Skip to main content

Forums / Games / Halo 5: Guardians

Make 3v4 Great Again (banned on Reddit)

OP DrSammyD

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2
Longtime Halo Fan here. I read "The Fall of Reach" before the Xbox OG was launched.

I just watched this video and I think it gets to the root why people have a problem with Halo's Time To Kill. It's not length, but the time delta between average and perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoxcQ9-UNc8

The gist of it is that, in Halo 5, if somebody who has really good aim goes up against someone with mediocre aim, it's much less likely that the better player will come away with much health left after the encounter than some of the previous Halo games. This is measured in the delta between "perfect accuracy time to kill" and "average accuracy time to kill". Things like bullet magnetism have the effect of reducing that delta.

This may sound fair at first because everybody receives this helpful magnetism, so it all evens out in the end. But that's only under perfectly fair conditions, something which matchmaking can hardly guarantee. Very often, when playing in a match making playlist, you are teamed up with less than scrupulous random players. Players who don't like to lose, and so they quit when a match is going poorly for them.

It used to be that this could even boost your ability win, as the opposing team had one less target to hit. But this isn't so with Halo 5.

In the video it suggests that average time to kill is only 1.4x perfect with a pistol in Halo 5, where as average used to be 2.3x perfect in Halo CE.
So what does this look like as a person going into a 1 v 2 situation?

If in a gun fight, my opponents get average aim and I somehow got perfect aim, I stood a chance of killing both of them by 0.3x to spare, with the exact same weapon.
With a 1.4x delta, you cut their time in half, and they both kill me before I even kill one of them, even if both of their aims are average, and mine is perfect.

I'll say that again for emphasis. (In this hypothetical) I have PERFECT aim, they have AVERAGE aim, and I don't even kill one of them. What a difference 0.9x makes!

This problem is made even worse by sprint. Let's say we start off a gun fight 1 v 1. My inability to fight and retreat at the same speed as in coming reinforcements makes it much less likely that I'll even be able to perform things like guerrilla tactics, and be able to escape in time to make up for the fact that even though I aimed perfectly, I have less than half an average encounter's length to live.

This disparity has a cascading effect the moment someone on your team quits. As I said earlier, It used to be that you stood a decent (or improved) chance of winning if that person quit. Now, if somebody quits, you have to be near perfect for the rest of the game. And if 2 people quit? Forget about that game, you should quit too. With a 2.3x delta, it becomes plausible for you to win again. This is the true way to feel like a BA (badass). Having 2 people quit on you, and STILL pulling out a win was one of the greatest moments. And it was realistic for a larger number of people when missing shots was much more likely.

To be honest, I actually like dodge, slide, bash, and ground pound. I think clamor would be awesome if it didn't interrupt firing (maybe with an aim penalty), and if it worked when moving backwards (e.g. to help with staying on ledges when you can't even see it, something a spartan should be able to sense). So I'm not opposed to change. But sprint and bullet magnetism break the ability for players to have a reasonable expectation of a fair fight, even with the teams aren't "fair".

Best,
Sam

Edit: apparently this is unconstructive, so this got banned on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/halo/comments/8oyp9t/make_3v4_great_again/e075k45/?context=3
You don't have perfect aim. No one does. If you had perfect aim, no amount of ability usage would survive a proper 5-shot or 4-shot.

You also seem to have no ability to adapt, either. If you were able to adapt, you'd be able to actually contend with people running away. No one runs away in higher level gameplay because no one will survive running away without shields for too long.

If bullet magnetism is such a problem for you with how strong it is, how are you unable to kill someone with your "perfect aim"

This sounds like a lot of deflection for issues you have with your own skill-level and those using the mechanics to their fullest.
Vorked wrote:
I think OP meant that in an instance he had a perfect aim, like we all do upon hitting a perfect kill, not overall perfect aim like you're implying.

