Forums / Community / General Discussion

Do you think the pros know what best for Halo?

OP AHandfulOfBeans

  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3
It seems as though if 343 Caters too much to the pros, future Halo titles will be too sweaty like Halo 5. If they cater too much to the casuals, Halo will be as casual as Halo 4. What do you guys think?
Honestly I think 343i should just have one playlist with ranks. I think what Reach's system has right now is the best way to go. Just add Action Sack/Fiesta and take out Super Slayer.
Part of the problem with the competitive/casual divide is that we're not just talking about one or two game features, or whether or not the game has a dedicated pro playlist. Features that push the game toward one end of the spectrum or the other number in the hundreds and include things as big as "how wide is the skill gap" and "how fair is matchmaking" to things as small as "pistol vs. br starts" and "throwback playlists."

How's this for an example: Strict skill matching makes Halo sweatier. True or false? Well, I would have said false, and I still stand by the notion that matches between players of similar skill may be more hard-fought, but that they feel more fair and are therefore less frustrating and less stressful. And hence less sweaty. That said, I know what people mean when they say the assertion is true. They mean that when every single match is close and hard-fought that it makes the game feel more like work than like fun. So in this one example we have people from different perspectives who can't even agree on whether a given game feature is intrinsically sweaty or casual.

Now take that ambivalence and multiply it times the hundreds of other game features that could go either way - and which may not even seem the same way to different players - and suddenly you have a developer who is trapped in a self-made hell of miserable and implacable players. Some players want a competitive game, some what a casual game - but really what you end up with is all players wanting the game to be competitive in some ways and casual in others, and no two players being able to agree on which aspects of the game should lean in which direction.

The only thing I will say by way of expressing an opinion one way or the other is that 343 should fire their in-house pro team. Having pros involved at the development level is a huge mistake, imo.
Let the pros control their own tourney HCS playlist like it was in past games when MLG made the settings and 343 can make the rest. I don't think most people would care if it was different settings than the rest of the game assuming the default H6 settings aren't viable. People will either like or avoid it, but in either case, I think they'll get used to it being that way in the long run.
I think the multiplayer should skew towards pro players, but I would love to see 343i also do some real fun modes for casual gamers. Like real racing tracks for Mongoose racing like Mario Kart and some fun, spooky levels where we can play infection, or maybe just a bunch of goofy mini-games like Mario Party etc.
As much as I love the Halo universe, sometimes the violence can get a little too much. It would be nice to be able to have fun with the characters we've all come to know and love without having to feel like shooting is the only thing that matters.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Part of the problem with the competitive/casual divide is that we're not just talking about one or two game features, or whether or not the game has a dedicated pro playlist. Features that push the game toward one end of the spectrum or the other number in the hundreds and include things as big as "how wide is the skill gap" and "how fair is matchmaking" to things as small as "pistol vs. br starts" and "throwback playlists."

How's this for an example: Strict skill matching makes Halo sweatier. True or false? Well, I would have said false, and I still stand by the notion that matches between players of similar skill may be more hard-fought, but that they feel more fair and are therefore less frustrating and less stressful. And hence less sweaty. That said, I know what people mean when they say the assertion is true. They mean that when every single match is close and hard-fought that it makes the game feel more like work than like fun. So in this one example we have people from different perspectives who can't even agree on whether a given game feature is intrinsically sweaty or casual.

Now take that ambivalence and multiply it times the hundreds of other game features that could go either way - and which may not even seem the same way to different players - and suddenly you have a developer who is trapped in a self-made hell of miserable and implacable players. Some players want a competitive game, some what a casual game - but really what you end up with is all players wanting the game to be competitive in some ways and casual in others, and no two players being able to agree on which aspects of the game should lean in which direction.

The only thing I will say by way of expressing an opinion one way or the other is that 343 should fire their in-house pro team. Having pros involved at the development level is a huge mistake, imo.
Pretty much, or at least hire some noobs to compensate for the skewed feedback they receive. I know that's not how that works, but only relying on Halo pros for feedback is a sure way of upsetting and confusing the player base.
Small example: when they released the map Stasis, they said that this was a map they had worked closely with competitive Halo players to make, and it was one they were quite excited about as a result. I wonder how many typical Halo 5 players would rank it as a favorite, but it's surely not the love fest the players they consulted seemed to present. Halo 5 had a few good moments of listening to the community; now they need to double down on that in future.
No one side of the whole casual comp fight is 100% right. It's a balancing act of listening to the two sides. The sad fact is if both sides are mad with you then your probably doing your job right.
I think professional players can provide valuable insight on game balancing, map design, and other aspects on how to make the game fair and competitive. I do not think that the professional players know how to make a game that is necessarily "fun", especially not one that is fun for everyone. I think pro feedback has its place but it should not be considered gospel nor considered exclusively.
I think this "casual–competitive" divide is entirely artificial. While I guess a strong argument can be made for what it means to be "competitive", the term "casual" is just more of a catch-all term for everyone who doesn't fit the chracteristics of a competitive player. That is, anyone who doesn't make it their explicit goal to win every match, and play optimally to win.

