- H3C x Furry
- |
- Exalted Member
No, not like in Halo: CE where a minuscule fall could kill you - Fall damage where it doesn't even really damage you. I'm talking about a mechanic already used in Halo 3, the stun mechanic. If you do not recall, when you're knocked out of a Banshee, you are stunned for about three seconds. This could be altered upon further testing.
Seeing as how there was fall damage in Halo 1, the same armor or even a weaker variant would be used by Spartans (the speculated characters of the upcoming title) during the events of Reach.
There are three (maybe more) routes Bungie can take with this; the first one being the fact that they choose to completely forget about fall damage. The second one being bring back classic fall damage and the third one being adding a stun feature, as seen after being hi-jacked in a vehicle or a more drastic version seen in Halo 3: ODST when "dropped." All of these esteemed routes have their pros and cons.
Pros and Cons
Ignoring Fall Damage Completely
Pros:
- Straight to the point kind of gameplay
Cons:
- It doesn't follow up with the timeline
Return of Halo: CE Fall Damage
Pros:
- Follows up with the timeline
Cons:
- Can screw with the gameplay quite a bit
Adding a stun kind of fall damage
Pros:
- Follows up with the timeline
- Can potentially help gameplay
- Adds a sense of realism to gameplay whilst keeping the surrealism of the Halo Universe
Cons:
- Can potentially hurt gameplay
Ignoring Fall Damage Completely Ignoring fall damage completely would have gameplay equivalent or on the same caliber as Halo 2 and Halo 3. Nothing is wrong with this decision, other than the fact that it wouldn't line up with the timeline all that great. I'm sure some people would knit-pick at this, me not included, I could care less.
Return of Halo: CE Fall Damage If the same fall damage were to be brought back from Halo: CE, I think it would be to drastic for players to pick up and play. Nothing is too wrong with his either but it would effect gameplay (maybe even in a bad way) but would follow the timeline.
New Kind of Fall Damage - Stun The stun would only last for a minimal amount of time - depending on the size of the drop. Say, it would be a maximum of 3 seconds but 0.5 seconds for every 5 meters dropped. That way, it would effect gameplay but in a good way where people can't jump off a small cliff to commit suicide.
Example: A player jumps off of a man-cannon, say on a Reach version of Valhalla, the player lands and has been stunned for 1.5 seconds. The opposing team takes advantage and sprays bullets into him and takes a quarter of his shields out before he can get up and start firing. This way, shortcuts have a consequence whilst still having a reward.
Other Community Ideas
Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
I say that the best option would be to bring back fall damage, but either 2x or 3x less damaging than originally, and should only damage shields (like in H1, you could avoid fall damage completely by landing on a slope or crouching at the right time).
Posted by: Striped Dragon
I don't think there should be any fall damage. In First Strike, Fred breaks through a tree while falling from a Pelican and is not killed.
Posted by: POKEY CLYDE
I think that being stunned would be an acceptable form of fall damage, but only from high high heights. Well, actually, no. Man cannons = Fail, if that is the case.
Posted by: Striped Dragon
Here's a good solution: No fall damage.
Posted by: MLG Cheehwawa
Posted by: POKEY CLYDE
But then again, how is the game spose to recognize that you are in a mancannon? Maybe it could measure your trajectory; if your trajectory is largely flat (mancannon) you would take no fall damage, but if your fall is largely flat (jumping off a cliff) you would recieve fall damage.
What do you guys think? Should there even be fall damage? My vote could go either way to be honest. I just think for the story's sake - like they did with Halo 3: ODST, there should be notable restrictions that are predictable if you followed with the story.
[Edited on 07.02.2009 6:18 PM PDT]