And I agree OP, I've been thinking about harder aiming for quite a while. My average accurracy with a magnum these days is around 60%. It's always kind of annoying to get pummeled to death by two potatoes spamming body shots to you while you may or may not have enough time for a perfect kill. Magnetism reduction would definitely be interesting to see. I certainly hope that Halo 6 will have a properly functioning aim mechanics (no heavy aim) and it would have a little bit less magnetism in it, every now and then I land headshots in which my reticle is on the opponent's knee or something...
Vorked wrote:
You don't have perfect aim. No one does. If you had perfect aim, no amount of ability usage would survive a proper 5-shot or 4-shot.

You also seem to have no ability to adapt, either. If you were able to adapt, you'd be able to actually contend with people running away. No one runs away in higher level gameplay because no one will survive running away without shields for too long.

If bullet magnetism is such a problem for you with how strong it is, how are you unable to kill someone with your "perfect aim"

This sounds like a lot of deflection for issues you have with your own skill-level and those using the mechanics to their fullest.
You're missing the point and are unnecessarily and in a non-constructive way criticizing the OP.

The OP is saying in the example, that if he had perfect aim this is what would happen.

People run away all the time, as anyone who watched the HWC games can tell you.
Interesting point, OP. I had not thought of it this way before but it certainly makes a lot of sense. I'd guess that 343 made the time-to-kill (for perfect and imperfect kills) generally quick since players can move around the map so quickly. However, upping the delta between perfect and imperfect kills sounds like something worth exploring in Halo 6. Especially since the competitive side seems to be very important to 343 and a good portion of the community.
Vorked wrote:
You don't have perfect aim. No one does. If you had perfect aim, no amount of ability usage would survive a proper 5-shot or 4-shot.

You also seem to have no ability to adapt, either. If you were able to adapt, you'd be able to actually contend with people running away. No one runs away in higher level gameplay because no one will survive running away without shields for too long.

If bullet magnetism is such a problem for you with how strong it is, how are you unable to kill someone with your "perfect aim"

This sounds like a lot of deflection for issues you have with your own skill-level and those using the mechanics to their fullest.
You really missed the whole point of the OP. It's a hypothetical situation. The OP isn't implying that they actually have perfect aim. I recommend you to read it again more carefully, with thought. As it is, your comment contributes nothing of value to this discussion.

The issue brought up by OP is completely real, and well known. The larger the difference between the optimal and average kill times, the more room there is for skill differences to show. This is especially important in high level play, where players are generally very good at getting fast kills. Some of the decrease in gameplay depth since Halo CE is directly attributable to the decreasing difference between optimal and average kill times.
Vorked wrote:
If bullet magnetism is such a problem for you with how strong it is, how are you unable to kill someone with your "perfect aim"

This sounds like a lot of deflection for issues you have with your own skill-level and those using the mechanics to their fullest.
Umm, if the perfect aim TTK is longer than half the average TTK, then on average, anybody in a 1v2 encounter and perfect aim (in this instance) won't get even one kill against the 2 opponents with average aim (in this instance)

Also, will you please unban the Reddit post? This isn't about my skill, this is about how the game is designed, and this "get good" mentality really hampers discussion about game mechanics.
Contrary to popular belief, Halo 5 has much less bullet magnetism compared to something like Halo 2, arguably the most popular multiplayer among the current community. In all prior Halo games, going solo against two players was never a good idea. If they had average aim and you had perfect aim, they’d only need to land 2-3 shots each before you landed 5, which isn’t very hard in any game. Basically what I’m saying is I don’t see a difference in 1v2s in Halo 5 versus past Halo games and I think the magnetism is in a mostly good spot for this game.
Vorked wrote:
You don't have perfect aim. No one does. If you had perfect aim, no amount of ability usage would survive a proper 5-shot or 4-shot.

You also seem to have no ability to adapt, either. If you were able to adapt, you'd be able to actually contend with people running away. No one runs away in higher level gameplay because no one will survive running away without shields for too long.

