Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Reach MP - This is what NEEDs to happen
  • Subject: Reach MP - This is what NEEDs to happen
Subject: Reach MP - This is what NEEDs to happen

Phoenix is dead, long live Phoenix!
Is it?

Posted by: TheBigShow
Multiplayer has always been a huge part of the Halo franchise. Gamers who have been with the series since its inception have seen the gameplay move from a faster paced game of quick wits, dexterous fingers, and careful planning to a slower paced, almost exclusively team-based, game of positioning rather than player ability.

The change was applauded by some and criticized by others, and the ultimate goal was always apparent; make the game more accessible and appeal to a newer audience. Well, I think its time the franchise moved forward from the hand-holding era into the gamer era. The vast majority of Reach players will be players who have now experience at least one Halo game, and the mechanics, controls and gameplay should be second nature by now. I believe its time for the gameplay to reach new heights by striking a balance between individual ability and team-based gameplay. The game can still remain easily accessible to newer players, but it won't do so to the exclusion of gamers looking for a more challenging MP experience.

The following changes would be beneficial to every player of Halo; the changes would open up the game, challenge players, and provide a more rewarding, lasting experience for everyone.

To be honest it was the difficulty of Halo: CE that makes me keep coming back to it, that they did so much right made it easy to ignore the parts they did wrong.

A) Longer range on all weapons : in Halo 3, combat was almost exclusively close-quarters. No weapon aside from the Sniper Rifles and Lasers could effectively damage an opponent outside of even moderate ranges. Increasing the ranges of all weapons will open up the gameplay to incorporate every aspect of the levels. Close range weapons will still have a prominent role, they just wont have all the focus like they currently do.
But I would also like some solely close quarters maps, remember Beaver Creek and Chiron TL-34? They were the best maps because it was all close quarters, fast paced, all out kill fest. The most skillful usually won, but the lucky one did well too.

B) A Mid-Range Weapon : The BR was the mid-range standard for Halo 3. The problem is, it was hardly "mid-range" and it had a few other serious problems. I would like to see a single shot weapon that can effectively damage enemies at long ranges. Yes, I know many of you think this would lead to overuse of the weapon, but if balanced correctly (i.e. its very hard to use at long ranges, not random, just very hard) it would work just fine and would open up gameplay immensely.
This would also make it harder for the less skillful players. I can Snipe very well on campaign, but put me in multiplayer and my level of skill really shows.

C) Less Aim Assist : In Halo 3, AR bullets would literally curve through the air to hit their opponents. The AR! One of the bullet hoses of the game, with a large reticle that already made hitting your opponent easy enough had ridiculous bullet and reticle magnetism. The Rocket Launcher, splash damage machine, had ridiculous rocket magnetism, which caused the rockets to physically curve towards the opponent. Most of the time, the rocket curve was a huge annoyance. These types of Aim Assist are completely unnecessary and only serve to lower the skill curve of the game. A small amount of reticle and bullet magnetism is all that is needed on the weapons, at most.

D) Fixed Melee : There is absolutely no reason for a 90 degree lunge or aim assist on melees. If I'm looking at an enemy and I'm within 10 feet or so, I should land the melee. What shouldn't happen is me meleeing when I see the enemy out of the corner of my eye or below me and have my character flip 100 degrees, lunge 20 feet and curve through the air and land the melee. Thats ridiculous and is one of the main reasons Halo 2 and Halo 3's close quarters combat is so terrible. Also, I don't want a "window of opportunity" for everyone to counter melee like we have in Halo 3. Lets just accept the fact that online, the host will have certain advantages, melee being one of the more significant. I'd rather have one host player have a small advantage than have everyone be saddled by a lame melee system. If we made melee's require actually aiming at the enemy to hit, the host advantage wouldn't be as big of a deal anyway.

No comment, never really notice it, or get annoyed by it.

E) Fall Damage : Fall damage, not only from a logistical standpoint in terms of the armor, should be standard in Reach's MP. Fall Damage forces players to think and plan their actions more carefully rather than throw themselves around with reckless abandon. A small slip-up could be fatal, and it adds a new dimension to levels and how players move about them. Additionally, the crouch land should be included as a way to prevent full fall damage on impact. I love the idea of crouching reducing fall damage, the could even add in a roll if its a certain drop distance.

