This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Mr. Admirals
Pages: 1 ... 242526 2728 ... 55
751
« on: January 05, 2015, 01:52:42 AM »
All this talk about how BTB is the best part about Halo, and Halo 4 had a large emphasis on BTB.
>MFW
Halo 4's btb was absolute shit though
Yet everyone votes for it in the MCC when it comes up as an option...
Has there ever been a time in human history when the majority weren't fucking retards?
You know what, that's a good point considering most people consider Halo 3 the crown jewel of the franchise.
752
« on: January 05, 2015, 01:45:41 AM »
All this talk about how BTB is the best part about Halo, and Halo 4 had a large emphasis on BTB.
>MFW
Halo 4's btb was absolute shit though
Yet everyone votes for it in the MCC when it comes up as an option...
753
« on: January 05, 2015, 01:41:42 AM »
All this talk about how BTB is the best part about Halo, and Halo 4 had a large emphasis on BTB. >MFW
754
« on: January 03, 2015, 02:00:56 PM »
Gore's fun, though.
Thank god. Now I can report you without having to open one of your gore threads.
It's not actually against the rules though, I ran it by flee the other day and technically gore isn't illegal thus it's allowed in anarchy.
So blatant shitposting isn't either? I'm gonna take a break from this website I think.
755
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:57:38 PM »
Gore's fun, though.
Thank god. Now I can report you without having to open one of your gore threads.
756
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:56:53 PM »
I haven't been in Anarchy in the last 3 rounds. I'm very glad I haven't.
Yeah, generally thought it was amusing because it got more racy, but the lax rules have sort of backfired.
757
« on: January 03, 2015, 01:55:02 PM »
The shitposting there is worse than /b/. So much gore.
758
« on: January 02, 2015, 08:38:33 PM »
You didn't visit Bungie or 343i?
759
« on: January 02, 2015, 08:12:06 PM »
Keep in mind they aren't decaying. They'd probably have a wet musk to them.
760
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:31:37 PM »
Solid gameplay videos
Someone tweet the second one to Josh Holmes or Quinn DelHoyo
I swear all it would take to fix this is to make sprint require full shields to initialize
How about, not full shields, but full health. That way if an enemy starts tagging you and gets you close to defeat, you can't run away.
761
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:30:44 PM »
I played only 5 games of it and can't give any constructive criticism because I think the game is beyond repair, unless everything is redone. My feedback: If you are a fan of Halo CE and Halo 2, you won't like Halo 5.
My keks. Take them.
762
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:27:19 PM »
HAHAAAAAAAAAAA THE LR SCOPED IN IS A 3 SHOT [This is a good thing provided the aim assists are low, which they supposedly are]
Light Rifle's hard to use though.
Music to my ears!
It's got a low rate of fire. But yeah, the Smart Scope mode is a kick in the nuts when you're hit with it. Glad it's a power weapon. Hydra is good too. Surprisingly balanced.
It's a power weapon?! Well there go my hopes of it being CE 0.25. Though maybe we'll have LR starts in the future XD
That being saaaaaid I've been looking at BR start gameplay on Twitch and it looks ridiculously good. Beta's finally fully impressed me. Eden and Regret both look like fantastic maps as opposed to the cluttered likes of Truth and Empire and the new abilities flow beautifully with a mid range starting weapon. Almost seems like the the game was designed around BRs and made to accommodate autos later.
Actually, Regret and Eden seem more cluttered than their counterparts.
Really? The maps are much smoother both visually and gameplay wise from the streams I'm watching. Then again, I am only watching so...
Well, I wouldn't say cluttered. They're just more complex. Have a different flow to them than their counterparts.
763
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:51:45 PM »
HAHAAAAAAAAAAA THE LR SCOPED IN IS A 3 SHOT [This is a good thing provided the aim assists are low, which they supposedly are]
Light Rifle's hard to use though.
Music to my ears!
It's got a low rate of fire. But yeah, the Smart Scope mode is a kick in the nuts when you're hit with it. Glad it's a power weapon. Hydra is good too. Surprisingly balanced.
It's a power weapon?! Well there go my hopes of it being CE 0.25. Though maybe we'll have LR starts in the future XD
That being saaaaaid I've been looking at BR start gameplay on Twitch and it looks ridiculously good. Beta's finally fully impressed me. Eden and Regret both look like fantastic maps as opposed to the cluttered likes of Truth and Empire and the new abilities flow beautifully with a mid range starting weapon. Almost seems like the the game was designed around BRs and made to accommodate autos later.
Actually, Regret and Eden seem more cluttered than their counterparts.
764
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:33:21 PM »
Well, maybe I was too overzealous. It's another weapon that's borderline power weapon.
765
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:16:29 PM »
HAHAAAAAAAAAAA THE LR SCOPED IN IS A 3 SHOT [This is a good thing provided the aim assists are low, which they supposedly are]
Light Rifle's hard to use though.
Music to my ears!
It's got a low rate of fire. But yeah, the Smart Scope mode is a kick in the nuts when you're hit with it. Glad it's a power weapon. Hydra is good too. Surprisingly balanced.
