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


Posted by: Falcon0046
A well thought out reason to play Halo:CE. Everyone, for some reason, seems to want back the rediculously overpowered pistol. I felt the pistol was far too powerful, and made almost every other weapon obsolete, and this annoyed me. Long range is overrated. I personally enjoy close range far more. Close range stops people from stealing kills, and in general just keeps the gameplay from being accuracy ALONE. Don't get me wrong, accuracy is a good thing, and I agree for the most part with your assessment that the magnetism and auto-aim should be toned down. But when accuracy is the ONLY thing, it bores me to tears. I like the variety of close range weapons, the options to choose from, and the unique way you use the weapons. Close range is about how to use your weapon to its advantage, and not allow someone to exploit its weakness. BR battles, however, are just that. All that is is accuracy, no real variety. Bungie made the BR the way it is in H3 because of this, I think.


People loved the pistol because of its funtion; it allowed them to be effective from practically anywhere on the map. However, it required a lot of skill to use well. Was it overused? Yes, but it was not unbalanced. It was middle of the road in terms of power and rate of fire. So why does everyone think it was unbalanced?

Most of the levels in Halo CE feature wide open areas, long sight lines, and rather simplistic geometry with little cover. This was the prime environment for the M6D pistol, and people quickly learned this. The pistol was used prolifically on almost every level leading many players to feel it was unfair and imbalanced. Was it? No, it was balanced very well actually. However, the open nature of the levels leads many people to feel like it was imbalanced. If all the levels in Halo CE were designed as short, tight corridors, many people would have a much different perception of the balance, despite the fact that the actual mechanics never changed.

With the more powerful engine and console, Bungie's MP levels have become more diverse. There are generally areas that are well suited for close, mid and long range combat. They don't feature as many wide open areas as Halo CE does. This means that a mid-range weapon wouldn't be as oversued as it was in Halo CE. Sure, it would still be useful, because mid-range weapons usually are the most used weapon, but if it was made to require lots of aiming skill to use at full effectiveness, it would be just fine.

  • 06.11.2009 9:13 AM PDT

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

Posted by: SnakeRunner40
Posted by: MadroKurgan
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.

Wow, you just ruined your whole argument. Stupider? You sound and act like a retarded baby, crying and whining over a VIDEO GAME. Not a sport, A VIDEO GAME! Your ignorant of the purpose of Halo. It wasn't made for MLG, it was made for everyone. It's not meant to be a sport, it's made to be FUN. That's what you forget. It is meant to be FUN. This is Not HaMLGo, it's Halo. Halo: Reach should be an evolution of Halo 3, not a devolution.

Sigh... followed with a face palm.

First of all, "stupider" is a word. Second, i don't need to resort to personal insults to make my point like you do; your ignorance speaks enough volume to render your reply worthless. Third, your reply is one of those post that make those who read it "stupider by the minute". So i'm not going to waste anymore time trying to explain it to an ignorant person who does not want to see reason.

  • 06.11.2009 9:18 AM PDT

Stop being such a jerk to people that don't agree with you.

  • 06.11.2009 9:38 AM PDT

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

I have not been. I have not attached anyone, nor have i been abusive. If you think that i have, then i'm sorry, but you need to follow the entire discussion before posting pointless judgment.

[Edited on 06.11.2009 9:54 AM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 9:49 AM PDT

Yes, I am listening to Halo music while playing Halo 3 multiplayer and writing on the Halo 3 forums in between matches in a dark basement. You got a problem with that?

My biff with the pistol was that, everything being equal, pistol wins. Even an assualt rifle, point blank, would lose to the pistol if you got all headshots. Granted, it was somewhat difficult to get all headshots, but it didn't seem too hard to me. It excelled at EVERYTHING, was the problem. Good at close, and godly at all other ranges. It made other weapons almost completely obsolete. Although I also haven't played Halo: CE for a very long time (other than the campaign; better on all accounts than the other halo games, excluding, of course, graphics, but I digress) so I may have forgotten the intricacies of the multiplayer. I do enjoy your addressing others in a polite manner, stating your view without flaming. Keep it up.

  • 06.11.2009 9:57 AM PDT

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

Posted by: Falcon0046
My biff with the pistol was that, everything being equal, pistol wins. Even an assualt rifle, point blank, would lose to the pistol if you got all headshots. Granted, it was somewhat difficult to get all headshots, but it didn't seem too hard to me. It excelled at EVERYTHING, was the problem. Good at close, and godly at all other ranges. It made other weapons almost completely obsolete. Although I also haven't played Halo: CE for a very long time (other than the campaign; better on all accounts than the other halo games, excluding, of course, graphics, but I digress) so I may have forgotten the intricacies of the multiplayer. I do enjoy your addressing others in a polite manner, stating your view without flaming. Keep it up.