As such, you can't really "cater to casuals", because "casuals" aren't some tight group with a unified opinion on what makes a good "casual" game. For example, some casual players might be completely fine with elements of randomness because they really don't care about the skill factor that much. However, playing the game casually does not exclude caring about skill and caring about consistent gameplay. Because while you may not ultimately care about winning, or play to win, you might still find enjoyment in learning to play the game and becoming better at it.

People often talk about things like high skill ceiling, symmetric maps, and skill based ranking as if they're something that only competitive players care about. But that's not true. Anyone who enjoys discovery and learning can appreciate a high skill ceiling. Likewise, anyone who appreciates fair gameplay should appreciate why some maps are designed to by symmetric. (And on the contrary, competitive players aren't fundamentally against asymmetric map design. Symmetric maps just appear in competitive Halo because they sort of give balance for free, and are thus easier for the designers to make adhere to the strict standards of competitive play.) And anyone who enjoys fair matches where one team doesn't totally dominate the other should appreciate skill based matchmaking.

If you find yourself asking "should the game cater to competitive or casual players", you're asking not only the wrong question, but also an ill-posed one, for "casual players" are not a unified group with a set of core principles the game should be based around. "Who should we cater to?" is not a good question, because it presumes that all players can be neatly categorized based on their wishes. Not to mention, it gives the impression that every decision necessarily harms one category.
tsassi wrote:
I think this "casual–competitive" divide is entirely artificial. While I guess a strong argument can be made for what it means to be "competitive", the term "casual" is just more of a catch-all term for everyone who doesn't fit the chracteristics of a competitive player. That is, anyone who doesn't make it their explicit goal to win every match, and play optimally to win.

As such, you can't really "cater to casuals", because "casuals" aren't some tight group with a unified opinion on what makes a good "casual" game. For example, some casual players might be completely fine with elements of randomness because they really don't care about the skill factor that much. However, playing the game casually does not exclude caring about skill and caring about consistent gameplay. Because while you may not ultimately care about winning, or play to win, you might still find enjoyment in learning to play the game and becoming better at it.

People often talk about things like high skill ceiling, symmetric maps, and skill based ranking as if they're something that only competitive players care about. But that's not true. Anyone who enjoys discovery and learning can appreciate a high skill ceiling. Likewise, anyone who appreciates fair gameplay should appreciate why some maps are designed to by symmetric. (And on the contrary, competitive players aren't fundamentally against asymmetric map design. Symmetric maps just appear in competitive Halo because they sort of give balance for free, and are thus easier for the designers to make adhere to the strict standards of competitive play.) And anyone who enjoys fair matches where one team doesn't totally dominate the other should appreciate skill based matchmaking.

If you find yourself asking "should the game cater to competitive or casual players", you're asking not only the wrong question, but also an ill-posed one, for "casual players" are not a unified group with a set of core principles the game should be based around. "Who should we cater to?" is not a good question, because it presumes that all players can be neatly categorized based on their wishes. Not to mention, it gives the impression that every decision necessarily harms one category.
Are you suggesting that competitive players are a unified group, and that all players who label themselves as "competitive" want the same thing out of the game?
No absolutely no the pros are running halo and I think 343i should listen more to the fans then them because all they do is complain.
So pros aren't fans of the game? Fans also complain about the game all the time so I'm not sure what your point is.
Small example: when they released the map Stasis, they said that this was a map they had worked closely with competitive Halo players to make, and it was one they were quite excited about as a result. I wonder how many typical Halo 5 players would rank it as a favorite, but it's surely not the love fest the players they consulted seemed to present.
The pros removed Stasis as one of the tourney maps because they didn't like it. Do you have a source from 343 saying they worked closely with competitive players to make? Unless you're referring to the in-house pro team, I don't believe the HCS pros have a say in how to design the map except for the weapon layouts. The only close example I can think of at the moment is when they were flown out to test Breakout maps, but all they could do was give their opinions on the map.
LUKEPOWA wrote:
No absolutely no the pros are running halo and I think 343i should listen more to the fans then them because all they do is complain.
So pros aren't fans of the game? Fans also complain about the game all the time so I'm not sure what your point is.
Small example: when they released the map Stasis, they said that this was a map they had worked closely with competitive Halo players to make, and it was one they were quite excited about as a result. I wonder how many typical Halo 5 players would rank it as a favorite, but it's surely not the love fest the players they consulted seemed to present.
The pros removed Stasis as one of the tourney maps because they didn't like it. Do you have a source from 343 saying they worked closely with competitive players to make? Unless you're referring to the in-house pro team, I don't believe the HCS pros have a say in how to design the map except for the weapon layouts. The only close example I can think of at the moment is when they were flown out to test Breakout maps, but all they could do was give their opinions on the map.
I'm not going to dig back to the update info or livestream where they talked about it, but they have discussed how they worked closely with their pro team (competitive Halo players; the two phrases are hardly mutually exclusive) to make that map in particular. If what you say is the case, than the pro competitive team knows even less about what the community wants than I thought.
Pretty much, or at least hire some noobs to compensate for the skewed feedback they receive. I know that's not how that works, but only relying on Halo pros for feedback is a sure way of upsetting and confusing the player base.
Small example: when they released the map Stasis, they said that this was a map they had worked closely with competitive Halo players to make, and it was one they were quite excited about as a result. I wonder how many typical Halo 5 players would rank it as a favorite, but it's surely not the love fest the players they consulted seemed to present. Halo 5 had a few good moments of listening to the community; now they need to double down on that in future.
Wow. So the in-house pro team puts their stamp on Stasis. And recon, the most caual of casuals, Halo's scrubiest scrub, actually likes that map? And the HCS crowd yanks it from competitive play? Could this game be any more schizophrenic?
Pretty much, or at least hire some noobs to compensate for the skewed feedback they receive. I know that's not how that works, but only relying on Halo pros for feedback is a sure way of upsetting and confusing the player base.
Small example: when they released the map Stasis, they said that this was a map they had worked closely with competitive Halo players to make, and it was one they were quite excited about as a result. I wonder how many typical Halo 5 players would rank it as a favorite, but it's surely not the love fest the players they consulted seemed to present. Halo 5 had a few good moments of listening to the community; now they need to double down on that in future.
Wow. So the in-house pro team puts their stamp on Stasis. And recon, the most caual of casuals, Halo's scrubiest scrub, actually likes that map? And the HCS crowd yanks it from competitive play? Could this game be any more schizophrenic?
Hey, I like it too. Remember my video on it? Not at the top, not at the bottom, just a decent map.
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please refrain from making non-constructive posts.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.
Spoiler:
Show
Chimera30 wrote:
tsassi wrote:
I think this "casual–competitive" divide is entirely artificial. While I guess a strong argument can be made for what it means to be "competitive", the term "casual" is just more of a catch-all term for everyone who doesn't fit the chracteristics of a competitive player. That is, anyone who doesn't make it their explicit goal to win every match, and play optimally to win.