766
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:13:58 PM »
HAHAAAAAAAAAAA THE LR SCOPED IN IS A 3 SHOT [This is a good thing provided the aim assists are low, which they supposedly are]
Light Rifle's hard to use though.
767
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:49:30 AM »
Played a few matches with David Ellis. I bring news from Halo 5's development
-Beta is a few months old despite just having launched
-Beta is more of an Alpha
-Alpha, Beta, Gamma builds are meaningless terms internally
-The amount of feedback received from the Beta so far has been vast and invaluable
-Some of the feedback received will not be used because it does not fit their vision of Halo 5
768
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:11:16 AM »
You guys on right now? Beta just entered Phase 2.
769
« on: January 02, 2015, 11:10:17 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?
Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.
I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.
I swear to god, if you complain about the ranking system when the game launches...
>implying they'd listen to me
>implying I wouldn't get drowned out by countless dummies
>implying the game isn't going to suck anyway
I frankly don't give a shit what you think I'm implying.
770
« on: January 02, 2015, 02:29:29 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right?
Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.
I don't want to catch the stupid, Admirals. Don't do this to me.
I swear to god, if you complain about the ranking system when the game launches...
771
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:49:24 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
>Halo Waypoint
Listen, I hate my life already and I realize people are stupid, but I have some decency left.
You do realize that creating a topic on a feedback forum does not force you to reply to anyone, right? Hey, if you don't want 343i to know about your thoughts and criticisms on the ranking system, that's your fault, not mine.
772
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:38:00 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
I leveled up to 41 in Lone Wolves in Halo 3 because I always had shit teammates, and I can do it again.
Fair enough. There's still ample time to adjust Halo 5's ranking system. Provide your feedback on the system here. 343i says that is their main place when looking for feedback on the game. Of course, 343i employees on the MP team have also said they're monitoring tweets, streams, and other Halo websites.
773
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:29:48 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
I'm not saying make the skill ranks based on personal stats, I'm just saying don't fuck people over for having shitty teammates, and do punish players on winning teams that do horribly. I'm not listing specific points for what qualifies as horrible on winning team or great on losing team, but it shouldn't be that complicated for people that are getting paid to do this to find out.
LoL and StarCraft runs on this ranking system. No one seems to complain about that. Of course, this ranking system essentially means that if you want to do well, you need to find reliable teammates.
774
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:18:35 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
How does it punish teamwork by punishing the people that aren't helping their team and rewarding the people that are helping their team, even if their team sucks?
I don't have access to long term statistics, or anything of that sort, but logically in my mind, having an individual ranking system doesn't punish teamwork, it just promotes personal gain more than assisting your team. IE, playing it safe and ensuring you have kills more than assists. Or a bit more complexly, involves you setting yourself up to get kills rather than get set up to help your team with map control.
775
« on: January 02, 2015, 01:10:00 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question.
Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
People are still going to suck on average those first 10 matches, so it should be designed to not punish you for sucking shit early on. Halo 3's Truskill did that to people iirc.
You can still be carried after those 10 matches. If your team wins, and you did shit (Negative K/D, no assists or objective points), then you should go down in rank or stay the same low rank. If your team sucked shit because, like my experience in Halo always seems to have been, your teammates were moving the thumbsticks with their asses and being buffoons, but you did good, then you should go up in rank/get points.
My problem with that then is that is then that the game values personal skill more than teamwork. And the key to success for Halo is all about manipulating the enemy spawns and weapons spawns as a team. AKA Map Control.
776
« on: January 02, 2015, 12:24:11 AM »
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elo_rating_system
This is the rating system that H5 uses
Except it's not between 2 players, it's between 2 teams. Since the teams shift and are random, the ranking system is moot.
Just showing what it's based off of.
It's not good imo, for instance that guy who OP showed with more deaths than kills only is in the gold range because he got carried up to that.
But how far can he be carried? That's the question. Just throwing this out here, do you think it would be better if you were placed into a tier based on personal skill (first 10 matches), and then once your placed, it switches over to a win-loss based system?
777
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:28:50 PM »
What I think is crazy is that as soon as that beep goes off, he enters robot accuracy and efficiency mode.
That eagle stare and raise of the gun.
778
« on: January 01, 2015, 12:40:31 PM »
I dislike how it's just based on wins. It should also take into account personal performance. It does to an extent when awarding Performance Points.
779
« on: January 01, 2015, 11:49:51 AM »
If you're referring to your SR. It's based off of time played in the game for the Beta.
No he was showing the kda stats and w/l with the picture. The guy that's negative is gold and Sprungli is silver, even with better stats.
My mistake. Yes, the ranking system is based off of wins, not on personal skill. Which is how it should be. It promotes teamwork. Now, if he just got the luck of the draw, his shitty skill will drag his team down, and he'll have a lot of trouble getting past Gold.
780
« on: January 01, 2015, 10:55:59 AM »
If you're referring to your SR. It's based off of time played in the game for the Beta.
Pages: 1 ... 242526 2728 ... 55
|
Show Posts