If bullet magnetism is such a problem for you with how strong it is, how are you unable to kill someone with your "perfect aim"

This sounds like a lot of deflection for issues you have with your own skill-level and those using the mechanics to their fullest.
This... I said it before and will say it again... There is more to skill in Halo than just ability with a precision weapon. Granted some think that is the only skill but in combat there is more than just precision shots. Positioning, movement, which weapon is more effective in the situation, communication with teammates... just to name a few.
TL:DR your points are definitely valid, but I believe there's a reason to why such scenatios aren't as common today as they were yesterday so to speak. Your suggestions would still serve an impact though. They're game changing mechanics after all.

Those are some great points, but I feel like the faster TTK's is due to the new empowered strafe (crouching, jumping and thrusting. A strafes never felt better in a halo game. ) and sprint is also a contributor to faster kill times since it's not meant to be so easy to retreat with things like the shield recharge timer being both halted and lengthened by sprinting away during a fight an also not being able to sprint when under direct fire.

I feel like the average player in halo 5 is many. I feel like there's a huge pool of players that are average at the game, and it feels like individual skill isn't as epic as in other halo games. I could be wrong obviously, but that's my 2cents. The skill ceiling for this game still feels really high, and there is a reason why we don't encounter those epic 3v4s as often.

For example...I've seen 2 pros in an hcs game face off in a 1v1, while 1 is 1 shot and the other is fully shield. These aren't your average players. The guy 1 shot absolutely destroyed the dude with full shields. Like man, it was bad lol Idk of the dude choked, but the other guy had a mad strafe. If there's that much difference between 2 professional players active in the hcs/hwcs...well the skill gap is definitely there.

"Supposing" the MM and ranks are all working correctly...you're facing people more or less pretty close to your skill level. They could be slightly better or slightly worse. The games still all about team work(OT since you mention playlists consisting of teams and not FFA) , and even right now it's stated partied up teams get ranked higher than solo Q. Their skill level is considered to be higher especially since you do better in a team with communication. So 3v4...even 2v4 ..in MM where MM is actually working correctly...you technically shouldn't be so far above your opponents skill level that you destroy 2 guys in a 2v1 encounter so often. That's not to say it never happens, cause it obviously does, but when it does happen...it's pretty clear the match making is skewed, or the 1 of many variables exist. Like a team consisting of 3 players, the 4th left but out of the 3 remaining you don't know for sure if they're partied or not, using mics or not nor do you know if the other teams a full party. Sometimes you do but often times we don't. When those epic 1v2 encounters happen and you win though, You know you're much better than those players. So for arguments sake, I'd side with the MM working more properly than not (despite the whole ordeal right now with csr and mmr), and that being why it's not as common as before.

I mean...your points are all still valid though, and the points do remain..but...sure this new MM has it's flaws...is it more accurate or far less accurate in terms of matching you against players near your skill vs the old though? I know we see threads of players frustrated with the MM saying their team mates suck or whatever...but imho, that may be a fairly small part of the population that go through that, and only usually temporary. I know that during seasons towards the end, MM feels spot on. Losing matches are like 40-45 to 50. I really only experience those lobsided matches during the begining of the season or when those variables exist since they definitely do come up. I believe the lobsided match issues are to be rectified, and is the entire purpose of the current remedy to the csr inflation that's going on right now.

Lengthy read, hope I contributed something to the convo.
DrSammyD wrote:
Also, will you please unban the Reddit post?
After reading his post and this one all I can say is wow..

I knew what vid you were talking about even without clicking it. I linked it here a few times in different threads in the past to people like ske7ch for example, but it's anyone's guess if he or anyone else at 343 actually watched it or passed it along. I agree with the vid, but I feel like 343 will never go back to the CE pistol formula if their past two games are any indication of what their comfort zone is. The H5 magnum is likely the closest we'll get to a something that's hard to use.