As such, you can't really "cater to casuals", because "casuals" aren't some tight group with a unified opinion on what makes a good "casual" game. For example, some casual players might be completely fine with elements of randomness because they really don't care about the skill factor that much. However, playing the game casually does not exclude caring about skill and caring about consistent gameplay. Because while you may not ultimately care about winning, or play to win, you might still find enjoyment in learning to play the game and becoming better at it.

People often talk about things like high skill ceiling, symmetric maps, and skill based ranking as if they're something that only competitive players care about. But that's not true. Anyone who enjoys discovery and learning can appreciate a high skill ceiling. Likewise, anyone who appreciates fair gameplay should appreciate why some maps are designed to by symmetric. (And on the contrary, competitive players aren't fundamentally against asymmetric map design. Symmetric maps just appear in competitive Halo because they sort of give balance for free, and are thus easier for the designers to make adhere to the strict standards of competitive play.) And anyone who enjoys fair matches where one team doesn't totally dominate the other should appreciate skill based matchmaking.

If you find yourself asking "should the game cater to competitive or casual players", you're asking not only the wrong question, but also an ill-posed one, for "casual players" are not a unified group with a set of core principles the game should be based around. "Who should we cater to?" is not a good question, because it presumes that all players can be neatly categorized based on their wishes. Not to mention, it gives the impression that every decision necessarily harms one category.
Are you suggesting that competitive players are a unified group, and that all players who label themselves as "competitive" want the same thing out of the game?
I would argue that they are more unified in the sense that I would imagine there are things every competitive player wants such as predictable mechanics, balanced maps, high skill ceiling, and skill based matchmaking. They may certainly disagree on how to accomplish these goals, or how well a certain game accomplishes them, but I would be surprised to see a player who genuinely calls themselves competitive and does not want all these things.
I think the pros resonate with a majority of the halo community. It started with halo youtubers like Actman and Favyn and Wpns Grade, etc. and now the pros are saying the same things because they're pissed. I think they're right. I disagree with some of the things they want in a halo game, but yeah, they seem to have a pretty good idea of what halo needs to be to succeed.
It seems as though if 343 Caters too much to the pros, future Halo titles will be too sweaty like Halo 5. If they cater too much to the casuals, Halo will be as casual as Halo 4. What do you guys think?
Some pro's do, some don't know what there talking about. The problem is 343i forgets that the game is meant to be fun, has instead catered to the CoD style gamers sadly, which is why we got H4,5. Halo 5 barely is casual just because of Warzone, the competitive scene is pretty meh at moment due to how unbalanced H5 is plus pro players were to blame for why we don't have playable Elites or dual wielding so maybe it's time to ignore them and get back to what made Halo fun because a game can be competitive, still avoid being a flinch/twitch shooter, well that's what modern Halo feels like since most people just generally over-use the BR for everything now instead of adapting with different weapons/techniques unless they spam power weapon's with quick kills due to the awful radar that 343i put into H5 so not sure where 343i are getting their player feedback but I don't think there talking to the right people to get the series back on track.
  1. 1
  2. ...
  3. 2
  4. ...
  5. 3