Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act
  • Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4
Subject: Halo Reach : A Balancing Act
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
I'd like for a quick kill weapon that takes more like 6-7 shots, but can be fired with a high rate of fireThis is the problem I have with increasing the RoF. A slow RoF rewards players for having precise timing and aiming, rather a fast RoF allows you to still be successful with missed shots. One missed shot with the BR and you are probably going to die .



OK I agree, I think the Carbines RoF should be lowered, and this could be the difference between carbine and the semi auto BR. the Carbine should have a lower RoF and kill quicker than the semi auto BR. and the BR should have a higher fire rate than the Carbine

  • 10.11.2009 10:44 PM PDT

Here’s what Luke had to say about the differences in treatment between the Spartans and Elites in Reach:

“Instead of piece-by-piece customization like the Spartans, Elite customization is a full model swap with models selected from the various Elite classes appearing throughout the Campaign. There are all kinds of reasons for this, not the least of which is our continued emphasis on the Spartan as your identity in Reach.”

I like the burst BR and semi-auto carbine.

And if it is headshots, sure you can get lucky, but skill registers more than luck overall so I don't consider it an issue.

  • 10.11.2009 10:49 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
Posted by: Jiggly Luv
I'd like for a quick kill weapon that takes more like 6-7 shots, but can be fired with a high rate of fireThis is the problem I have with increasing the RoF. A slow RoF rewards players for having precise timing and aiming, rather a fast RoF allows you to still be successful with missed shots. One missed shot with the BR and you are probably going to die .



OK I agree, I think the Carbines RoF should be lowered, and this could be the difference between carbine and the semi auto BR. the Carbine should have a lower RoF and kill quicker than the semi auto BR. and the BR should have a higher fire rate than the Carbine
I also needed to add that the RoF and damage output of the weapons should be balanced out. For example, the Halo 3 BR and Carbine both kill in precisely the same speed. If the Carbine's RoF was quicker then they would not be balanced, and same for the RoF for the BR.

So if you were to make the BR a 6-shot with a quicker RoF, it would be about 2/3 of what the current 4-shot speed is in order to kill in the same pace.

  • 10.11.2009 11:32 PM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

thx for the info i will check it out

[Edited on 10.12.2009 8:00 AM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 8:00 AM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
I'd like for a quick kill weapon that takes more like 6-7 shots, but can be fired with a high rate of fireThis is the problem I have with increasing the RoF. A slow RoF rewards players for having precise timing and aiming, rather a fast RoF allows you to still be successful with missed shots. One missed shot with the BR and you are probably going to die (that is also the reason why "randomness" is complained more with the BR than any other weapon). One missed shot with the Carbine (or you could even use the AR) and it isn't the end of the world cause you can just fire another quick bullet.


There are a lot of comments I'd like to respond to, but I just don't have the time. There were a lot of good points made as to weapon set up and providing for a skill gap even in automatic weapons. I like it.

I picked the quote I could respond to the quickest, so let me do that now. I understand the point you make, and it's a very valid one. That being said, while you can get lucky if you have to pull the trigger 6-8 times for a kill, you'll probably only get lucky on a few shots. If we're talking an 8 shot weapon, let's say you get lucky twice. Since it would take two shots to equal one burst of the BR, getting lucky on one shot doesn't make that much of a difference - especially considering that the shot that is the most frustrating when someone gets it by luck is the headshot.

With a single fire weapon with a fast ROF, you have to be more consistent over a longer period of time. On top of that, a skilled player will get a headshot by skill a lot faster, whereas an unskilled player might have to pump 4-6 more bullets into the other player. Furthermore, this type of weapon allows for skilled players to make comebacks against those who don't take the element of surprise to its full advantage. With a fast ROF, you aren't limited by a pause between shots/bursts, but only by how good you are at both pulling the trigger and aiming. IMO, it allows for a larger skill gap as opposed to being the player who fired first.

  • 10.12.2009 3:38 PM PDT

Go Rams and Missouri!

