Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Ending the Bloom Debate Once and for All
  • Subject: Ending the Bloom Debate Once and for All
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Ending the Bloom Debate Once and for All

Please...stop getting butthurt when I noscope you from the passenger seat of the vehicle I'm riding in :D


Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS

Posted by: Siffera13

Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS

Posted by: Sanuel Jackson
The only people who prefer bloom are the ones who can't aim.

I don't understand this

They rely on a random game mechanic to get them the lucky kill.

I thought that bloom was the gradual decrease in accuracy that occurs during a certain time frame when firing successive shots. With bloom implemented, I would think that players would have to start utilizing teamwork. But to say that "the only people who prefer bloom are the ones who can't aim" doesn't really make a whole lot of sense to me. Both cases of bloom and zero-bloom require a degree of aiming. If a DMR duel comes down to only one shot needed to kill either player, it would seem that they are both fairly even in terms of accuracy and precision, or they were both utilizing the same spamming tactic. Of course this is assuming that one player didn't get the jump on the other, in which case the ambusher should win. If a player only wins a DMR duel due entirely to bloom, I don't see them winning too many DMR duels. Honestly, I could see where zero-bloom would require more skill if there were no aim assist or over long and extremely short distances, but either way, bloom or zero-bloom, spamming at mid-range is an issue. But I would be willing to adapt either way 343 Industries takes it.


No, the problem with bloom is the fact that it was built around decreasing accuracy if people are centered on their target, to promote pacing. The downfall is that terrible players who can't keep their reticles centered on enemies actually get benefitted from bloom because the shot is more likely not to hit the center, but the edges (which is where their reticle is at on their target because they can't aim center-mass).

So while I may have the superior aim, having my reticle centered and with bloom actually HURTS me and helps the guy I'm fighting who can't keep a steady shot. This closes the skill gap and ultimately makes better players worse and worse players better. This is NOT how a game mechanic should be. Zero Bloom brought the skill back and the people who couldn't aim found out sure enough.

[Edited on 12.01.2011 3:31 PM PST]

  • 12.01.2011 3:30 PM PDT


Posted by: TAxxOUTBR3AKxx
No, the problem with bloom is the fact that it was built around decreasing accuracy if people are centered on their target, to promote pacing. The downfall is that terrible players who can't keep their reticles centered on enemies actually get benefitted from bloom because the shot is more likely not to hit the center, but the edges (which is where their reticle is at on their target because they can't aim center-mass).

So while I may have the superior aim, having my reticle centered and with bloom actually HURTS me and helps the guy I'm fighting who can't keep a steady shot. This closes the skill gap and ultimately makes better players worse and worse players better. This is NOT how a game mechanic should be. Zero Bloom brought the skill back and the people who couldn't aim found out sure enough.

Thanks for putting that into perspective for me. But when you say that the shot is more likely to hit the edges, which is where the target is at since they can't keep a steady aim, isn't possible for the bloomed shot to go in the complete opposite direction (or other side of reticle edge) and avoid the target entirely?

  • 12.01.2011 4:29 PM PDT

Please...stop getting butthurt when I noscope you from the passenger seat of the vehicle I'm riding in :D


Posted by: EGO SUM OPTIMUS

Posted by: TAxxOUTBR3AKxx
No, the problem with bloom is the fact that it was built around decreasing accuracy if people are centered on their target, to promote pacing. The downfall is that terrible players who can't keep their reticles centered on enemies actually get benefitted from bloom because the shot is more likely not to hit the center, but the edges (which is where their reticle is at on their target because they can't aim center-mass).

So while I may have the superior aim, having my reticle centered and with bloom actually HURTS me and helps the guy I'm fighting who can't keep a steady shot. This closes the skill gap and ultimately makes better players worse and worse players better. This is NOT how a game mechanic should be. Zero Bloom brought the skill back and the people who couldn't aim found out sure enough.

Thanks for putting that into perspective for me. But when you say that the shot is more likely to hit the edges, which is where the target is at since they can't keep a steady aim, isn't possible for the bloomed shot to go in the complete opposite direction (or other side of reticle edge) and avoid the target entirely?


Yes, this is also true. While it can also screw them and cause them to lose DMR battles more often than not, I find in most of my situations that bloom impacts me more in some situations than others. I find certain hosts also impact how bloom lasts. I feel others get lucky from bloom and it's usually against me.

Have you seen that Snipedown vid on Zealot where it JUST WONT HIT WITH THE LAST SHOT? That's me about 75% of the time

Personally, my luck (even in life) is I'm either very lucky, or I get very screwed, no in betweens. There's no middle for me. lol.

[Edited on 12.01.2011 6:11 PM PST]

  • 12.01.2011 6:06 PM PDT

I'm not the best halo player, and I may be reamed for writing this nor does my opinion really matter on this thread, but I would have to lean slightly more towards zero-bloom. Honestly with aim assist it shouldn't be that hard to keep track on someone; and at extremely short and long distances, I say that if the player can consistently keep the reticle on target then he/she deserves the point.

  • 12.01.2011 9:30 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3