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
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

People keep telling me to get a life... I am getting an education, I have a lovely girlfriend and alot of friends... I thought this was having a life? Gues I was wrong...

All I want is a hell of alot more character customization and I will be happy :)

  • 06.12.2009 2:30 AM PDT

Posted by: Whycantibelinus
I'm going to have to disagree with you on this. I feel the Carbine is incredibly accurate and the reason it causes less damage per shot than the BR is because it is semi-automatic therefore actually making it able to kill someone faster than the BR could ever dream of doing it, you just have to make headshots.


You may feel the Carbine is incredibly accurate, but reality speaks a little differently. It has a very wide spread once you get past short/medium ranges. Additionally, the Carbine has too fast a rate of fire. The problem with high ROF on the medium range weapons is that you are penalized less for each missed shot. If you miss a shot, no big deal, you have another one coming right behind it.

Posted by: SnakeRunner40
No, it should be how it is. THERE IS NO SKILL IN VIDEO GAMES!

No, this is completely wrong. If there was no skill in video games, then we should remove aim assist completely, seeing as how its all just luck anyway, right?

Posted by: Delta 15t
So this should happen? Just because you say it should? Do you work at Bungie? No because no one at Bungie would post this. No, Bungie will not just cater to just one persons whim, no matter what he or she says. The answer is no. Maybe not a lot of people have told you that answer in your lifetime. Still the answer is no. The opperative word here is presumptuous. That you would presume that this would happen just because you say it should happen. That is just as absurd as me saying everyone here should send me $5.00 just because I said it should happen. My answer to you is go make your own game. There is software out there you can buy at great expense that will allow you to make a game the way you want it...


No, this should happen because I have seen no logical explaination as to why it shouldn't. In my well-experienced, well-thought-out opinion, this would improve the gameplay for everyone. If someone could give me a reason as to why it wouldn't, other than "it would be too hard!" them I'm all ears. Until then, I stand by my assertion that these changes would benefit the entire community.

And there's a lot more to making a video game than buying software at great expense.


Posted by: Fender19
I agree with most of this, especially fixing the range of weapons, especially mid-range ones. However, i think Halo 3 has the best melee system by far of the series. You can criticize the "window of opportunity" as much as you want but its better than the alternative of host always wins. Giving the melee a lower range would only make the problem worse, as the host would go faster and would be the only person able to actually aim their melee to ensure it hits.


I don't see how removing the "window" would affect anyones ability to aim their melee. If we removed the ridiculous lunge and auto-aim of the existing melee, the player would need to aim well to land there melee. Aiming well is completely independent of whether you are host or not. The window of opportunity essentially ruins the melee system for EVERYONE. I would rather give one player out of the 8 or 10 or 16 playing an advantage than ruin it for everyone instead.

Posted by: Fender19
Plasma freeze is also something i never really liked. It's kind of like a cheap trick to make sure your enemy cant shoot back, and it takes no skill to gun somebody down while they stand there without any way to shoot back. I'd rather see them make it do a little more damage when your shields are down like it did in CE


The plasma rifle does/did very little health damage in Halo games. You need a melee or a UNSC weapon to really finish them off. This meant that you needed to get close to your enemy to use it as a finishing weapon. However, since it did little health damage and was single-wield, it promoted greater tactics and teamwork. You could try to get closer and use it to stun and melee your enemy or, you could use the PR from mid-range to take down the OS of an opponent quickly, and then a teammate with a headshot cabaple weapon would take them down.

The freeze was 100% undefensible either; you could still turn slowly and fight back, and if you're a player with good awareness, you usually aren't caught looking the other direction and have a chance to return fire.

Posted by: The BS Police
I'm gonna have to disagree with less aim assist, the game is inconsistant enough with all the random spread in various weapons that without aim assist it would be even more random.


There's a simple solution; remove the absolutely unneccessary huge spread on some weapons. A single-shot mid-range utility weapon with little bullet deviation and a small amount of bullet and reticle magnetism wouldn't be random. On closer, spam-oriented weapons like the AR and SMG, there is even less need for aim assist because you're simply spraying an area with bullets. If you can't center your huge reticle on an opponent and hit them with a weapon thats laying down 15 bullets a second with aim assist, you don't deserve to hit them, plain and simple.