This is a great thread. To add something to the BR, it would also be great this way because it would be a gun that can be useful in all situations, but will never be dominating in any situation. This means that you start with a weapon that won't get you killed right away, but you'll still be encouraged to pick up other weapons. AR starts kind of work this way, but without any range the AR is almost useless on some maps.

If you had a BR and faced somebody with a better gun such as a Carbine, you'd still be able to fight and possibly win based on your skill level.

  • 10.12.2009 3:42 PM PDT

Nice job on being a mythic member, and I responded to your post in my thread.

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
I just want to point out that the key to making good mid range weapons is not to slap a scope on and say, "there's you mid range gun, its all k now." The way to add more mid range weapons is to decrease the reticule size/spread. Why should a pistol have a scope?

The problem with Halo is that very few weapons are specialized. Those that are almost worthless because the more generic gun, the BR, is a lot more effective since it can do everything.

The starting weapon should be automatic. Those are the easiest to understand for players, and it doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand how to defend yourself.

Now, just because a weapon is automatic, does not mean that it has to be 2D. The way to add depth to weapons is to give them a headshot capability, and a lot of accuracy boost when burst fired and single shotted. This in itself creates a skill gap between those players who just spray, and those who burst fire and go for the head.

Now the BR should be semi automatic, and shoot as fast as you pull the trigger.* The reticule should be made smaller (a little larger than the snipers), and scope a little more powerful. This makes it more a mid-long range weapon, and well, specializes it. No longer can you outgun a shotgun, AR, SMG at close range.**

The whole system should reward players not on the gun they have,*** but on the players proficiency with their weapon of choice.

*There is a firing rate cap, but really high, like 10 rounds a second
**It still can, but only if you are really proficient with it
***The weapon is still a determining factor, but not such a large one any more

  • 10.12.2009 4:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Nice job on being a mythic member, and I responded to your post in my thread.

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
I just want to point out that the key to making good mid range weapons is not to slap a scope on and say, "there's you mid range gun, its all k now." The way to add more mid range weapons is to decrease the reticule size/spread. Why should a pistol have a scope?

The problem with Halo is that very few weapons are specialized. Those that are almost worthless because the more generic gun, the BR, is a lot more effective since it can do everything.

The starting weapon should be automatic. Those are the easiest to understand for players, and it doesn't take a lot of thinking to understand how to defend yourself.

Now, just because a weapon is automatic, does not mean that it has to be 2D. The way to add depth to weapons is to give them a headshot capability, and a lot of accuracy boost when burst fired and single shotted. This in itself creates a skill gap between those players who just spray, and those who burst fire and go for the head.

Now the BR should be semi automatic, and shoot as fast as you pull the trigger.* The reticule should be made smaller (a little larger than the snipers), and scope a little more powerful. This makes it more a mid-long range weapon, and well, specializes it. No longer can you outgun a shotgun, AR, SMG at close range.**

The whole system should reward players not on the gun they have,*** but on the players proficiency with their weapon of choice.

*There is a firing rate cap, but really high, like 10 rounds a second
**It still can, but only if you are really proficient with it
***The weapon is still a determining factor, but not such a large one any more


Thanks. I was a mythic member before for a day, and I randomly got it taken away. I have no clue how it comes and goes.

Anyway, I agree that just slapping a scope on something doesn't make it a good mid-range weapon. By "good" I mean balanced. I think the BR in H3 is a great example of that. It's too effective in closer situations where it shouldn't be (by effective I mean not detrimental to carrying it, as most can use it) closer, but it isn't good enough to fill the niche it is supposed to fill.

I COMPLETELY agree with you about specialization. I think the very CQ weapons have this to an extent, though the shotgun is definitely the best. The sword lunges, the shotgun stops lunges, and the hammer deflects things and moves things. I'd like to see more of that diversification in other weapons where players have to weigh the pros/cons. I think it's called a cost/benefit analysis.