F) Faster Kill Speed : In recent Halo games, the majority of the weapons had a very slow kill speed. What I mean by that is that it generally took around two seconds to kill one opponent, assuming every shot hits. Two seconds may not sound like a long time, but in terms of a MP game, it makes a huge difference. It allows players with poor positioning and planning to easily escape from their situations just by running away. Weapons need to have the ability to kill a little quicker in Reach (although it should be much more difficult to land all the shots). I'm not asking for one shot kills with every weapon, I just want battles to be more intense and require greater awareness rather than a slow draw out affair where one opponent simply starts running away. I disagree, it shouldn't be a case of "see enemy, start shooting." You need to realise they're in a bad position and make allowances for that.

G) Faster Strafe Speed : Halo 3 had a myriad of customization options, including player speed. While I always applaud more customization options, there was one large problem with this one. Increasing the speed did not change the strafe speed, and there was no option to do so. Strafing needs to be a quick, precise motion rather than a slow, lumbering, easy-to-follow movement. The default strafe speed should be higher, or at least have the option to increase it. No comment, but I generally agree with the principal, though the action could be comedic, it might look as if the chief was dancing...

H) No Dual Wielding : Dual wielding has been attempted in the past two Halo games and each time it has felt unsatisfying, unfun, and leads to a slew of other problems. The most significant is the "half-weapon" syndrome, which Bungie attempted to fix in Halo 3. Dual wielding also prevents weapons from having unique, powerful features. The most blatant would be the removal of the plasma freeze. In order to keep plasma weapons, which are dual-weildable, balance, Bungie couldn't keep their freezing property in or it would be overpowered. So they tossed it in an effort to push dual-wielding. Which leads me to my next point.... I personally enjoyed every moment of dual-wielding, especially the needlers, though they could do what they did to the needler with the Plasma rifle. (Because I agree with the following)

I) Return of Plasma Freeze : We need to see unique weapons return to Halo MP, rather than just a large amount of cloned, uninspired, unused weapons. The plasma freeze added a very unique feel and use to the plasma weapons in Halo CE. The plasma rifle was preferable to even the shotgun in some applications instead of a largely unused spam weapon it is now. Without the freeze, the plasma weapons are relegated to second class weapons, serving only one or two worthwhile purposes. 100,000% agreement from my perspective. It was annoying to be on the receiving end, but fun to be on the sending end...

J) Wider FOV : The FOV has gotten progressively smaller with each new Halo game. The only logical reason for this would be to lower the amount of rendering the engine does. However, I would gladly sacrifce all the superfluous elements of the maps (camping stools, barrels, shrubbery, 3d skyboxes, etc) for better gameplay (i.e. wider FOV). A wider FOV enables players to see a more realistic view of the battlefield and removes the tunnel vision dizziness that many players experienced with Halo 2 and Halo 3. I disagree with the more realistic, he is wearing a helmet... But I'm undecided on this...

K) Balanced Vehicles : Requiring players to have a specific, cumbersome, slow weapon to even have a remote chance of posing a threat to vehicles is unbalanced, unfun and just plain ridiculous. Vehicles should be a viable option, but they shouldn't be domininant, overpowered killing machines that rule the battlefield.

Well, thats it for now. Just a brief list of things that should be changed for the game to evolve to new levels. If you disagree with any of them, let me know and I'd love to chat about it with you.
I agree, I made a big post about this earlier on another thread, and don't want to do it again... but yes... Though it does seem a bit like you want a remake of Halo: CE.

  • 06.09.2009 4:52 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Elder Mythic Member

I hate you so much...

But not as much as I hate the internet.

Posted by: TheBigShow
A) Longer range on all weapons : in Halo 3, combat was almost exclusively close-quarters. No weapon aside from the Sniper Rifles and Lasers could effectively damage an opponent outside of even moderate ranges.[/quote]


Some weapons could benefit from this, but I don't want a SMG killing me across Valhalla Learn to use the BR. It's just as deadly long range if you know how to use it properly in different situations.