P.S. You should stick around here. We need more people with your viewpoints.
Contrary to popular belief, Halo 5 has much less bullet magnetism compared to something like Halo 2, arguably the most popular multiplayer among the current community. In all prior Halo games, going solo against two players was never a good idea. If they had average aim and you had perfect aim, they’d only need to land 2-3 shots each before you landed 5, which isn’t very hard in any game. Basically what I’m saying is I don’t see a difference in 1v2s in Halo 5 versus past Halo games and I think the magnetism is in a mostly good spot for this game.
So what is it that is reducing the gap between optimal and average to only +40% instead of +130% from the old games? Removing magnetism is a potential solution, but the real goal is to up that delta.

LethalQ wrote:
Vorked wrote:
This... I said it before and will say it again... There is more to skill in Halo than just ability with a precision weapon. Granted some think that is the only skill but in combat there is more than just precision shots. Positioning, movement, which weapon is more effective in the situation, communication with teammates... just to name a few.
Everything you just said is included in the average TTK. All of that stuff ALREADY lengthens the Average TTK away from perfect, and yet average STILL only +40% from optimal. That gap should be increased by 2-4x.
[read above]
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but "Skill" is not static. Humans go through ebbs and flows of good and bad when playing Halo. This enables you to have games where you're just "On Fire", and games where you can't hit the broad side of a barn. This is good. Especially if a lower skill "On Fire" player is matched up with a higher skill "having a bad streak" player. There are just times when even the pro's aim isn't quite right.

I'm with you on the "Feel" of Halo 5. I personally like it. But sprint is the reason why TTK has to be shorter, to make up for the fact that you're unlikely to have much health after a 1 v 1 encounter, and enables you to have some chance at running away from reinforcements after a gunfight. If TTK was longer, then everybody would be able to reach your position before the gun fight ended, and that would make 3v4 even more unbalanced. So I'm not saying make TTK longer necessarily, but removing sprint gives you that freedom. Match Making can only get you so far. Morale completely drops on a team when someone quits (or disconnects for any other reason). Again, it used to be a booster when a bad player would quit from your team. I'd say that this situation is something of a requirement to design for, to ensure players enjoy your online game.
Op I agree with a lot of what your saying.. Imo TTK should be a bit shorter. Even with all these abilities and such. It makes me wonder if the reason why the TTK is where its at is because of things like ground pound and spartan charge were added. Either way though I do feel the TTK needs some tuning.. I think the game over all would benefit from this. One point I want to make also is the aim this game has. The aim in this game has never been great. Or at least there seems to be some variance sometimes between games. Even the Pros have mentioned this. Something tells me that Halo6 will have a reworked aim. Or at least it will be more consistent or predictable..
DrSammyD wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Halo 5 has much less bullet magnetism compared to something like Halo 2, arguably the most popular multiplayer among the current community. In all prior Halo games, going solo against two players was never a good idea. If they had average aim and you had perfect aim, they’d only need to land 2-3 shots each before you landed 5, which isn’t very hard in any game. Basically what I’m saying is I don’t see a difference in 1v2s in Halo 5 versus past Halo games and I think the magnetism is in a mostly good spot for this game.
So what is it that is reducing the gap between optimal and average to only +40% instead of +130% from the old games? Removing magnetism is a potential solution, but the real goal is to up that delta.

LethalQ wrote:
Vorked wrote:
This... I said it before and will say it again... There is more to skill in Halo than just ability with a precision weapon. Granted some think that is the only skill but in combat there is more than just precision shots. Positioning, movement, which weapon is more effective in the situation, communication with teammates... just to name a few.
Everything you just said is included in the average TTK. All of that stuff ALREADY lengthens the Average TTK away from perfect, and yet average STILL only +40% from optimal. That gap should be increased by 2-4x.
[read above]
Yeah, I get where you're coming from, but "Skill" is not static. Humans go through ebbs and flows of good and bad when playing Halo. This enables you to have games where you're just "On Fire", and games where you can't hit the broad side of a barn. This is good. Especially if a lower skill "On Fire" player is matched up with a higher skill "having a bad streak" player. There are just times when even the pro's aim isn't quite right.