Again, i completely agree that making an automatic weapon (i.e. the AR) with a good benefit for skilled players in pumping would be a great way to allow for a skill gap and make weapons more varied. The current AR was supposed to do well at close range (which it does almost to the exclusion of other auto weapons) and help you survive at mid range (it does not do this AT ALL). We need a starting weapon that allows us to survive, especially with all the BR type weapons lying around. Halo should revolve around the mid-range and work back and forward from there.

I agree again that changing the reticule size would help greatly. I think the autoaim being taken away would do the same thing. Mix the two and you've got a lot of skill being added. I definitely think the BR needs to have more cons associated with it to specialize it. And by cons I don't mean it automatically gets beaten, but rather you'd better be damn good with it if you use it where it wasn't made to be used.

  • 10.12.2009 4:14 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: fifthderelicte
With a single fire weapon with a fast ROF, you have to be more consistent over a longer period of time. On top of that, a skilled player will get a headshot by skill a lot faster, whereas an unskilled player might have to pump 4-6 more bullets into the other player. Furthermore, this type of weapon allows for skilled players to make comebacks against those who don't take the element of surprise to its full advantage. With a fast ROF, you aren't limited by a pause between shots/bursts, but only by how good you are at both pulling the trigger and aiming. IMO, it allows for a larger skill gap as opposed to being the player who fired first.
And, I understand that. I just don't feel that a quick RoF is any more skillful than a slow RoF. Let's say the BR had a very fast RoF...Which BR would be more skillful, the fast RoF or slow RoF BR? If two players against each other faced off with the fast RoF, kills would trade off more, cause one mistake by a user doesn't mean they lose the fight. In other words they do not need to rely on close to perfect aim as much.

However, you can also give the fast RoF weapon less ammo making missed bullets hurt more against the player.

I honestly don't see why the consistency found in Carbine-like weapons are any harder than the consistency needed for AR-like weapons (with the exception of the headshot bonus). You still need to follow your target more to be effective. If the AR had a slow RoF, I would see it as requiring more skill than the fast RoF AR. That's how I see it anyway.

And, besides, I don't think I can go through another controller where the Trigger breaks in two for pulsing it too much at a time.

I have always felt that the RoF of the M6D Pistol was perfect for a precision-style weapon like the BR. Also, it had terrible accuracy when the RoF was maxed by holding the Trigger, while very accurate when pulsed (which I hope to see in all weapons for Reach).

  • 10.12.2009 4:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Just to add a new element to this weapons balance post, what about the Duel weapons. a lot of problems i could see with balance is with duels.
what i mean is there are so much of them. some of the will inevitably be pointless.

EX- the Plasma Rifle, spiker, and SMG. theis weapons ar vitaly the same weapon. yes the SMG has a decent Mussle velocity but is terribly inaccurate.

so what if Duel wheilding was removed. yes a spartan would defiantly have no problem using two weapons. but i have noticed that Gameplay runs smoother and balances out better without Duels.

as far as balancing the smaller weapons goes i would do
this

SMG/magnum- should be the Base of the side arms the difference between the SMG and Magnum i think should be the difference between the AR and the BR. it would work because they are both close quarter weapons so it would be Fair for the SMG rush

plasma rifle- should be similar to the SMG but to balance the lower mussel velocity it would have more power.

plasma pistol- good as it is just with a little more Armor damage

spiker- i think should do tremendous armor damage but do little shield damage. the spikes should ricochet of the shield---- it would look very cool

mauler- good as it is


[Edited on 10.12.2009 5:22 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 5:12 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Posted by: fifthderelicte
With a single fire weapon with a fast ROF, you have to be more consistent over a longer period of time. On top of that, a skilled player will get a headshot by skill a lot faster, whereas an unskilled player might have to pump 4-6 more bullets into the other player. Furthermore, this type of weapon allows for skilled players to make comebacks against those who don't take the element of surprise to its full advantage. With a fast ROF, you aren't limited by a pause between shots/bursts, but only by how good you are at both pulling the trigger and aiming. IMO, it allows for a larger skill gap as opposed to being the player who fired first.
And, I understand that. I just don't feel that a quick RoF is any more skillful than a slow RoF. Let's say the BR had a very fast RoF...Which BR would be more skillful, the fast RoF or slow RoF BR? If two players against each other faced off with the fast RoF, kills would trade off more, cause one mistake by a user doesn't mean they lose the fight. In other words they do not need to rely on close to perfect aim as much.