Posted by: TheBigShow
B) A Mid-Range Weapon : The BR was the mid-range standard for Halo 3. The problem is, it was hardly "mid-range" and it had a few other serious problems. I would like to see a single shot weapon that can effectively damage enemies at long ranges.


A single shot weapon that can effectively damage enemies at long ranges? Here ya go.

Posted by: TheBigShow
C) Less Aim Assist :


Agreed.

Posted by: TheBigShow
D) Fixed Melee : There is absolutely no reason for a 90 degree lunge or aim assist on melees. If I'm looking at an enemy and I'm within 10 feet or so, I should land the melee.


I agree that it needs some reworking, but 10 feet? Small children & Spartans alike would be getting assasinated like flies. Forget capture the flag! Not gonna happen! That is far too big of a gap. 5 feet at the most. If you can punch someone from 10 feet away right now, I would like a youtube video of that please.

Posted by: TheBigShow
E) Fall Damage :


Meh. I don't really see how not having fall damage effects game play, myself.

Posted by: TheBigShow
F) Faster Kill Speed : In recent Halo games, the majority of the weapons had a very slow kill speed. What I mean by that is that it generally took around two seconds to kill one opponent, assuming every shot hits. Two seconds may not sound like a long time, but in terms of a MP game, it makes a huge difference. It allows players with poor positioning and planning to easily escape from their situations just by running away.


You're a 7 foot tall, half ton, armored, shielded, walking tank with a pulse. You should be able to take a few rounds. For realism's sake, probably a lot more than we do now (but i'm not going to get into a logistical argument about the realism of a fictional video game world). This is halo, not call of duty. First to see the other isn't going to win every time & that's the way it has always been in halo.

Posted by: TheBigShow
G) Faster Strafe Speed : Halo 3 had a myriad of customization options, including player speed. While I always applaud more customization options, there was one large problem with this one. Increasing the speed did not change the strafe speed, and there was no option to do so. Strafing needs to be a quick, precise motion rather than a slow, lumbering, easy-to-follow movement. The default strafe speed should be higher, or at least have the option to increase it.


Agree 100%

Posted by: TheBigShow
H) No Dual Wielding : Dual wielding has been attempted in the past two Halo games and each time it has felt unsatisfying, unfun, and leads to a slew of other problems. The most significant is the "half-weapon" syndrome, which Bungie attempted to fix in Halo 3. Dual wielding also prevents weapons from having unique, powerful features.


I could go either way with this one. Dual wielding has it's place, namely close quarters combat. I've noticed that most of the dual wieldable weapons spawn's are of two of the same gun (i said most, not all), there for eliminating the terror one had in H2 when spawning with an SMG. I wouldn't bring a lazer into the caverns on high ground... i'd bring a pair of maulers or smg's.

Posted by: TheBigShow
I) Return of Plasma Freeze : We need to see unique weapons return to Halo MP, rather than just a large amount of cloned, uninspired, unused weapons. The plasma freeze added a very unique feel and use to the plasma weapons in Halo CE. The plasma rifle was preferable to even the shotgun in some applications instead of a largely unused spam weapon it is now. Without the freeze, the plasma weapons are relegated to second class weapons, serving only one or two worthwhile purposes.


Plasma weapons destroy shields. They eat right through them. This was the compromise that bungie made when making the PR dual wieldable. I think the plasma weapons are finally fully balanced in H3, personally...

...except the damn needler... that thing is evil.

Posted by: TheBigShow
J) Wider FOV : The FOV has gotten progressively smaller with each new Halo game. The only logical reason for this would be to lower the amount of rendering the engine does. However, I would gladly sacrifce all the superfluous elements of the maps (camping stools, barrels, shrubbery, 3d skyboxes, etc) for better gameplay (i.e. wider FOV). A wider FOV enables players to see a more realistic view of the battlefield and removes the tunnel vision dizziness that many players experienced with Halo 2 and Halo 3.


Meh. I could go either way.

K) Balanced Vehicles : Requiring players to have a specific, cumbersome, slow weapon to even have a remote chance of posing a threat to vehicles is unbalanced, unfun and just plain ridiculous. Vehicles should be a viable option, but they shouldn't be domininant, overpowered killing machines that rule the battlefield.


Seriously?