Yes the pistol could be used effectively at all ranges, but there were short and long range weapons that were more effective. The AR, PR, and shotgun were more effective - killed quicker at close range. The sniper was more effective at long range. The pistol was simply an equalizer - it gave spawning players a CHANCE to defend themselves at all ranges. And i loved it for that fact.

  • 06.11.2009 10:01 AM PDT

Posted by: Falcon0046
My biff with the pistol was that, everything being equal, pistol wins. Even an assualt rifle, point blank, would lose to the pistol if you got all headshots. Granted, it was somewhat difficult to get all headshots, but it didn't seem too hard to me. It excelled at EVERYTHING, was the problem. Good at close, and godly at all other ranges. It made other weapons almost completely obsolete. Although I also haven't played Halo: CE for a very long time (other than the campaign; better on all accounts than the other halo games, excluding, of course, graphics, but I digress) so I may have forgotten the intricacies of the multiplayer. I do enjoy your addressing others in a polite manner, stating your view without flaming. Keep it up.


Like I said before, I believe the openess of the levels contributed more to people's feelings of imbalance.

Lets look at the stats for a minute:

Sniper Rifle - 1 shot kill
Rocket Launcher - 1 shot kill
Shotgun - 1 shot kill
Melee (to the back) - 1 shot kill

The pistol requires more aiming skill than the melee, shotgun and rocket launcher to land every shot and required 3 shots to kill, minimum. Its right in the middle of the road in terms of power and firing rate.

In close range situations, the Shotgun, Plasma Rifle, and generally the Assualt Rifle were all preferable to the pistol. At medium range, the rocket launcher was preferable. At long range, the sniper.

As you can see, at every range, there was a better weapon than the pistol. However, the pistol gave you the ability to be effective at any range, even if you didn't have one of the above weapons. This ensured that the game relied more on player ability rather than what weapon they were carrying. It balanced that game based on the players rather than rock-paper-scissors.

[Edited on 06.11.2009 10:03 AM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 10:03 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Halo CE > Halo 3 > Halo 2

Fix the Halo 3 BR spread, plz.

A) This is a neccessity. It gets incredibly frustrating when players are close enough to fit well inside your reticle, but not close enough for red reticle, thus making it nearly impossible to kill them.

B) A mid range weapon is also a neccessity. I don't think the pistol should make a return though. Why? Everyone thought it was ridiculous that a pistol would have that range and power. Instead, make it a new rifle with the pistol's properties.

C) I agree. Bullet Magnetism shouldn't be applied to rocket launchers and should be about Halo CE levels in other guns.

D) I hate this. In Halo 2, you could at least dodge melees by a crouch. Halo: Reach needs a more in depth melee system with abilities to dodge melees, differing damage depending on movement of the player and the like.

E) Fall damage is a good thing because people can't just get to the top of a map and jump down onto people haphazardly.

F) I couldn't agree more. Many people believe this would result in like one shot kills with every gun. That's just misleading. Halo CE had rather quick kill speeds IF you could aim with the guns and land headshots (except for the rocket launcher which always kills fast). It's not gonna be like CoD where you shoot anywhere for the easy kill.

G) Strafing is useless in default Halo and only useful to a small extent in MLG. They need to make it so changing directions is faster so you can out-strafe and out-shoot your opponent.

H) There are definitely too many dual wielding guns, but I think limited dual wielding would work out, such as Pistols, SMGs and Plasma Pistols only, giving some unique combinations. They don't need to load the sandbox with a bunch of useless duals.

I) I've missed this so much. It's one of the reasons the PR worked so well in Halo CE and could combat shotguns. You strafe like no tomorrow and freeze the guy's aimer so you can kill him. They need to bring this back.

J) I support this.

K) I think as they are the vehicles are rather balanced in Halo 3 multiplayer, but the ability to kill drivers easier would be nice, like in Halo CE where every vehicle had a weak spot where you can kill drivers.

  • 06.11.2009 10:21 AM PDT

Vancouver BC, Canada.

You bring up some good points. While I don't totally agree with everything you listed, almost all your points are well supported.

  • 06.11.2009 10:27 AM PDT

Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.
Back.. and to the left.

I agree with a lot of this, good thread. The only other thing is everything should be within the parameter of Reach's time period. Which means all the Spartans (excluding Grey Team) would have MJOLNIR Mark V, the time period would mean older models of weapons, and even less weapons because im sure some werent invented until after Reach's time period.