However, you can also give the fast RoF weapon less ammo making missed bullets hurt more against the player.

I honestly don't see why the consistency found in Carbine-like weapons are any harder than the consistency needed for AR-like weapons (with the exception of the headshot bonus). You still need to follow your target more to be effective. If the AR had a slow RoF, I would see it as requiring more skill than the fast RoF AR. That's how I see it anyway.

And, besides, I don't think I can go through another controller where the Trigger breaks in two for pulsing it too much at a time.

I have always felt that the RoF of the M6D Pistol was perfect for a precision-style weapon like the BR. Also, it had terrible accuracy when the RoF was maxed by holding the Trigger, while very accurate when pulsed (which I hope to see in all weapons for Reach).


I can understand that about the missed shots, though I think your idea for less ammo (say exactly two kills worth per clip, which is what the carbine has currently, I believe) would add this to the fast ROF.

The reason I think a fast ROF has the potential to be more skillful:

1. You must hit more shots. Yes, you can fire shots faster, but you have to continuously track while pumping the trigger. I know it might be a slight difference, but pumping the trigger as opposed to holding it down while trying to follow makes it more difficult, IMO.

2. Playing off number one, landing more shots is harder to do. You have to aim 8 separate times or continue tracking the whole time, whereas with a burst/timed interval weapon, you can hop between bursts. You don't need to continually track.

3. Whereas a burst weapon requires more in terms of timing when to pull the trigger, the rapid fire requires that you be better in terms of speed AND accuracy. A weapon that delays the next shot means that if you're shot first, your chances of survival are minimal against an equally skilled player. The same would be true in a rapid fire weapon, assuming both players could fire as rapidly as possible. However, due to the gun going by your speed, as well as having to hit 8 separate times (or whatever) there is a lot more room for error. Just think about all the BR battles you've been in. If you're playing a good team and you get shot first, you know you're probably dead. With a carbine, the skill gap allows for more of a chance for skill to shine through, IMO.

4. I understand your point about the gun firing fast, so one missed shot isn't that big of a deal. But it is a big deal. If two players both start shooting simultaneously, one missed shot is all the difference. If you get the jump on someone and they turn around, one missed shot could turn the tables.

Overall, I just feel that consistency allows for more of a skill gap, as well as not having a limitation on your firing rate - only being limited by your ability. That being said, I do understand where you're coming from. I can especially see this playing into the headshot. A slow ROF would be more conducive to the final shot. If you go for the head and miss, you lost your advantage, whereas with a fast ROF, if you miss your first headshot, you can easily move to the second. What if we compromised and went with a medium rate of fire? A little faster than the BRs current lag, but slower than the carbine. Let's say it would take 6 shots? That way you need both consistency and a well placed headshot.

I don't know. But you're really getting me to think, as a faster ROF may not be conducive to all that skillful of a headshot, though neither is the burst of the current BR.

  • 10.12.2009 5:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
Just to add a new element to this weapons balance post, what about the Duel weapons. a lot of problems i could see with balance is with duels.
what i mean is there are so much of them. some of the will inevitably be pointless.