To everyone who is defending dual-wielding: I understand your concerns with this one. However, I want you to revisit this after you play ODST, where there is no dual wielding, and see if your opinions change. Having an SMG that actually feels powerful and has range and having a pistol that actual feels good to use might change your opininons drastically.

  • 06.12.2009 8:40 AM PDT

To be honest, I kind of doubt these suggestions would be valid as I personally expect it to differ too much in style to the current halo trilogy's multiplayer.

Though if it were going to be modelled after the existing halos I'd welcome those things, broadly speaking. There's a few bits of opinion in there not everyone will share. Oh and Halo 3's FOV is better than Halo 2's.

  • 06.12.2009 9:29 AM PDT
  •  | 
  • Exalted Legendary Member

Halo CE > Halo 3 > Halo 2

Fix the Halo 3 BR spread, plz.

Posted by: SnakeRunner40
Posted by: Foahda
There is skill in video games. Believe it or not, you need good hand eye coordination and precise thumbs, atleast in shooters. Ever notice how some people are better than others? Yeah, because they are more skilled at the game.
That's not skill, that's just plain luck.

This is the most ridiculous thing I've ever seen. That's like saying there's no skill in baseball and it's just pure luck that people hit the balls. Or there's no skill in golf. The player just gets lucky where the ball goes. Whenever there's an activity where it's possible to be better than others in, there is some sort of skill involved.

Saying these suggestions would differ too much from Halo multiplayer is not an accurate statement, as Halo CE contained all of these suggestions.

[Edited on 06.12.2009 9:35 AM PDT]

  • 06.12.2009 9:34 AM PDT

Posted by: Foahda

Saying these suggestions would differ too much from Halo multiplayer is not an accurate statement, as Halo CE contained all of these suggestions.


I think RhythmKiller was saying that he believes Reach's MP will differ from the standard MP we're used to, and that these changes would have no bearing on it. I hope he's wrong.

[Edited on 06.12.2009 10:09 AM PDT]

  • 06.12.2009 10:06 AM PDT

Posted by: Toxik King
Reach MP - This is what I WANT to happen

I don't notice a difference between the Frames/second in Halo and COD, here you are being nitpicky.


Are you mad?!?!?!?!?!?
Cod runs at an insanely smooth and buttery 60 frames per second with very little slowdown. Halo at it's best runs at 30 frames per second. Don't get me wrong because I absolutely love Halo but after playing Cod and then going to Halo it feels like my spartan is running through a tar pit. Bungie needs to have Reach running at 60 frames per second as it would increase the speed and intensity of multiplayer.

  • 06.12.2009 10:12 AM PDT

Clearly because the desktop uses a 3 prong plug and a laptop uses a 2 prong plug, the microwave will fill your car with tostitos better

Posted by: Rockeraven
Except, not everyone is a halo pro here. All of this is just going too far.


What does that have to do with anything?

Anyways, it would be impossible to agree with the OP anymore. It is in all honesty probably the best written thread I've ever read on B.net. You just kind of explained everything I could have wanted (and more that I didn't even think about) in a brief yet intelligent way.

Edit: The only thing I could think to add is a visible health bar.

[Edited on 06.12.2009 10:29 AM PDT]

  • 06.12.2009 10:19 AM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Dream053
E shouldn't have included the bit about the armor. MJOLNIR Mk. V and above suits are equipped with a layer of hydrostatic gel which conforms to the user's body and pressurizes to cushion the wearer from blunt impacts, including falls. It is surmised that the Mk. VI variant's suit was upgraded to have auto-pressurizing hydrostatic gel, which could explain the absence of fall damage in Halo 2 and Halo 3, but that would mean that the Spartans in Mk. V armor, who had to manually pressurize their hydrostatic gel (likely via their neural connections to the suit), were too stupid to do during Halo: Combat Evolved.

Regardless, I don't think they would backtrack to an outdated (as far as their franchise goes) mechanic that was removed for good reason.


Not sure if someone got to this first but the thing is, they won't be using the armor from Halo2 and Halo3. This is Reach, which takes place before Halo:CE where the armor didn't have that upgrade.

  • 06.12.2009 10:31 AM PDT

"Will snipe for food"

The Big Show


I agree with everything you said and am glad there are those of us out here who think like this. Thank you for placing this in an eaisly read and simple format.

Simply put, Thank you.

  • 06.12.2009 11:24 AM PDT

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]

  • 06.12.2009 12:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

I'm So Crispy!

Holy cat fish batman that guy just got Pwned!!!

