likely with the introduction of various movement abilities. Since CE has some of the most powerful weapons in the franchise, as well as some of the shortest spawn times on power weapons, it's likely among the faster games in the franchise. Not that any of this has anything to do with the health system.
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
The gameplay in CE was a lot slower than what we see in Halo 4 and 5.
Not really. For the average player all Halo games are about as fast with minor variations since the developers have been very consistent with maintaining the pace, for instance, by enlarging the maps as the maximum movement speed of players increases. Thus the most significant variations come from weapon kill times which have seen minor variations, changes in how often the player moves at maximum speed which has become rarer since the introduction of sprint, and changes in the likelihood of a player escaping an encounter which has become more likely with the introduction of various movement abilities. Since CE has some of the most powerful weapons in the franchise, as well as some of the shortest spawn times on power weapons, it's likely among the faster games in the franchise. Not that any of this has anything to do with the health system.
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are. It doesn't matter how fast the respawns are on power weapons if you see enemies less.
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
The gameplay in CE was a lot slower than what we see in Halo 4 and 5.
Not really. For the average player all Halo games are about as fast with minor variations since the developers have been very consistent with maintaining the pace, for instance, by enlarging the maps as the maximum movement speed of players increases. Thus the most significant variations come from weapon kill times which have seen minor variations, changes in how often the player moves at maximum speed which has become rarer since the introduction of sprint, and changes in the likelihood of a player escaping an encounter which has become more likely with the introduction of various movement abilities. Since CE has some of the most powerful weapons in the franchise, as well as some of the shortest spawn times on power weapons, it's likely among the faster games in the franchise. Not that any of this has anything to do with the health system.
Honestly, I really don't care. I just don't think that health would work well in Infinite
I liked the health system of Halo CE and Reach. They might to that or just to Halo 5's health system. Either is fine with me.
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
Like I said, I don't care. I don't think the CE health system would work well in the next Halo. I'll play it regardless.
maxammo365 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
Like I said, I don't care. I don't think the CE health system would work well in the next Halo. I'll play it regardless.
Based on what?
Naqser wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
Like I said, I don't care. I don't think the CE health system would work well in the next Halo. I'll play it regardless.
Based on what?
"I don't think..." That means its based on my experience in the Halo games.
maxammo365 wrote:
"I don't think..." That means its based on my experience in the Halo games.
What Naqser's asking is for you to elaborate on how your experiences have made you conclude that the CE health system wouldn't work well in the next Halo. That is, what effects does the system have on the game that you find undesirable?
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
"I don't think..." That means its based on my experience in the Halo games.
What Naqser's asking is for you to elaborate on how your experiences have made you conclude that the CE health system wouldn't work well in the next Halo. That is, what effects does the system have on the game that you find undesirable?
I know, it's just preference. You can't really argue preference.
tsassi wrote:
The general consensus is that a game mechanic shouldn't dictate any outcome of an engagement. Let's go back to Reach for an example. A huge majority of the community disliked Bloom because it was extremely impactful on a firefight due to randomness. Someone with a better aim could easily lose a fight due to RNG factors that let lesser skilled players win a fight. This was proven against the odds and fundamentals of needing to "pace your shots" in an Arena shooter.
The issue with bloom was that it was fundamentally random. That is, unless the player waited for the bloom to reset, they had no influence where the shots landed within the bloom radius. This led to a situation where it was impossible, even in principle, to shoot in a way that was both consistent and optimal, but that the most optimal strategy was 50/50 crapshoot of whether or not to bullets go where you are aiming. If bloom was replaced, say, by a fixed recoil the player could learn to compensate for, this would not be an issue.

Bloom does not relate to this discussion, because bloom was fundamentally random. The outcomes of encounters (in traditional Halo) aren't.