EX- the Plasma Rifle, spiker, and SMG. theis weapons ar vitaly the same weapon. yes the SMG has a decent Mussle velocity but is terribly inaccurate.

so what if Duels were removed. yes a spartan would defiantly have no problem using two weapons. but i have noticed that Gameplay runs smoother and balances out better without Duels.

as far as balancing the smaller weapons goes i would do
this

SMG/magnum- should be the Base of the side arms the difference between the SMG and Magnum i think should be the difference between the AR and the BR. it would work because they are both close quarter weapons so it would be Fair for the SMG rush

plasma rifle- should be similar to the SMG but to balance the lower mussel velocity it would have more power.

plasma pistol- good as it is just with a little more Armor damage

spiker- i think should do tremendous armor damage but do little shield damage. the spikes should ricochet of the shield---- it would look very cool

mauler- good as it is


I think a lot of the dual problem is they don't have a range. Too close and you get shotgunned, any farther and you get ARed. There is no range for duals. I think moving out the range of the AR, as well as the carbine type weapons, would open up a niche for duals (if they keep them at all). Then they should bring back aspects of the PR like it used to have, where it creates a stun effect on players (and vehicles?). The pistol is the HS capable weapon, the PP is good, mauler is kind of pointless and redundant, and the SMG accuracy should be bumped up a little, or at least be given an aspect of accuracy when pumped. I liked your idea about the spiker. A spiker mixed with a PR would be deadly. Too deadly?

Good ideas.

[Edited on 10.12.2009 5:23 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 5:22 PM PDT

I posted this as a link in my weapon thread, and I will quote it here. Dual wielding can be balanced, and is a great thing for the game in terms of variety. It allows players to select weapons based off of their preferred fighting style, instead of having to pick up a certain weapon in order to survive.

The weapons that can be Dual wielded are as follows:
-SMG
-Magnum
-Brute plasma rifle
-Plasma Pistol
-Mauler

In Halo 2 and 3, dual wielding is disliked mostly because it forces Bungie to make weapons that are useless by themselves. (When I say that I mean that can effectively kill without any assistance).

However, there is a way to make powerful weapons, that can be dual wielded. Instead of cutting their power, cut their accuracy.

Now before you guys start crying over the thought of inaccurate weapons, hear me out.

SINGLE WIELDING

Just like in Halo 1. The weapons have good power, and are effective at their respective weapons.

DUAL WIELDING

Here is where it gets different. When dual wielding weapons, your accuracy is diminished. How? Very simple, the aiming reticule gets larger, therefore, more spread to the two weapons, making them less effective at medium range, and more effective at closer range.

Sure, we may be 500 years in the future, but the laws of physics still apply, you cannot control two weapons as well as you can control 1. There is more recoil, etc.


This will allow us to have powerful weapons, and still allow us to dual wield them. For those of you who think that this will be overpowered:

You are carrying 2 guns. Why should you do the same amount of damage as 1? 2 guns = more power. But only at close range.

Diagrams

Single Wielding
Again, just like in Halo 1. Good power, and effective at their respective ranges.

Dual wielding
Now you have the power of two guns. But at a cost, your accuracy. Instead of halving the power of single weapons, half the accuracy of dual wielding weapons.

The Green is the new aimer. The red is just there to show where the aimer used to be.

Feel free to add your own ideas, or point out flaws in mine. Just be reasonable.

DISCLAIMER:Guys, ignore the cannon. This is multiplayer, not campaign.

If you were to base it off cannon, here is something:

Elites would be 8 feet tall (1 foot taller than MC), all covenant weapons would be ridiculously powerful compared to human ones, etc.

Forget the story, this is multiplayer, not campaign.


[Edited on 10.12.2009 5:27 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 5:26 PM PDT

"Dear Humanity; we regret being alien bastards. We regret coming to Earth. And we most definitely regret that the Corps just blew up our raggedy-ass fleet!"
—Avery J. Johnson
click it you know you want to

Posted by: fifthderelicte
As far as the semi-auto BR, I've heard two complaints against that. First, it is apparently non-canonical. The books are clear it's a burst weapon.

Since when? in first strike, it was used BOLTH in semi-automatic and three round burst, all from the same weapon.