  • 06.12.2009 12:18 PM PDT

i rock ready aim fire
while yall rock ready fire aim

i dissagree with a giant portion of what you said, not because halo is an amazing game, just because soime of what you said was completely rediculous.\

for one, having the ability to change straffe speed changes traversion speed of the map, meaning if everyone isnt at the same speed of streaffing or runnig,the game is unbalanced.
next i disagree with your opinion on the br and the idea that halo is a close range only game especialy when compared to halo ce. i have played the entire series and in my personal opinion halo ce was the most concentrated at close range combat, there were basicly no mid rangweapons in that game were s halo 2 and 3 introduced the battle rifle thus changing fighting scheme of the game perminently. the battle rifle is an effective close to mid distant range killer and i dont know why you think it isnt... but on that matter i guess its to each his own.

halo ce was not as fast paced as halo 2 or 3....non contestable... sorry guy, just a fact the character movment was slower and the fact that most engagments took place at close range means all combat took longer to start and end.

i dont think there are too many unused weapons in halo, or repeated one either with the exception of balance weapons like carbine which was ment to balance the br...

hogs dont dominate maps ifyou know what you are doing.... stickys fool, stickys


duel weilding hasnt taken away from anything in the game except aggrivating factors likewhenyou are hit by pplasma weapons you are slowed down... which in my opinioni am glad tono longer have to deal with.


any way, good job.

  • 06.12.2009 12:45 PM PDT

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you agree that we need longer ranges on weapons ?

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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..


Mid-range is subjective. I guage my ranges on the size of levels. If the Carbine and the BR can't be used effectively, meaning they hit 100% of the time when aimed perfectly, across the smallest maps in the game, that is not mid-range. Thats the upper end of short range.

The type of balance you are describing is rock-paper-scissors balance, where the outcome of each encounter is determined by what weapons the players have, rather than the individual abilities of each player. Thats a poor type of balance.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


You may not be sure about curving projectiles, but I am. The AR bullets physically change direction. Go have an enemy stand still against a wall. Put your AR reticle off the side, just barely touching the enemy. Fire and watch where the bullets are hitting the wall. They will all pull towards the enemy, quite significantly I might add. And this is on a bullet hose weapon, where you spray at a rapid ROF.

Rockets physically curve through the air. I have witnessed it many times. Its subtle, but its definately noticeable. Its not an opinion, its fact.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Again, this is not opinion, its fact. You don't even need to be aiming at your opponent, and when you melee, you will be turned towards them during your lunge.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Halo 3's melee system has been horrible the entire time. I'm not asking for a return to the earlier version of Halo 3's melee system.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Well, first off, you can't kill a guy with one frag on standard settings in Halo CE. Thats simply not true.

In regards to fall damage "getting in the way of fighting," it sounds like you want Halo to only be about straight up fighting? Is that correct? You don't want people to think about and plan their actions, and move with purpose and dexterity because that "gets in the way of fighting." So does strategy and positioning "get in the way of fighting" also?

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


I 99% of games I have played, there has been at least one instance where an opponent has made a dumb move, and I have had the advantage and they simply run away. Its not uncommon. Now, I don't care about opponents being able to run away in certain situations; its a perfectly viable and intelligent tactic, especially given the fact that in Halo 3, generally whoever gets the first shot off is going to win. However, when you can run away from almost every situation, regardless of how poorly you planned, due to the weapons having such a slow kill speed; thats a problem. It slows down the gameplay and doesn't punish people for making poor plays.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
The strafe speed does increase, unless I don't know what you're talking about.


I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
So in [quote]Posted by: pitbullfatheadconclusion, 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?


If I could play Halo CE online I most certainly would (and yes, I know about XBC). And Halo: Reach is in no way a "revamped version of Halo 3." Perhaps you're thinking about ODST?

  • 06.12.2009 12:58 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I can't wait for this game.

And the halo 1 like pistol.

People who are complaining about the BR and how they get dominated by it are going to throw fits when they start getting 3 shotted with the pistol!