Tank > Warthog > Battle Rifle.

They are weapons of combat. Learn to use them . To say that vehicles should not pose a threat to infantry is redicoulous. Vehicles SHOULD be "dominant, overpowered killing machines that rule the battlefield." It's why they are there, my friend.

[Edited on 06.09.2009 5:05 PM PDT]

  • 06.09.2009 5:02 PM PDT

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
To be honest it was the difficulty of Halo: CE that makes me keep coming back to it, that they did so much right made it easy to ignore the parts they did wrong.


Thats what brought most of the people back; the desire to get better and the feeling of reward you got when you did. Sure, there were some things that weren't perfect with Halo: CE, but the gameplay was phenomenal.

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
But I would also like some solely close quarters maps, remember Beaver Creek and Chiron TL-34? They were the best maps because it was all close quarters, fast paced, all out kill fest. The most skillful usually won, but the lucky one did well too.


I'm fine with that. I think the levels should dictate what weapons people generally use instead of just limiting weapon range across the board. I think you're assertion that Chiron was one of the best maps is rather ridiculous, but in general I agree with your point. There should be a wide variety of maps like there are now, but we should be given weapons that span the spectrum of ranges, not 30 close range weapons, 2 weapons that can hardly be considered "mid range", and 2 or 3 sniper weapons.

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
This would also make it harder for the less skillful players. I can Snipe very well on campaign, but put me in multiplayer and my level of skill really shows.

And whats wrong with something being harder? Thats the point; they're newer players, so there should be a learning curve there. The leveling system would ensure that newer players only play with other newer players, so they will all be around the same skill.


Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
I love the idea of crouching reducing fall damage, the could even add in a roll if its a certain drop distance.


You could crouch land in Halo: CE and it added a new dimension to player skill and mobility. It was great. There were very few falls that could kill you in MP Halo CE if you were good at crouch landing.

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
I disagree, it shouldn't be a case of "see enemy, start shooting." You need to realise they're in a bad position and make allowances for that.


I agree with the first part, and I don't think adding a faster kill speed would make it turn into "see enemy, start shooting." I mean, just look at the sniper rifle, thats a one shot kill, and people don't always shoot as soon as they see the enemy.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say with the second part. Please elaborate.

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
No comment, but I generally agree with the principal, though the action could be comedic, it might look as if the chief was dancing...

It would be the same movement we have now, just crisper and quicker.

Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
I personally enjoyed every moment of dual-wielding, especially the needlers, though they could do what they did to the needler with the Plasma rifle. (Because I agree with the following)


But is dual-wielding any more enjoyable than a single-wield weapon that has more unique properties? Personally, I think a more varied weapon set is better than a large weopon set with a multitude of cloned, uninteresting bullet hoses that all act the same.


Posted by: x Lai Tasha x
I disagree with the more realistic, he is wearing a helmet... But I'm undecided on this...


It would be ridiculous to equip a soldier with a helmet that only provides around 75 degrees FOV, considering a person's normal FOV is around 180 degrees.



Posted by: K Funk
Seriously?

Tank > Warthog > Battle Rifle.

They are weapons of combat. Learn to use them . To say that vehicles should not pose a threat to infantry is redicoulous. Vehicles SHOULD be "dominant, overpowered killing machines that rule the battlefield." It's why they are there, my friend.


Learn to use them? Whats there to learn about using the tank and warthog? They're completely dominant, and with a good spotter warning about lazers or missile pods, you're indestructible. I want people to be indestructable based on their own merit, not the fact that they jumped in an overpowered vehicle.

And I never said vehicles should not pose a threat to infantry, in fact, I blatantly stated that the vehicles should be a viable option (meaning they are good choices). I think vehicles should have certain benefits, like speed, or power, but the driver should still be vulnerable to small arms fire in the interest of balance.

[Edited on 06.10.2009 8:33 AM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 8:32 AM PDT

Check out my youtube vids and subscribe plox :D

http://www.youtube.com/user/E1emayoh

if you want a video rendered but arnt pro, message me :D

Agree with everything but the 1 shot weapon, it would be overused like you said.

P.S can you say rapidfire?