  • 10.12.2009 5:32 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
so what if Duels were removed. yes a spartan would defiantly have no problem using two weapons. but i have noticed that Gameplay runs smoother and balances out better without Duels.
Yes, I hope Dualing (notice the 'a') is removed. However, some people actually like to do it, which may give Bungie incentive to keep it. I have never liked dualing, so if the feature breaks the balance to single-wielding, I'll be heavily against it.

-First of all, the accuracy of these weapons should be incredibly increased to the point of near perfection.

-Using one weapon during dualing should not affect its power attributes any. Using both should affect recoil more and maybe decrease damage more.

-I think stopping power could be implemented more in dualing as well, which may make it interesting.

I would rather it just be gone. I have more fun using a PlasmaRifle/Pistol as single weapons.

  • 10.12.2009 5:33 PM PDT

Look at my post, about 3 posts above yours.

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
so what if Duels were removed. yes a spartan would defiantly have no problem using two weapons. but i have noticed that Gameplay runs smoother and balances out better without Duels.
Yes, I hope Dualing (notice the 'a') is removed. However, some people actually like to do it, which may give Bungie incentive to keep it. I have never liked dualing, so if the feature breaks the balance to single-wielding, I'll be heavily against it.

-First of all, the accuracy of these weapons should be incredibly increased to the point of near perfection.

-Using one weapon during dualing should not affect its power attributes any. Using both should affect recoil more and maybe decrease damage more.

-I think stopping power could be implemented more in dualing as well, which may make it interesting.

I would rather it just be gone. I have more fun using a PlasmaRifle/Pistol as single weapons.

  • 10.12.2009 5:35 PM PDT
  • gamertag: BJRSCJ
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Dustinw1
Posted by: fifthderelicte
As far as the semi-auto BR, I've heard two complaints against that. First, it is apparently non-canonical. The books are clear it's a burst weapon.

Since when? in first strike, it was used BOLTH in semi-automatic and three round burst, all from the same weapon.


Thank you. I was using the information I had received from someone else who read the books, supposedly. When he said he was 10% sure he was right about BR never being semi-auto single shot, I thought he just left out the last "0." I should have known.

As far as everyone else, I think I have the solution. Since we all have great ideas in theory that differ from each others in certain areas, why doesn't Bungie just invite us to the studio to playtest them until we get it just right? Heck, I'd invite them here, but I don't think they'd like it as much. No HDTVs and a network that wouldn't even compare to theirs.

[Edited on 10.12.2009 5:43 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 5:42 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Look at my post, about 3 posts above yours.
Yeah, I read it. You make good points. I don't necessarily agree completely though.

Accuracy: This should be completely controlled by the user due to recoil. There should not be code that says the spread should be wider while dualing. However, the recoil can be increased making it harder to keep aim consistent, which would cause inaccurate bullets by itself.

Damage: Yes, single wielding the weaker dual weapons (PR, Spiker, SMG, etc.) should be worth using singled (and they already are, except for maybe SMG or Spiker). But, you can't dual them without decreasing the damage output of these weapons; it would make dualing overpowered. I know it makes sense for them to be powerful, but not for the sake of balance. Even in Halo 3, the damage output is decreased for each dual-wieldable weapon.

That's my say on this. I think you could also add a new feature to Halo: stopping power. And, you could give dualing more stopping power.

Plasma Rifle + anything will still dominate like it always has so balance isn't the easiest thing to accomplish when including dual-wieldable weapons. Though Cellfactor:PW does it pretty well, except the game is faster paced and skill-based which makes the user control the win more times than not regardless of the weapons/character used.