  • 06.12.2009 1:01 PM PDT

I am the king of J's
KING J MASTER OF EXPERIENCE

look your making some decent points but...ure suggesting that you want halo to be hard,i mean comon if a new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player,just think what there first game of matchmaking would be like?,i agree woth most of your points but the aim assist ect makes it so that you have to find a way to beat the opposing accuracy and power witch every player should think about before rushing in to get a quick kill.

butttt the plasma freeze thing sounds extreamly coool(see what i did there ;) ) but it seems a little unfair because all you would need to do to have a leet combo is pick up a plasma rifle,and a br and quickly shoot some poor sap for a few seconds then switch to br to finish them of for a quick and no skill oriented kill.

thanks for listing :P

  • 06.12.2009 1:27 PM PDT

Posted by: J MASTER XP
look your making some decent points but...ure suggesting that you want halo to be hard,i mean comon if a new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player,just think what there first game of matchmaking would be like?,i agree woth most of your points but the aim assist ect makes it so that you have to find a way to beat the opposing accuracy and power witch every player should think about before rushing in to get a quick kill.

butttt the plasma freeze thing sounds extreamly coool(see what i did there ;) ) but it seems a little unfair because all you would need to do to have a leet combo is pick up a plasma rifle,and a br and quickly shoot some poor sap for a few seconds then switch to br to finish them of for a quick and no skill oriented kill.

thanks for listing :P


Golf is incredibly hard, soccer is incredibly hard, football is incredibly hard, basketball is incredibly hard. Yet for some reason, they are some of the most popular sports in the world. Each year, millions of people start playing these for the very first time. Is it difficult for them? Of course, but thats what brings people back. If every game was like rock-paper-scissors, they would be boring and uninteresting .

Making a game have a high skill level doesn't mean newer players won't enjoy themselves. In fact, I think they'd enjoy themselves more because it would be more rewarding as they saw their skills improving.

  • 06.12.2009 1:31 PM PDT

I am the king of J's
KING J MASTER OF EXPERIENCE

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


I'm not sure what you're saying here. Do you agree that we need longer ranges on weapons ?

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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..


Mid-range is subjective. I guage my ranges on the size of levels. If the Carbine and the BR can't be used effectively, meaning they hit 100% of the time when aimed perfectly, across the smallest maps in the game, that is not mid-range. Thats the upper end of short range.

The type of balance you are describing is rock-paper-scissors balance, where the outcome of each encounter is determined by what weapons the players have, rather than the individual abilities of each player. Thats a poor type of balance.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


You may not be sure about curving projectiles, but I am. The AR bullets physically change direction. Go have an enemy stand still against a wall. Put your AR reticle off the side, just barely touching the enemy. Fire and watch where the bullets are hitting the wall. They will all pull towards the enemy, quite significantly I might add. And this is on a bullet hose weapon, where you spray at a rapid ROF.

Rockets physically curve through the air. I have witnessed it many times. Its subtle, but its definately noticeable. Its not an opinion, its fact.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Again, this is not opinion, its fact. You don't even need to be aiming at your opponent, and when you melee, you will be turned towards them during your lunge.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Halo 3's melee system has been horrible the entire time. I'm not asking for a return to the earlier version of Halo 3's melee system.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


Well, first off, you can't kill a guy with one frag on standard settings in Halo CE. Thats simply not true.

In regards to fall damage "getting in the way of fighting," it sounds like you want Halo to only be about straight up fighting? Is that correct? You don't want people to think about and plan their actions, and move with purpose and dexterity because that "gets in the way of fighting." So does strategy and positioning "get in the way of fighting" also?

Posted by: pitbullfathead
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.


I 99% of games I have played, there has been at least one instance where an opponent has made a dumb move, and I have had the advantage and they simply run away. Its not uncommon. Now, I don't care about opponents being able to run away in certain situations; its a perfectly viable and intelligent tactic, especially given the fact that in Halo 3, generally whoever gets the first shot off is going to win. However, when you can run away from almost every situation, regardless of how poorly you planned, due to the weapons having such a slow kill speed; thats a problem. It slows down the gameplay and doesn't punish people for making poor plays.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
The strafe speed does increase, unless I don't know what you're talking about.


I'm pretty sure it doesn't.

Posted by: pitbullfathead
So in [quote]Posted by: pitbullfatheadconclusion, 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?


If I could play Halo CE online I most certainly would (and yes, I know about XBC). And Halo: Reach is in no way a "revamped version of Halo 3." Perhaps you're thinking about ODST?





oh and whats the point of putting this thread for everyone elses opinouns if your just going to reanswer all their opinouns that opose yours in your form of what they should be when youve allready exhasted your point?

im not flamming im just asking...