  • 06.11.2009 10:48 AM PDT

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

Posted by: radical00edward
I agree with a lot of this, good thread. The only other thing is everything should be within the parameter of Reach's time period. Which means all the Spartans (excluding Grey Team) would have MJOLNIR Mark V, the time period would mean older models of weapons, and even less weapons because im sure some werent invented until after Reach's time period.

Agreed, but i'm sure Bungie will find a way to weasel in the pos Halo2/3 BR... sigh. Unless they make it single shot like the Halo 2 e3 demo, that would be welcomed.

  • 06.11.2009 10:51 AM PDT

Suck it Red!

Most of these sound like good ideas, though I think it is still too early to be demanding stuff since we still know so little about the game.

  • 06.11.2009 11:00 AM PDT

Posted by: MadroKurgan
Posted by: radical00edward
I agree with a lot of this, good thread. The only other thing is everything should be within the parameter of Reach's time period. Which means all the Spartans (excluding Grey Team) would have MJOLNIR Mark V, the time period would mean older models of weapons, and even less weapons because im sure some werent invented until after Reach's time period.

Agreed, but i'm sure Bungie will find a way to weasel in the pos Halo2/3 BR... sigh. Unless they make it single shot like the Halo 2 e3 demo, that would be welcomed.


The Halo 2 E3 demo BR was phenomenal. I saw that video and got so excited. Then I got the game and .... well...


Posted by: Caboose042
Most of these sound like good ideas, though I think it is still too early to be demanding stuff since we still know so little about the game.


I'm not really in a position to "demand stuff." I'm just trying to garner attention and support for a more balanced, skill-based MP game for Reach. The earlier I can get that going, the better chance we have of swaying Bungie towards doing something like it. I've been trying since Halo 2 was released, and I won't stop until Bungie states that Reach will follow the same unfortunate path as Halo 2 and Halo 3.

  • 06.11.2009 1:15 PM PDT

"This party's over." ~Mace Windu
Bruce Lee > Chuck Norris
PPPPPP--POWER!

A very good post OP. I definitely agree with much of what you have to say regarding these fixes to the game. However, I think you "nerf" much of the argument for effective mid to long range weapons. Tactics plays a key role in the utilization of one of the more ineffective ranges in the game, mid to long range. In large part the reason why the BR and other similar weapons are "ineffective" at this range is due in large part to user error. Most people are automatically drawn to aim and fire at the head of a target, and therefore room for error grows exponentially. The BR has a moderate spread, and over longer ranges, it becomes much more effective to aim for the chest and lower neck area. Taking advantage and 'painting' will more than likely land that kill once your opponent's shields are down. All it takes is one bullet. Honestly, the physics and mathematics behind the spread of the BR is more than fair, and well calibrated to be an effective weapon in just about any experienced users hands.

Does anyone know what the framerate is for Halo 3? Is it 30fps?

  • 06.11.2009 1:29 PM PDT

Gamertag: KillmasterChris

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.


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.

No. I think Close Combat is the most fun kind of gameplay.

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.

Agree

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.

The skill curve should be low, and bullet hoses are awesome. Aim Assist should be the same, though rocket magnetism should be nonexistent.

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.

In my opinion, fun gameplay in halo is spraying the other guy and then meleeing. So I disagree.

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.

Definitely not. You can an option in to turn it on/off, but don't make it default.

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.

Agree.

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.

Don't Care.

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....

Another horrible idea.

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.

Agree.

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.

No. I'd rather sacrifice FOV for better graphics.

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.

Agree

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.

Two things. First, this isn't Halo CE. Second, it's really arrogant of you to say Halo Reach needs this. Why should competitive players get more out of the game than casual players?

  • 06.11.2009 1:42 PM PDT

Challenge me to a Hawaiian Punch chugging contest. I dare you.


Posted by: mubox47
$.50 in store credit.

Meh, the melee is the only real issue in there. Some would be nice, but aren't a big deal. (in my opinion.)

  • 06.11.2009 1:45 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I agree 100%. I am surprised that you didn't mention anything about starting weapons. What are your thoughts on that?

  • 06.11.2009 1:54 PM PDT

Posted by: I am Blacklisted
I agree 100%. I am surprised that you didn't mention anything about starting weapons. What are your thoughts on that?


Starting weapons is a hotbutton issue with many players; its like if you mention "MLG." A bunch of people have these unfounded, ridiculous biases associated with these terms, and they refuse to think logically when presented with them. In the interest of maintaining a reasonable dialog, I just left them out.

As long as there's at least one playlist that starts players with a mid-range, skill-based utility weapon, I couldn't care less what the other playlists start you with.