  • 10.12.2009 6:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Jiggly Luv

That's my say on this. I think you could also add a new feature to Halo: stopping power. And, you could give dualing more stopping power.
.


stopping power would be hard to make in MP. but in Halo CE and Halo 2 there was a stopping power mechanic. play through Halo 2 you will see what i mean.
that one of the things that pisses my off about Halo 3 is you just shoot button till brute fall over

[Edited on 10.12.2009 6:30 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 6:27 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: Czar_CJ_Elm
Posted by: Jiggly Luv

That's my say on this. I think you could also add a new feature to Halo: stopping power. And, you could give dualing more stopping power.
.


stopping power would be hard to make in MP. but in Halo CE and Halo 2 there was a stopping power mechanic. play through Halo 2 you will see what i mean.
that one of the things that pisses my off about Halo 3 is you just shoot button till brute fall over
I do not remember it ever being in Halo 2. However, in Halo:CE the plasma-based weapons had a stunning feature. The only problem with the stun was when you fought Ghosts, and you couldn't move, but that actually did balance it against Tanks.

  • 10.12.2009 6:47 PM PDT

Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Yeah, I read it. You make good points. I don't necessarily agree completely though.

I love it when people disagree. Especially when they point out what they don't disagree with.

Accuracy: This should be completely controlled by the user due to recoil. There should not be code that says the spread should be wider while dualing. However, the recoil can be increased making it harder to keep aim consistent, which would cause inaccurate bullets by itself.
For fully automatic weapons, the spread is increased. Try shooting an MP5 with one hand. Semi automatic weapons would just have a slightly larger spread. After all, no matter how strong you are, you cannot control 2 weapons (simultaneously) as you can control 1.

For semi automatic weapons, the spread is the same, but the trajectory would be off. So instead of being dead center, it might fire a few degrees up, down, right, left, and any where in between.

The increased spread is to specifically counter act having 200% power. You might have twice the power, but only half the accuracy, and most importantly, range.

Damage: Yes, single wielding the weaker dual weapons (PR, Spiker, SMG, etc.) should be worth using singled (and they already are, except for maybe SMG or Spiker). But, you can't dual them without decreasing the damage output of these weapons; it would make dualing overpowered. I know it makes sense for them to be powerful, but not for the sake of balance. Even in Halo 3, the damage output is decreased for each dual-wieldable weapon.
If you had read the weapons that would be dual wield-able, the PR, and spiker are not one of them.

Remember, twice the power, half the accuracy and range. Effective dual wielding would be limited to close range only. If the dual wielding was weaker, then what's the point? At close range, 2 weapons should easily win over 1 (provided it is not already a CQ weapon, shotgun, sword). Dual wielding increases the effectiveness of weapons that are in between CQ weapons, and middle range weapons. And besides the loss of range and accuracy, you also lose your ability to throw grenades, reload quickly, and melee quickly.

That's my say on this. I think you could also add a new feature to Halo: stopping power. And, you could give dualing more stopping power.

Plasma Rifle + anything will still dominate like it always has so balance isn't the easiest thing to accomplish when including dual-wieldable weapons. Though Cellfactor:PW does it pretty well, except the game is faster paced and skill-based which makes the user control the win more times than not regardless of the weapons/character used.

In my scenario, it would be the weaker Brute PR, which is the equivalent of the SMG.

[Edited on 10.12.2009 9:04 PM PDT]

  • 10.12.2009 9:04 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
. So instead of being dead center, it might fire a few degrees up, down, right, left, and any where in between.


well I think all Ballistic, Beam, and rail weapons should be dead center accurate when you control you fire, just with a damage fall off mechanic

and as far as fire control goes you must at least give a 1/3 of sect between each shot with auto weapons

  • 10.12.2009 9:31 PM PDT

Multiplayer Gameplay
Halo:CE------------------Reach--------Halo2-----------------H alo3
Campaign Experience
Reach----Halo:CE-----------------ODST-----Halo2---------Halo3

Glad that Halo 3 garbage is dead, thanks to Reach.
Unfreakenbelievable!!

Posted by: TW InKoGnIto
Posted by: Jiggly Luv
Yeah, I read it. You make good points. I don't necessarily agree completely though.