I'm with you on the "Feel" of Halo 5. I personally like it. But sprint is the reason why TTK has to be shorter, to make up for the fact that you're unlikely to have much health after a 1 v 1 encounter, and enables you to have some chance at running away from reinforcements after a gunfight. If TTK was longer, then everybody would be able to reach your position before the Gun fight, and that would make 3v4 even more unbalanced. So I'm not saying make TTK longer necessarily, but removing sprint gives you that freedom. Match Making can only get you so far. Morale completely drops on a team when someone quits (or disconnects for any other reason). Again, it used to be a booster when a bad player would quit from your team. I'd say that this situation is something of a requirement to design for, to ensure players enjoy your online game.
Very good points again. I recently started playing the hcs playlist, and I really love it. This is mainly due to the advantages of moving at normal speed vs sprinting. You dont ping on radar when using base movement speed, but all together the flow of the match as BSM feels great. Though I still love the button combos and skill jumps that utilize sprinting and sliding.

In the thread about the MM update. Snicker replied to one of my replies where i mentioned players lose a sense of progression for playing with the csr/mmr ordeal. This conversation perfectly highlights her point ironically, and the more i read threads the more i understand what's going on, and why snicker said that. Snicker basically said "it's a ranking system, not a profession system."

MM is way better today than yesterday. Before hand, there were ranked playlists that relied on progression via win loss. However, the big fault is that if you begin at 1, lets say your true skill is 40, but you don't play often. Well to get to 40, you progress through 1-40. Meanwhile, consistent players nearing their TSR get destroyed by you since the system sees you at a lower number despite that number only being low because you don't play consistent and instead play only every so often.

(I also fully understand variables within skill exist, and some days you're on fire while days you're on tilt. This still doesn't change the fact the old system contributed more to those lobsided in terms of skill scenarios.)

The new system in halo 5 takes 10 placement matches and essentially ports you to or close to your TSR. Essentially meaning your 11th Match would consist of TSR 35+ players or something to that extent vs old system you could possible be a TSR15 facing TSR20's and having lobsided matches cause your TSR should be 40...but...you'd fair very well in 2v1 encounters since the probability of you actually being much better than your opponents is way more prevalent.

As for the TTK though, and your recommendations for it, I agree with all of that. Those are game changing mechanics,and would definitely create situations where sprints no longer leading the packs of wolves up to the lone wolf's doorstep so quick and constant. The "collapse" onto a player is overwhelming sometimes and it shows so significantly in 2v4 or 3v4 scenarios with Spartans able to zip around the map and position so quickly now.
DrSammyD wrote:
Contrary to popular belief, Halo 5 has much less bullet magnetism compared to something like Halo 2, arguably the most popular multiplayer among the current community. In all prior Halo games, going solo against two players was never a good idea. If they had average aim and you had perfect aim, they’d only need to land 2-3 shots each before you landed 5, which isn’t very hard in any game. Basically what I’m saying is I don’t see a difference in 1v2s in Halo 5 versus past Halo games and I think the magnetism is in a mostly good spot for this game.
So what is it that is reducing the gap between optimal and average to only +40% instead of +130% from the old games? Removing magnetism is a potential solution, but the real goal is to up that delta.
To answer your question: hitscan, no bullet spread, and a faster TTK. The delta in Halo 3 is much bigger because it uses projectiles and a longer TTK. I have noticed that Halo 5 has a bit more of aim assist (sticky aim), but could be wrong when comparing it to other Halos. Closest you can compare it to is Halo 2 because it also uses hitscan and has a faster TTK. Removing magnetism is most definitely not a solution. Console shooters need aim assist and bullet magnetism or else it’d be virtually impossible to hit your target. It’d be like having the CE sniper the entire time except it takes a lot more than 1-2 shots to kill.
To answer your question: hitscan, no bullet spread, and a faster TTK. The delta in Halo 3 is much bigger because it uses projectiles and a longer TTK. I have noticed that Halo 5 has a bit more of aim assist (sticky aim), but could be wrong when comparing it to other Halos. Closest you can compare it to is Halo 2 because it also uses hitscan and has a faster TTK. Removing magnetism is most definitely not a solution. Console shooters need aim assist and bullet magnetism or else it’d be virtually impossible to hit your target. It’d be like having the CE sniper the entire time except it takes a lot more than 1-2 shots to kill.
Ah, good catch on the hitscan and bullet spread, I hadn't thought of that. Those would also be some very good knobs to turn when trying to up the delta between optimal and average. Though I'm not sure that faster TTK necessarily means that the %difference between optimal and average would be smaller, for sure the absolute difference in time would be.