  • 06.10.2009 8:39 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

i disagree you should just play cod but anyways they should leave halo as it is if they want to make another game like you said they should call it something else. close quarters all out killfest is basically what people love about halo.

dont try fix something that isnt broken.

halo is great and so is cod but halo if it changed just wouldnt be halo

[Edited on 06.10.2009 9:02 AM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 9:01 AM PDT

Posted by: Spartan999
I actually disagree with most of what you just said. I think Halo 3 is about as good as it gets.

The single shot, long range, non sniper weapon you are looking for is called the carbine.

I think fall damage would make matchmaking games less reckless, but it would just get in the way of the rest of the game.

But the aim assist is incredibly annoying when you actually know what you are doing with a weapon and you don't need help.

The lack of fall damage is one of the best things about Halo. Jumping around is as fun as it can get!

I think the aim assist is like that little Microsoft Word 'Paperclip'. Always popping up, "It looks like you are trying to own some noobs, would you like some help?"

  • 06.10.2009 9:11 AM PDT

Best thread ever. I agree one hundred percent that the Halo series needs to be returned to the more skill based gameplay, a la Halo CE. The lack of a utility weapon (such as the CE pistol or a single shot mid range weapon that you discussed) is the main reason that I have stopped playing Halo 3. Every point you made i completely agree with.

  • 06.10.2009 9:27 AM PDT

Posted by: I K MART I
Best thread ever. I agree one hundred percent that the Halo series needs to be returned to the more skill based gameplay, a la Halo CE. The lack of a utility weapon (such as the CE pistol or a single shot mid range weapon that you discussed) is the main reason that I have stopped playing Halo 3. Every point you made i completely agree with.

What's a Carbine for if not a mid-ranged single-shot weapon? People tend to forget this, I feel sorry for it.

  • 06.10.2009 9:39 AM PDT

Halo: CE > > Halo 3 > Halo: Reach = Halo 2

To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.


Now concerning the topic at hand...

Again, BigShow, you are spot on with your ideas. Reach needs to be a reboot of the series, and go back to the core elements of Halo 1. This doesn't mean simply remake of Halo:CE like many ignorant people here like to throw around, but a game with Halo 1's foundation, and built on from there. Not torn down like they did in Halo 2 and 3.

I wanted to touch on a few of the points...

1) Fall Damage: Not only does it make for a much better game, but it is realistic even with a Spartan in mind. If the height is substantial enough, their shields will be depleted by absorbing the shock.

2) Field of View: This has been a bane of mine ever since Halo 2 fubar it up. Even with a helmet on, you can see a lot more then 55-70 degrees. Without a helmet a person has 180 degrees of vision. With one your looking around 120 degrees.

3) We need the Halo 1 pistol, or a rifle equivalent. In both speed, range, and power. And no, the pos H3 BR doesn't cut it. You cannot effectively use it at mid to long range no matter how many kids like to imagine otherwise. "Learn to use it", they say. I just sigh and proceed with a face palm. The carbine doesn't cut it neither. It is too inaccurate, and the green tracers it leaves makes it hard to even tell if you're hitting someone.



[Edited on 06.11.2009 10:35 AM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 9:41 AM PDT

Vehicles are fine, range is fine, but I do agree we could use a different melee system.

  • 06.10.2009 9:44 AM PDT

Posted by: MadroKurgan
To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.

For starters, THAT's ignorant.

For a main course, Halo is for everyone, which means that we are all free to donate opinions.

For supper, I liked Halo before it became testosterone infused.

  • 06.10.2009 9:47 AM PDT

I start agreeing with you about half way through C and up until the Vehicle part.

Vehicles are supposed to instill fear in infantry, they are supposed to rule the battle field. Infantry has to either avoid them, or destroy them.

In Halo 3, that over powered BR flips warthogs, destroys Banshees, etc.

I would also like if people stopped thinking that a burst weapon takes skill. It takes no more skill than an automatic. However, bust weapons take a different kind of skill.

You people are confusing different with more.

[Edited on 06.10.2009 9:54 AM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 9:50 AM PDT

Halo: CE > > Halo 3 > Halo: Reach = Halo 2

Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.

For starters, THAT's ignorant.

For a main course, Halo is for everyone, which means that we are all free to donate opinions.