Now let's go back. You win a 1v1 engagement with no health and regenerate your shields. However, your health is red, you can take literally 1 body shot from most weapons if that once your shields were gone. A mechanic of the game put players at a disadvantage, and because of that, made each fight a gamble. Will your enemy have red health as well? Will you get to a health pack before your next fight? In a competitive environment, each encounter should be fair in the game world. Losing a power weapon and bad map placement by your team is on you, not the game itself. Competitive play should rely on player skill in fair play and nothing less. Non-regenerating health has always been a bad idea, and is a clear reason H2 and 3 did away with it, while now, we can visually see our current health before it recovers.
The statement "In a competitive environment, each encounter should be fair in the game world" is obviously false, as we've already seen above. Each encounter is, in fact, not fair. Sometimes you have an advantage, sometimes your opponent has an advantage. A crucial part of the game, a part that contributes a substantial portion of the game's depth, is making the right decisions to be the one with the advantage. If you're the one with the power weapon, the better position, your teammates' support, and full shields and health, there's nothing your opponent can do about it, and you will wipe the floor with them. The only part of the game that needs to be fair is the start, after that it's up to the players' skill to make it as unfair as they can.
I believe the use of "fairness" should be used with equal stats (health/shield, etc.) all else held constant (equal skill, guns, etc.). The system of health packs breaks this flow. As you mentioned of someone making the decision to challenge and win a gunfight. This means you are stuck with less health for the next engagement, which breaks the "fairness" for the next encounter. This could lead to players with higher skill losing to objectively worse players because of an imbalance between the two.

This begs the question of when the game should be equal and when not to be.

Personally if they add a health pack system they would have to be very generous in the amount of them on the map and have a short respawn time.
Naqser wrote:
AlibutOne wrote:
I was playing Halo Combat Evolved this week and I think healh and shield bar was fantastic and harcore. 343i will bring back to Halo Infinite?
I've suggested going back to health, health packs and rechargable health all in one.

Simply put, health packs are stored, and are gradually used to recharge health. Once a health pack is depleted from your inventory, you can't recharge health untill you pick up another health pack. That's a short bad explanation.

Halo 5 has a health bar, but if you mean one that doesn't recharge, I'm not sure if it really makes a difference to the overall level of fun. All it seems it would do is complicate things for level designers when they could be focusing on other more important aspects of the game. Besides, from a canonical perspective, it makes zero sense for MJOLNIR to revert back to old technology.
As far as level design goes, a health pack is an item, like power ups and weapons. Bad map placement for health packs in previous titles is no indication that newer titles also would have bad placement of them.

Myes, canon stuff considered now when we have no clue of the events which have happened between Halo 5 and infinite, not to mention Reach's health recharge and Halo CE, or Dual Wielding and ADS usage now as opposed to gun cameras in previous titles, as someone may be along to point out.
I'm pretty sure I've seen your posts talking about the Heath pack system. I honestly think it sounds like a pretty neat/interesting idea.

Canon wise, it makes sense too from what I understand from my limited knowledge of the books... but 343I doesn't seem to care about canon (even know they say they do) when it doesn't suit them *cough "ADS style zooming" cough*

All this said, I'm not opposed to Heath packs being back and trying a system like what Naqser proposed.
I believe the use of "fairness" should be used with equal stats (health/shield, etc.) all else held constant (equal skill, guns, etc.). The system of health packs breaks this flow. As you mentioned of someone making the decision to challenge and win a gunfight. This means you are stuck with less health for the next engagement, which breaks the "fairness" for the next encounter.
And so do different weapons, different positions, and different shield states (by the definition you provided). So what's your point?

This could lead to players with higher skill losing to objectively worse players because of an imbalance between the two.
Again, so could the three other attributes I have mentioned multiple times. But we're all okay with that.

The reality is, it happens. People lose encounters to opponents who are worse than them all the time, because the worse player has an advantage. And this phenomenon happens in every well designed game ever, because in a well designed game a realistic player cannot predict every action of their opponents, which will mean that a worse player will sometimes perform better than the better player. It is not, in any way or form, a flaw in the design. It is a simple consequence of the fact that real players do not play optimally.