Though I'd say that for the purposes of 1v2, the only thing that matters is %difference.

I should probably start saying "reduced magnetism" and "reduced aim assist". Those too are valuable knobs in getting the correct %difference.
DrSammyD wrote:
Edit: apparently this is unconstructive, so this got banned on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/halo/comments/8oyp9t/make_3v4_great_again/e075k45/?context=3
Well, that's kind of a joke. And they used the blanket "Other Detrimental Content"

It's as if they didn't read your post, and didn't realize you were posting constructive criticism.
DrSammyD wrote:
Longtime Halo Fan here. I read "The Fall of Reach" before the Xbox OG was launched.

I just watched this video and I think it gets to the root why people have a problem with Halo's Time To Kill. It's not length, but the time delta between average and perfect.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoxcQ9-UNc8

The gist of it is that, in Halo 5, if somebody who has really good aim goes up against someone with mediocre aim, it's much less likely that the better player will come away with much health left after the encounter than some of the previous Halo games. This is measured in the delta between "perfect accuracy time to kill" and "average accuracy time to kill". Things like bullet magnetism have the effect of reducing that delta.

This may sound fair at first because everybody receives this helpful magnetism, so it all evens out in the end. But that's only under perfectly fair conditions, something which matchmaking can hardly guarantee. Very often, when playing in a match making playlist, you are teamed up with less than scrupulous random players. Players who don't like to lose, and so they quit when a match is going poorly for them.

It used to be that this could even boost your ability win, as the opposing team had one less target to hit. But this isn't so with Halo 5.

In the video it suggests that average time to kill is only 1.4x perfect with a pistol in Halo 5, where as average used to be 2.3x perfect in Halo CE.
So what does this look like as a person going into a 1 v 2 situation?

If in a gun fight, my opponents get average aim and I somehow got perfect aim, I stood a chance of killing both of them by 0.3x to spare, with the exact same weapon.
With a 1.4x delta, you cut their time in half, and they both kill me before I even kill one of them, even if both of their aims are average, and mine is perfect.

I'll say that again for emphasis. I have PERFECT aim, they have AVERAGE aim, and I don't even kill one of them. What a difference 0.9x makes!

This problem is made even worse by sprint. Let's say we start off a gun fight 1 v 1. My inability to fight and retreat at the same speed as in coming reinforcements makes it much less likely that I'll even be able to perform things like guerrilla tactics, and be able to escape in time to make up for the fact that even though I aimed perfectly, I have less than half an average encounter's length to live.

This disparity has a cascading effect the moment someone on your team quits. As I said earlier, It used to be that you stood a decent (or improved) chance of winning if that person quit. Now, if somebody quits, you have to be near perfect for the rest of the game. And if 2 people quit? Forget about that game, you should quit too. With a 2.3x delta, it becomes plausible for you to win again. This is the true way to feel like a BA (badass). Having 2 people quit on you, and STILL pulling out a win was one of the greatest moments. And it was realistic for a larger number of people when missing shots was much more likely.

