- pitbullfathead
- |
- Exalted Heroic Member
Add this if you're happy that Team Snipers is back and would like it to stay.
____________(˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜||˜˜˜˜˜)_∏______
l | --------____.`=====.-.~:________\___|================[oo]
|_|||___/___/_/~```|_|_|_|``(o)----------<)
Breakdown:
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.
Weapons have their roles. I can see that you realise that and know which weapons have which roles. So to say that the BR and Carbine lack mid range effectiveness is an understatement. You talk about a game with limited auto-aim and weapons that take skill to use, yet when weapons fall in to the point of mid-range, they lose a significant amount of auto-aim and take a higher level of skill, prediction, and precision to use. The Carbine has been proven, with Halo 3's mechanics, to be the more effective weapon. Which brings us to your next point.
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.
You have described the Carbine, the only thing that the Carbine now does not offer, is the ability to be a long-range weapon. Why? Because it's a mid-range weapon. The Sniper Rifle, Beam Rifle and the Spartan Laser are the long-range weapons of the game, that is their job. Even the BR offers the effectiveness of hitting a sniper, to momentarily unscope him as you close the distance, and that is at long ranges. So I disagree for the implementation of a new weapon, it sounds to me like you want the pistol from Halo: CE. Let's not get in to that though.
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.
I agree that Aim Assist could be lowered, but I'm not sure about these curving projectiles, the only curving projectiles I have seen is from the Needler, which is sometimes a bit rediculous. The Rocket Launcher is a very easy weapon to dodge if you aren't unlucky enough to be ambushed by it, I see absolutely no problem with it, other than the user seems to lack taking splash damage at times.
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.
The melee system is flawed, but not entirely in the way you explain it. I agree sometimes the lunge is way too large, but that is more due to a host connection. You have to realise that this "curving through the air" more likely due to a connectivity issue of a person not really going where they were going in your game, if that makes sense. Just watch their version of the replay, and you'll most likely be surprised. But without even looking at that, let's discuss the "window of opportunity" I would much rather melee a person and have both of us die, rather than cursing the melee system for letting them melee after me and kill me. Too many times in the infancy of Halo 3 would you hear your melee connect and then hear theirs, but you die. But not having lunge wouldn't be too bad either, I'm just trying to point out that for having lunge, it is a pretty good system. Unlike CoD's.
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.
You stated that it didn't have to be concurrent with the books, but it already is. Flipping vehicles, is also due to their armor, and augmentations. So the ability to take no fall damage is not that far fetched. And yes it would get in the way of fighting, and if you think that transversing a map and it's multiple levels is artless, then I suggest you YouTube Halo 3 Skill Jumps. But I already did. Yes it worked fine in Halo: CE, but we also had health packs, and could kill a guy with one frag in those days.
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 don't know how many opponents have ran away from you, but I'd have to say that when opponents run it almost guarantees their death. Be a little more tactical, go in packs of two and effectively use grenades. I don't see this as a problem what so ever. I'm not insinuating that you lack skill, but maybe you should revise your tactics rather then wanting a game to fit some non-existant ones.
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.
The strafe speed does increase, unless I don't know what you're talking about.
________
I have no comments on Dual Wielding.
Nor on Plasma Freeze.
And I think the FOV is fine.
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.
I have no understanding of what you even want here. Bungie has stated that Halo was invisioned to be a game about vehicular combat. They are also not overpowered, if they were any more underpowered they would be pointless to use. There are many ways to take out all of the types of vehicles. Lots of weapons counter vehicles too, even equipment. So I entirely disagree with K, and would like to see any argument provide logic with this statement.
:::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
So in conclusion, I suggest you play a different game, since what you are proposing changes the entire workings of Halo 3. I would suggest Halo: CE, or maybe Unreal Tournament. The only possibilty of anything like this happening is that Halo: Reach has the potential to be entirely different then Halo 1 2 or 3. But why would they make a revamped version of Halo 3, and call it Halo: Reach?
[Edited on 06.12.2009 12:26 PM PDT]