How so? Saying what i wrote is ignorant, makes no sense. Do you even know what "ignorance" means? How can anyone give a valid opinion on a subject matter, that they have little to no experience with? THAT IS IGNORANCE. Just like those who have only played Halo 3. They don't know any better - ignorance is bliss. So if you fall under this criteria, please leave your opinion elsewhere - we would rather not have to read it and get stupider by the minute.





[Edited on 06.11.2009 10:36 AM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 9:50 AM PDT

Posted by: MadroKurgan
Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.

For starters, THAT's ignorant.

For a main course, Halo is for everyone, which means that we are all free to donate opinions.

How so? Saying what i wrote is ignorant, makes on sense. Do you even know what "ignorance" means? How can anyone give a valid opinion on a subject matter, that they have little to no experience with? THAT IS IGNORANCE. Just like those who have only played Halo 3. They don't know any better - ignorance is bliss. So if you fall under this criteria, please leave your opinion elsewhere - we would rather not have to read it and get stupider by the minute.




Sorry, I should have been more clear, it was not the "extensive" part, but the "competitive" part that annoyed me. Those of us who play for fun should have a say too.

That said, chill.

  • 06.10.2009 10:07 AM PDT

Halo: CE > > Halo 3 > Halo: Reach = Halo 2

Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.

For starters, THAT's ignorant.

For a main course, Halo is for everyone, which means that we are all free to donate opinions.

How so? Saying what i wrote is ignorant, makes on sense. Do you even know what "ignorance" means? How can anyone give a valid opinion on a subject matter, that they have little to no experience with? THAT IS IGNORANCE. Just like those who have only played Halo 3. They don't know any better - ignorance is bliss. So if you fall under this criteria, please leave your opinion elsewhere - we would rather not have to read it and get stupider by the minute.




Sorry, I should have been more clear, it was not the "extensive" part, but the "competitive" part that annoyed me. Those of us who play for fun should have a say too.

That said, chill.

People get "competitive" and "Professionally" mixed up. In order to have a fun game, and understand the working well, you need to play it competitively. That goes for ANY game, be it football, basketball, etc. If no one is keeping score, no one cares. We don't need ignorant advice of those who have not even played the game, or who do not keep score. Understand?

  • 06.10.2009 11:05 AM PDT

Posted by: oO Elemayoh oO
Agree with everything but the 1 shot weapon, it would be overused like you said.

P.S can you say rapidfire?


I don't see how single shot would make it overused, especially if it was difficult to use effectively at range. Weapons have maximum rates of fire that prevent "rapidfire," so that has no bearing on it.


Posted by: wack0 ZaKo
i disagree you should just play cod but anyways they should leave halo as it is if they want to make another game like you said they should call it something else. close quarters all out killfest is basically what people love about halo.

dont try fix something that isnt broken.

halo is great and so is cod but halo if it changed just wouldnt be halo


None of my suggestions would make Halo any more or less like CoD. I have no idea where you get that notion from. If anything, I'm asking them to make Halo even more Halo.

"dont try to fix something that isnt broken" - I couldn't agree more, thats why I was angry when they completely changed Halo with Halo 2 and Halo 3.


Posted by: FRI R3gret
Vehicles are fine, range is fine, but I do agree we could use a different melee system.


I understand why some people might think the vehicles are fine, but I don't understand how people can say the range is fine. None of the weapons, except the sniper rifles and lazer, can effectively shoot over 50 yards or so. We have something like 30 close range weapons and a few "mid range" weapons with a very generous definition of "mid range." What is so wrong with having weapons that span the entire range spectrum? I don't get why people are so terrified by that.

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
In Halo 3, that over powered BR flips warthogs, destroys Banshees, etc.

I would also like if people stopped thinking that a burst weapon takes skill. It takes no more skill than an automatic. However, bust weapons take a different kind of skill.

You people are confusing different with more.


The BR cannot flip a warthog and only destroys a Banshee if the pilot is unconcious.

Burst weapons generally take more skill than automatic weapons; its a simple fact of life. You need to be more accurate with a burst fire weapon, and even more accurate with a single shot weapon. If all else is equal, its a blatant fact that single shot weapons require more skill than burst, and burst requires more than automatic.