This begs the question of when the game should be equal and when not to be.
In general: the game should give equal chances for every player to succeed when the match starts. Then there's the arena shooter paradigm of symmetric spawns. However, after the game starts the decisions of players will inevitably lead to an inequal game state. This is natural, and should not be fought. What's more important is to ensure that the inequality doesn't remain static or become runaway, i.e., that the victory isn't too strongly influenced by which team gains control at the beginning of the game.
maxammo365 wrote:
Naqser wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
Like I said, I don't care. I don't think the CE health system would work well in the next Halo. I'll play it regardless.
Based on what?
"I don't think..." That means its based on my experience in the Halo games.
It could also mean you have information regarding Infinite's gameplay and has thus come to the conclusion that health packs are not suitable to use with that type of gameplay.
Naqser wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Naqser wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
maxammo365 wrote:
Anyone who has spent time play CE knows this is untrue. Arena multiplayer is absolutely faster in the newer Halo's. The two examples you use are circumstantial and cannot be used at causal evidence for a slower game. The introduction of sprint and spartan abilities has certainly sped up the game play. Play five games of slayer in each game, Halo CE and Halo 5, and see how long the games are.
No need to go and play any games when we have lots of data from matches that have already been played. Some time ago somebody made a comparison of gameplay pace between Halo 3 MLG and Halo 5 HCS seen here. When it comes to Halo 5, we can adapt the data from that. For Halo CE, we can use the Halo CE Beach LAN archives on YouTube which provide a sizeable reference for high level CE gameplay. Here is the data I collected quickly from ten matches.

The issue here is of course that high level CE is 2v2 whereas Halo 5 is 4v4. That's why we can't simply compare the match lengths of the kill rates, but we compare the number of kills per minute per player that occurs in a match. For that we have the following averages (based on the first ten games of the Halo 5 data, and the ten CE games I skimmed through):
  • Halo 5: 1.42 kills per minute per player
  • Halo CE: 1.82 kills per minute per player
This data is consistent with the claim that Halo CE is faster.
Like I said, I don't care. I don't think the CE health system would work well in the next Halo. I'll play it regardless.
Based on what?
"I don't think..." That means its based on my experience in the Halo games.
It could also mean you have information regarding Infinite's gameplay and has thus come to the conclusion that health packs are not suitable to use with that type of gameplay.
lol i wish
tsassi wrote:
I believe the use of "fairness" should be used with equal stats (health/shield, etc.) all else held constant (equal skill, guns, etc.). The system of health packs breaks this flow. As you mentioned of someone making the decision to challenge and win a gunfight. This means you are stuck with less health for the next engagement, which breaks the "fairness" for the next encounter.
And so do different weapons, different positions, and different shield states (by the definition you provided). So what's your point?

This could lead to players with higher skill losing to objectively worse players because of an imbalance between the two.
Again, so could the three other attributes I have mentioned multiple times. But we're all okay with that.

The reality is, it happens. People lose encounters to opponents who are worse than them all the time, because the worse player has an advantage. And this phenomenon happens in every well designed game ever, because in a well designed game a realistic player cannot predict every action of their opponents, which will mean that a worse player will sometimes perform better than the better player. It is not, in any way or form, a flaw in the design. It is a simple consequence of the fact that real players do not play optimally.

This begs the question of when the game should be equal and when not to be.
In general: the game should give equal chances for every player to succeed when the match starts. Then there's the arena shooter paradigm of symmetric spawns. However, after the game starts the decisions of players will inevitably lead to an inequal game state. This is natural, and should not be fought. What's more important is to ensure that the inequality doesn't remain static or become runaway, i.e., that the victory isn't too strongly influenced by which team gains control at the beginning of the game.
As much as I don't like to say it, I think tsassi has the right of it. I'm not much of a fan of health packs, but it's not because of any 'unfairness' issue, it's because I find the concept to be a distraction and a nuisance. If I survive a close call with another player and I have only a 'tick' or so of health, my focus now naturally shifts to 'health management' and away from whatever goal I was originally trying to accomplish, or risk losing the next encounter if I ignore it and press on. If I decide to go for a health pack, I just can't shake the feeling that I'm wasting time and being side tracked in order to regain what I'd already started out with.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3