I love it when people disagree. Especially when they point out what they don't disagree with.
And, I love to disagree. :)

For fully automatic weapons, the spread is increased. Try shooting an MP5 with one hand. Semi automatic weapons would just have a slightly larger spread. After all, no matter how strong you are, you cannot control 2 weapons (simultaneously) as you can control 1.

For semi automatic weapons, the spread is the same, but the trajectory would be off. So instead of being dead center, it might fire a few degrees up, down, right, left, and any where in between.

The increased spread is to specifically counter act having 200% power. You might have twice the power, but only half the accuracy, and most importantly, range.
IMO, realism and laws of Physics should be thrown out. We should, and Bungie should, focus on what makes the gameplay enjoyable and balanced. If that involves Physics, then so be it. But, I hate when people say "afterall, you can't control 2 weapons as well as 1 in real life".

I'm all for range. I use close-ranged effective weapons in a situation, so why should I take duals for close-range when mid-range is the range mostly encountered in the game?

I believe all these weapons should have much more accuracy as singled, so half of extremely accurate would not be a problem IMO, however. But, recoil by itself is enough to make range-shooting harder. I think programming the spread to be wider is unnecessary and especially unpreferred. Yes, I'm pretty sure that range would decrease by an increase in recoil. Also, bullet speed can control range, as seen with the Plasma and Brute weapons.

Remember, twice the power, half the accuracy and range. Effective dual wielding would be limited to close range only. If the dual wielding was weaker, then what's the point? At close range, 2 weapons should easily win over 1 (provided it is not already a CQ weapon, shotgun, sword). Dual wielding increases the effectiveness of weapons that are in between CQ weapons, and middle range weapons. And besides the loss of range and accuracy, you also lose your ability to throw grenades, reload quickly, and melee quickly.Part of this really urked me..."2 weapons should easily win over 1." That would make it unbalanced if that was the case.

Anyway, if dual-wielding had double the power, it would dominate everything at close-range, assuming it is only useful at close-range like you insist. The only time a Shotgun or Sword would win is in camping range. Also, close-range is encountered less than mid-range, so you won't be carrying duals most of the time (with limited range). But, does that mean those who choose to use dualing and disregard more versatile headshot weapons should have an automatic win over you? I think not.

Single-wielding these weapons (except Pistol) would now be less effective. Why would I want to ever use a single SMG or PR, when I'll just die to dual-wielding anyway? I may as well just stick to the headshot weapons, cause I can use them at range and can fight dualing with headshots.

I agree that dualing should be stronger in damage. However, not to the extent that you wish. It should be more like 4/3 or 5/4 times more powerful, but not 2 times; that is way too much. And, it definitely is not balanced, whether the range is limited or not.

I want that possibility that I will win against a disadvantage. If I always lose to weapon advantage, then really what is the point of playing, because that isn't fun to me, and I suspect the same for many others.

To be honest, I think Halo 3 dualing is already pretty balanced, with exception to the lack of range in those weapons. But, dualing is most effective if one weapon takes out the shields quickly, as seen while using the PR or PP. Dualing PR+SMG or Plasma+Magnum is already very useful, and that is how it should be; players just choose not to use dualing for whatever reason like don't like it or the placement of these weapons are not ideal. I choose not to use it cause I find knocking out shields then switching to my trusty Magnum for the headshot to be more enjoyable, but atleast it is a choice.


[Edited on 10.13.2009 12:17 AM PDT]

  • 10.13.2009 12:13 AM PDT
  • gamertag:
  • user homepage:
  • last post: 01.01.0001 12:00 AM PDT

I honestly don't care what they do with this game (default, MM, FireFight, etc), but just give us seemingless amount of options for multiplayer.

adjust aim magnetism (0%-100%), spread (0%-50%), reload speed (1 sec-4sec), beatdown speed & damage, weapon damage (1%-300%), etc.

Even the weapon's reticule size should be customizable.



This way, no one bi***es over anything.

Also, literally copy & paste maps from previous Halos. Don't screw them up with changes and graphical updates.

  • 10.13.2009 12:53 AM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • of 4