I would prefer the mid-range weapon to be single shot, because that generally requires the most skill.

Posted by: Oxford Comma
Sorry, I should have been more clear, it was not the "extensive" part, but the "competitive" part that annoyed me. Those of us who play for fun should have a say too.

That said, chill.

You seem to think that people who play at a higher level don't play for "fun," which is completely false. We just derive our fun from playing a more balanced, skill-based game.

Everyone who plays Halo 3 is a "competitive" player. Thats the draw of multiplayer - competing against other players. Now, theres "cooperative" MP, like co-op campaign or firefight, but thats not what we're talking about. Everyone who plays Halo 3's MP enjoys competitive MP, otherwise they wouldn't be playing.

Its in the interest of EVERYONE, not just the uber-skilled, to have a higher skill curve with more depth and greater balance. I don't see how any of that affects newer, or less skilled, players, especially with a robust leveling and matchmaking system. Explain to me how it makes a difference.

  • 06.10.2009 12:11 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Senior Heroic Member

the problem with long range combat is PING and Lag, something halo has never been very good at, they would have to do a really good job of the network to help everyone have a fair game

  • 06.10.2009 12:31 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Halo CE > Halo 3 > Halo 2

Fix the Halo 3 BR spread, plz.

Another fantastic post by TheBigShow. I applaud you. This game needs everything in your post in order to get back on the right track.

  • 06.10.2009 12:51 PM PDT

O Rly?

I disagree with the fall damage, removal of dual wielding, and the melee system. I prefer the current melee system over the one that gives an advantage to the host.

  • 06.10.2009 1:05 PM PDT

Posted by: MadroKurgan
Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
Posted by: Oxford Comma
Posted by: MadroKurgan
To everyone who has not played ALL 3 Halo games extensively and competitively, please do not burden this topic with your ignorant opinions. Thank you.

For starters, THAT's ignorant.

For a main course, Halo is for everyone, which means that we are all free to donate opinions.

How so? Saying what i wrote is ignorant, makes on sense. Do you even know what "ignorance" means? How can anyone give a valid opinion on a subject matter, that they have little to no experience with? THAT IS IGNORANCE. Just like those who have only played Halo 3. They don't know any better - ignorance is bliss. So if you fall under this criteria, please leave your opinion elsewhere - we would rather not have to read it and get stupider by the minute.




Sorry, I should have been more clear, it was not the "extensive" part, but the "competitive" part that annoyed me. Those of us who play for fun should have a say too.

That said, chill.

People get "competitive" and "Professionally" mixed up. In order to have a fun game, and understand the working well, you need to play it competitively. That goes for ANY game, be it football, basketball, etc. If no one is keeping score, no one cares. We don't need ignorant advice of those who have not even played the game, or who do not keep score. Understand?

Sorry, I was in a bad mood when I said that, just ignore me, always. I know you're right, I don't know why I kept arguing.

  • 06.10.2009 1:37 PM PDT

~~~~[]\\//[] \\// []D~~~~

I think so to
[Image Removed]

  • 06.10.2009 1:42 PM PDT

~~~~[]\\//[] \\// []D~~~~

i mean too ,not "to" ,srry

  • 06.10.2009 1:43 PM PDT

Jump feet first into hell!

I agree with mostly everything here mate but i heavily disagree on the vehicles part.Its not like there are more than enough means to counter vehicles in halo 3.

Stickies
Plasma pistols
Power drainers
Rlaunchairs
MissilePods
TripMines
Laser

Yet you want even more anti-vehicular gameplay?There are maps that don't even have vehicles man.You guys shouldn't try to make this into COD you know.Halo's other half was always vehicles , remove that and i doubt the game will be fun.

In vehicular maps the gameplay is supposed to be based arround vehicles anyway so they are supposed to be more effective ..They wouldn't make any sense if there weren't more powerful.It is your choice to play without vehicles on a vehicular based map and you can do fine but you ARE supposed to do better with the same effort while using vehicles.

Some balancing is for sure needed in the next game but making vehicles less powerful isn't correct.