  • 06.12.2009 1:34 PM PDT

I am the king of J's
KING J MASTER OF EXPERIENCE

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: J MASTER XP
look your making some decent points but...ure suggesting that you want halo to be hard,i mean comon if a new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player,just think what there first game of matchmaking would be like?,i agree woth most of your points but the aim assist ect makes it so that you have to find a way to beat the opposing accuracy and power witch every player should think about before rushing in to get a quick kill.

butttt the plasma freeze thing sounds extreamly coool(see what i did there ;) ) but it seems a little unfair because all you would need to do to have a leet combo is pick up a plasma rifle,and a br and quickly shoot some poor sap for a few seconds then switch to br to finish them of for a quick and no skill oriented kill.

thanks for listing :P


Golf is incredibly hard, soccer is incredibly hard, football is incredibly hard, basketball is incredibly hard. Yet for some reason, they are some of the most popular sports in the world. Each year, millions of people start playing these for the very first time. Is it difficult for them? Of course, but thats what brings people back. If every game was like rock-paper-scissors, they would be boring and uninteresting .

Making a game have a high skill level doesn't mean newer players won't enjoy themselves. In fact, I think they'd enjoy themselves more because it would be more rewarding as they saw their skills improving.



you cannot clearly say that because you cannot guarentee every single new player will do that

  • 06.12.2009 1:35 PM PDT

Posted by: J MASTER XP
you cannot clearly say that because you cannot guarentee every single new player will do that


And you cannot clearly say a "new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player" because you cannot guarantee every single new player will do that.



  • 06.12.2009 1:53 PM PDT

I am the king of J's
KING J MASTER OF EXPERIENCE

Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: J MASTER XP
you cannot clearly say that because you cannot guarentee every single new player will do that


And you cannot clearly say a "new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player" because you cannot guarantee every single new player will do that.




thats not the point,and if your not smart enough to read closely and think about what i said;it was an example not a fact,im not replying anymore because ile end up flaming



[Edited on 06.12.2009 2:02 PM PDT]

  • 06.12.2009 2:01 PM PDT

We need to be faster
Ability to turn off Aim Assist I hate it
And Custom controller settings

  • 06.12.2009 2:36 PM PDT

Clearly because the desktop uses a 3 prong plug and a laptop uses a 2 prong plug, the microwave will fill your car with tostitos better

Posted by: J MASTER XP
Posted by: TheBigShow
Posted by: J MASTER XP
you cannot clearly say that because you cannot guarentee every single new player will do that


And you cannot clearly say a "new player picked up the game a few days after it had been made he would just think "zomg to hard" to be honist getting the controlls is hard enough if your a first time halo player" because you cannot guarantee every single new player will do that.




thats not the point,and if your not smart enough to read closely and think about what i said;it was an example not a fact,im not replying anymore because ile end up flaming



I take it your saying that it will turn players off, but so will making a game overly simplified like H3 was. I feel insulted every time a bullet comes out of an assault rifle I'm shooting because its so pathetically easy to use. That's only one weapon, there are plenty others that are far easier to use or at least take the same amount of accuracy. By the way, you gave an example, he gave a counter example, I don't get how his response could get you to flame. Also, whats the point of letting everyone just shoot down his ideas after posting them. Everyone can respond as much as they want in any way they want. That's probably why he's justifying his ideas to those who are skeptical or don't agree.

  • 06.12.2009 2:44 PM PDT

To be honest OP, it sounds like you want CoD. It's a bit cliched to say 'go play CoD' so I won't, but you know what I mean. You basically just listed a lot of features from another game. If you don't like the (deliberate) non-realism of the Halo MP then maybe you should look elsewhere. I for one love the abstract world of Halo 3, if they added all the features you mentioned it would bore me rigid. You have to remember how many people play this game, they all have differing opinions on what works, notice how there is a lot less -blam!-ing about the melee system now - I would call that a step forward, you clearly disagree. You also have to remember that not everyone has played the entire Halo series; 3 was my first, I recently started playing 2 on the PC and it's great fun, and has a better campaign (imo) but the online is not the great younger brother of 3 that everyone touts it as, I think it's called 'rose tinted specs'. This is why I disagree with people that demand the Halo CE pistol back in multiplayer, the BR is a far more varied weapon, and I don't think an overpowered pea shooter would work well within Halo 3 MP.