To be honest, I actually like dodge, slide, bash, and ground pound. I think clamor would be awesome if it didn't interrupt firing (maybe with an aim penalty), and if it worked when moving backwards (e.g. to help with staying on ledges when you can't even see it, something a spartan should be able to sense). So I'm not opposed to change. But sprint and bullet magnetism break the ability for players to have a reasonable expectation of a fair fight, even with the teams aren't "fair".

Best,
Sam

Edit: apparently this is unconstructive, so this got banned on Reddit https://www.reddit.com/r/halo/comments/8oyp9t/make_3v4_great_again/e075k45/?context=3
of course you have perfect aim. but in halo its about team work. just cause you hit shots in 1v2 doesn't mean you should win it. A lot more goes into it than just hitting shots. movement, going in and out of cover, strafing, coordinating team shots to take enemies down faster. time to kill is fine. the magnum is the most balanced weapon in a fps title. You are not meant to be able to win in 1v2 situation unless you play it smart, simply challenging and betting on your shots hitting and the enemy missing isn't smart. play smart and win, play dumb and lose.
GFG Dusty wrote:
of course you have perfect aim. but in halo its about team work. just cause you hit shots in 1v2 doesn't mean you should win it. A lot more goes into it than just hitting shots. movement, going in and out of cover, strafing, coordinating team shots to take enemies down faster. time to kill is fine. the magnum is the most balanced weapon in a fps title. You are not meant to be able to win in 1v2 situation unless you play it smart, simply challenging and betting on your shots hitting and the enemy missing isn't smart. play smart and win, play dumb and lose.
All of that is included in the average TTK, and yet Average TTK is still only 40% greater than Perfect TTK. Clearly the game doesn't give you (on average) more than 40% ability to make the other's miss, including cover, strafing, and coordination. The point of the 1v2 example isn't that you're "Supposed to win", but that if you play "Perfectly" against 2 who play "Average", then you should kill at least one, if not both, of them. That's why the 130% difference, at a minimum, is important. We aren't talking about balanced teams. We're talking about making the game still fun for unbalanced teams, and making it at least Plausible for a 2v4 match to end with the 2 player team winning. I gurantee if you look at the stats of games where 1 or 2 people quit out on one team, the occurence of that team winning has dropped since even Halo 4. This is bad design for online games where people who quit because they're doing poorly are quite numerous.
DrSammyD wrote:
GFG Dusty wrote:
of course you have perfect aim. but in halo its about team work. just cause you hit shots in 1v2 doesn't mean you should win it. A lot more goes into it than just hitting shots. movement, going in and out of cover, strafing, coordinating team shots to take enemies down faster. time to kill is fine. the magnum is the most balanced weapon in a fps title. You are not meant to be able to win in 1v2 situation unless you play it smart, simply challenging and betting on your shots hitting and the enemy missing isn't smart. play smart and win, play dumb and lose.
All of that is included in the average TTK, and yet Average TTK is still only 40% greater than Perfect TTK. Clearly the game doesn't give you (on average) more than 40% ability to make the other's miss, including cover, strafing, and coordination. The point of the 1v2 example isn't that you're "Supposed to win", but that if you play "Perfectly" against 2 who play "Average", then you should kill at least one, if not both, of them. That's why the 130% difference, at a minimum, is important. We aren't talking about balanced teams. We're talking about making the game still fun for unbalanced teams, and making it at least Plausible for a 2v4 match to end with the 2 player team winning. I gurantee if you look at the stats of games where 1 or 2 people quit out on one team, the occurence of that team winning has dropped since even Halo 4. This is bad design for online games where people who quit because they're doing poorly is quite frequent.
My point is you think you played perfect and I am disagreeing with your assessment of your gameplay. Your highest rank is diamond one and you dont have much game time in halo 5. Dont have much confidence in your assessment of the game and feel like youre just complaining cause you dont like losing gunfights. Teams that are outnumbered aren't supposed to win. You dont have enough gameplay in Halo 5 to be able to form a credible opinion of the game.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. ...
  4. 2