Each vehicle isn't the same.For example it has always been bugging me that we need to have the laser and the missile pod to be able to take out a banshee.I mean this is completely okay as the banshee is very fast and can evade alot but then there is something called warthog which i believe the list

Stickies
Plasma pistols
Power drainers
Rlaunchairs
MissilePods
TripMines
Laser

is too much for it to take.

Personally i liked how vehicles were in Halo ce.
I would suggest to allow the missile pod to lock-on only on air targets.
If missile pod ain't in give the rocket launcher this ability .

Melee
Oh and about melee i think that the best would be a mix of halo 1's and halo 3's system.
That is:Stationary melee does good damage , Running melee does better damage , Jumping melee does even better damage.

That combined with halo 3's lunge but (can't say this well ,am not fluent in english) you can still miss your targets if you don't do it correct like it was in halo 1.


[Edited on 06.10.2009 2:26 PM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 2:17 PM PDT

Posted by: SuperCrack
I agree with mostly everything here mate but i heavily disagree on the vehicles part.Its not like there are more than enough means to counter vehicles in halo 3.

Stickies
Plasma pistols
Power drainers
Rlaunchairs
MissilePods
TripMines
Laser

Yet you want even more anti-vehicular gameplay?There are maps that don't even have vehicles man.You guys shouldn't try to make this into COD you know.Halo's other half was always vehicles , remove that and i doubt the game will be fun.

In vehicular maps the gameplay is supposed to be based arround vehicles anyway so they are supposed to be more effective ..They wouldn't make any sense if there weren't more powerful.It is your choice to play without vehicles on a vehicular based map and you can do fine but you ARE supposed to do better with the same effort while using vehicles.

Some balancing is for sure needed in the next game but making vehicles less powerful isn't correct.

Each vehicle isn't the same.For example it has always been bugging me that we need to have the laser and the missile pod to be able to take out a banshee.I mean this is completely okay as the banshee is very fast and can evade alot but then there is something called warthog which i believe the list

Stickies
Plasma pistols
Power drainers
Rlaunchairs
MissilePods
TripMines
Laser

is too much for it to take.

Personally i liked how vehicles were in Halo ce.
I would suggest to allow the missile pod to lock-on only on air targets.
If missile pod ain't in give the rocket launcher this ability .

Melee
Oh and about melee i think that the best would be a mix of halo 1's and halo 3's system.
That is:Stationary melee does good damage , Running melee does better damage , Jumping melee does even better damage.

That combined with halo 3's lunge but (can't say this well ,am not fluent in english) you can still miss your targets if you don't do it correct like it was in halo 1.


I'm not sure I quite understand you; first, you talk about how the vehicles are fine and they should be overpower, then you say you want Halo CE's vehicles, which is basically what I'm asking for. The drivers of Halo CE's vehicles could be taken out by well aimed small arms fire, they could be fliped with a grenade, and they didn't completely dominate. Thats what I want.

In terms of the "counters" you listed...

Stickies - don't kill vehicles. You need over two to do any damage.

Plasma pistols - only serve to stop the vehicle from moving. The turrent on a warthog can still kill you, and it will kill you before you hit it if the gunner is halfway decent.

Power drainers - extremely limited supply and range, and only stop the vehicle.

Rlaunchairs - These work at close range

MissilePods - Easy to avoid, but they do work. However, they are extremely limited and are slow and cumbersome, like I said in the OP.

TripMines - lol, no.

Laser - probably the best option, but again, extremely limited.


  • 06.10.2009 2:48 PM PDT

Jump feet first into hell!

The laser is limited?It is a sniper rifle on steroids.How would you want it be?No charge, instant shot?

If like you said you want halo CE gameplay then we completely agree.
Even if vehicles were weaker (like you say) there was no laser nor missiles with the ability to lock on vehicles.

Plus in halo CE there was the term "expert/good driver".In halo 3 the highest title i can give to a driver is decent.

That because vehicles such as the warthog no longer give you much choices.
Maneuverability is bad and pretty much you can only be careful or reckless, but even if you are careful you can't avoid the laser.

Whereas in combat evolved just because someone has the rocket doesn't mean you have to get out of your vehicle.

[Edited on 06.10.2009 3:02 PM PDT]

  • 06.10.2009 3:02 PM PDT