Reach will njo doubt be a different game, but don't expect Bungie to change the MP that much. You have to remember that with each sequel Bungie is technically improving their series, so why would they go backward. This is evidenced by the very Halo 3 ish sniper rifle in the Reach teaser image. I'm sure either way it will be a fantastic game, now instead of going onto the b.net forums and writing in IMPORTENT CAPS why don't you just wait and let Bungie get on with what they're good at?

  • 06.12.2009 2:52 PM PDT

Posted by: thestrangestick
To be honest OP, it sounds like you want CoD. It's a bit cliched to say 'go play CoD' so I won't, but you know what I mean. You basically just listed a lot of features from another game. If you don't like the (deliberate) non-realism of the Halo MP then maybe you should look elsewhere.


How so? What I listed was close to the very first Halo game and not in any way related to CoD. I always stress gameplay over realism, so I'm not sure where that came from either.

Posted by: thestrangestick
I for one love the abstract world of Halo 3, if they added all the features you mentioned it would bore me rigid.


You can't say "it would bore me rigid" because you haven't played the game like that yet. You think it would bore you rigid, and I respectfully disagree with that assertion and would ask you to give me some sort of backing as to why you think it would bore you.

Posted by: thestrangestick
You have to remember how many people play this game, they all have differing opinions on what works, notice how there is a lot less -blam!-ing about the melee system now - I would call that a step forward, you clearly disagree.


In regards to less complaining about melee; sure, the melee is less-crappy than it was before. That doesn't mean it can't, and shouldn't, be better.

Posted by: thestrangestick
You also have to remember that not everyone has played the entire Halo series; 3 was my first, I recently started playing 2 on the PC and it's great fun, and has a better campaign (imo) but the online is not the great younger brother of 3 that everyone touts it as, I think it's called 'rose tinted specs'.


Whether or not someone has played the entire Halo series has absolutely no bearing on balancing the gameplay.

Posted by: thestrangestick
This is why I disagree with people that demand the Halo CE pistol back in multiplayer, the BR is a far more varied weapon, and I don't think an overpowered pea shooter would work well within Halo 3 MP.


How can you comment on how the BR is a "more varied weapon" when you just said you've never played Halo CE? Thats called an unfounded opinion, and holds very little credibility.

I don't demand the Halo CE pistol back; if the CE pistol was in Halo 3, with its massive aim assist, slow moving players, and weak weapons, it would be absolutely dominant. It wouldn't be the skillful weapon we all remeber and love. Most players don't necessaryily want the Halo CE pistol back, they want a weapon that fills the mid-to-long range, skill-based weapon void that we currently have. They are tired of gameplay that devolves into running at your enemy, spamming one of the 20 bullet-hoses before blindly throwing a melee in the general direction, hoping they lowered more of their opponents health than they lost so they can win the complelety ridiculous encounter.

Posted by: thestrangestick
Reach will njo doubt be a different game, but don't expect Bungie to change the MP that much. You have to remember that with each sequel Bungie is technically improving their series, so why would they go backward. This is evidenced by the very Halo 3 ish sniper rifle in the Reach teaser image. I'm sure either way it will be a fantastic game, now instead of going onto the b.net forums and writing in IMPORTENT CAPS why don't you just wait and let Bungie get on with what they're good at?


The last two Halo iterations have lead me to strongly question the "good at" part.

[Edited on 06.12.2009 3:12 PM PDT]

  • 06.12.2009 3:06 PM PDT

Actually, you know what, I hate people that jump on bandwagons, the Halo:CE Pistol bandwagon is just like the 'Metallica sold out' bandwagon: people -blam!-ing about what is at the end of the day, so unimportant in the grander scheme of things. If you think the Halo:CE pistol's ass tastes as great as you say, go play Halo:CE! Simples! (That was not necessarily directed at the OP)

A lot of the time when you get people like the OP making a long list of what's wrong with something, it stems from a desire to be taken more seriously/grab attention. When I play Halo 3, sure I get annoyed sometimes, but usually I'm having too much fun to whine about what are - let's face it - very minor annoyances. Surely if these things were bugging you that much you would have moved on to a different game by now? But you haven't, proof that really that you like the game, and are in fact just nitpicking.


PS: OP I completely disagree with your theories and complaints on meleeing. Playing bumper jumper myself, it's amazing how many kids I have 'out meleed' proving it isn't just a case of hammering the B button.

  • 06.12.2009 3:13 PM PDT