  • 06.11.2009 1:58 PM PDT

Posted by: CDP288
The skill curve should be low, and bullet hoses are awesome. Aim Assist should be the same, though rocket magnetism should be nonexistent.


Why should the skill curve remain low? All it does is muddle the leveling system and lower the replay value.

Posted by: CDP288
Two things. First, this isn't Halo CE. Second, it's really arrogant of you to say Halo Reach needs this. Why should competitive players get more out of the game than casual players?


You're right, this is Halo Reach. Good observation.

Why should casual players get more out of the game than competitive players?
I don't want to exclude either group. It is my opinion, which I have spent many years developing, that these changes would be beneficial to ALL players, not just one group or the other group. What frustrates me is that people like you refuse to even think about any changes that make the game more difficult. You refuse to give anything a chance, and generally have knee-jerk reactions to any suggestions that even hint at making the game more enjoyable for everyone.

Why should the game focus on close-range combat?

Why should the the aim assist be so high?

Why should strafing be so slow?

Can you give me any logical reasoning behind any of it?

[Edited on 06.11.2009 2:04 PM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 2:02 PM PDT

www.teamech0.com

FOV is fine, Change your resolution to 1680x1050 and use surround sound. If you can't your using the wrong tv to play Halo 3.

The melee does not have enough auto aim, however it has too much of a lunge. If your standing next to someone and they are slightly to your left and you melee, is it going to miss when your reticule is not on them when your arm is literally hitting their body? NO, Sence and realism over gameplay here please or my brain will explode. The Gears Melee is better than Halo's right now, so is COD's.

Reduce Auto aim increase damage. Bring back a 3 shot weapon.






[Edited on 06.11.2009 2:28 PM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 2:24 PM PDT

www.teamech0.com

Also, eliminate assasinations. You receive enough of an advantage reducing your opponents shields to 0. This will eliminate assasinations from the front, one of the most annoying things in Halo 2 or 3.

  • 06.11.2009 2:31 PM PDT

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

Posted by: EyelessLobster
FOV is fine, Change your resolution to 1680x1050 and use surround sound. If you can't your using the wrong tv to play Halo 3.

The melee does not have enough auto aim, however it has too much of a lunge. If your standing next to someone and they are slightly to your left and you melee, is it going to miss when your reticule is not on them when your arm is literally hitting their body? NO, Sence and realism over gameplay here please or my brain will explode. The Gears Melee is better than Halo's right now, so is COD's.

Reduce Auto aim increase damage. Bring back a 3 shot weapon.

Upscaling the resolution has NOTHING to do with the Field of Vision.

Melee not enough aim assist? Shoot me now.

[Edited on 06.11.2009 2:34 PM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 2:33 PM PDT

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

Posted by: CDP288
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.


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.

No. I think Close Combat is the most fun kind of gameplay.

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.

Agree

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.

The skill curve should be low, and bullet hoses are awesome. Aim Assist should be the same, though rocket magnetism should be nonexistent.

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.

In my opinion, fun gameplay in halo is spraying the other guy and then meleeing. So I disagree.

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.

Definitely not. You can an option in to turn it on/off, but don't make it default.

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.

Agree.

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.

Don't Care.

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....

Another horrible idea.

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.

Agree.

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.

No. I'd rather sacrifice FOV for better graphics.

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.

Agree

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.

Two things. First, this isn't Halo CE. Second, it's really arrogant of you to say Halo Reach needs this. Why should competitive players get more out of the game than casual players?

The sad truth is, this dumbed down game mentality is where the money is at. No offense to you personally, CPD. It's just the way things unfortunately work.



[Edited on 06.11.2009 2:38 PM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 2:37 PM PDT

www.teamech0.com

If you don't want to melee, stay out of melee range, its not exactly hard.

If you think upscaling has nothing to do with a FOV your an idiot as the 1680x1050 resolution has the exact same FOV as split screen, which im sure you know has a much wider FOV.

  • 06.11.2009 2:38 PM PDT

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

Posted by: EyelessLobster
If you don't want to melee, stay out of melee range, its not exactly hard.

If you think upscaling has nothing to do with a FOV your an idiot as the 1680x1050 resolution has the exact same FOV as split screen, which im sure you know has a much wider FOV.

Upscaling has nothing to do with increasing the FOV. Do you even know what upscaling is? The game can be at 720x480 all the way up to 1920x1080, and as long as the resolution is in widescreen, the FOV remains the same. And i'm aware that splitscreen has a larger FOV. But the split-screen FOV is larger then ANY single screen resolution. I will not say you are an idiot, but you are most definitely ignorant and without a clue.





[Edited on 06.11.2009 2:49 PM PDT]

  • 06.11.2009 2:43 PM PDT