- Zomechin
- |
- Fabled Legendary Member
Posted by: An average gamer
Posted by: Zomechin
This is a claim paired with a situation that is uncommon with competent players. Say it's common, though
It's common in most matchmaking games. Maybe inside of MLG it isn't common, but I know people like to close in for the melee in regular lists. Hell, look up what people hated in Halo 3. It was the AR&melee death charge.But it isn't common. I can fileshare the past 20 games of TU gametypes (non-MLG ones) that I've played and you won't see more than 10 kills with an AR+melee. This is including Rumble Pit. It's seriously the easiest thing to avoid. Again, the widening of the skill gap.
As for the Halo 3 comment - the Halo 3 AR killed much more quickly. The netcode was also horrible. Harder kills with the BR + a faster killing AR = a more deadly AR. People were annoyed with it because it took much less effort to succeed with than preferred (as with all automatic weapons).
Posted by: An average gamer
Posted by: Zomechin
and I'd still like it better because shooting + meleeing is at least more interesting than meleeing + meleeing... + meleeing. I'd also argue that it takes much more skill to time a melee in bleed-through settings, as it's not as defined when you should melee and is only learned through experience
It isn't about what's more interesting, it's about what works better. No bleedthrough works better* and timing your melee until after an opponent's shield is down works a HELL of a lot better** than just spamming RT until you are close, then meleeing.*** *Claim with no evidence
**Easier, not better
***It takes 3 shots with a DMR. You added the word "spamming" to falsely add a negative connotation to the process. Why wouldn't it be "spamming until his shields are down"? But, again, 3 shots. It's not a guessing game; it's not inconsistent.
My 3 shots and 1 melee should not be equal to your 1 melee. That's inconsistency.
Posted by: An average gamer
Posted by: Zomechin
In some situations. However, if he sneaks up on you, you don't have enough time to perform such a feat, and your shots that you took will be completely ignored by the game.
In situations where you are snuck up on you're likely to die anyway. If there is no bleedthrough, you'll just be sprayed in the back and meleed. You won't even have time to fight back.
No bleedthrough would leave all his bullets and his melee doing the same damage as the melee so you have a shot at at least hurting him.Are you familiar with this game series called "Halo"? It has this thing called a 'gap of skill'. It can actually show through bleed-through, unlike no bleed-through. I feel that it's nice to have depth to the most derpy range of combat in Halo.
Posted by: An average gamer
Posted by: Zomechin
It's not hard to tell, if you have experience; it's not some arbitrary time. It's an exact science and is completely easy to time for a good player (w00t, widening the skill gap).
Randomness. Widening the skill gap since... never. Also, I don't exactly think that training your eye to know when your shield reaches a certain point on a line at the top of the screen is that important of a skill. It's better to simply have the game kill you if you have shields, and not if you don't.That's an example of a bug, ie. not intentional. And it's very uncommon. You keep saying "it's better" and such but provide no reason why. Both are inconsistent and consistent in some situations (though, I'd argue that there's much less overall with bleed-through), however, it is almost unarguable that bleed-through rewards experience and skill much more that the lack of it.
Posted by: An average gamer
Posted by: Zomechin
Bleed-through caters to the inexperienced and slow-thinkers. Reach already does that enough. No bleed-through just doesn't work. In Halo. Period.
It also significantly speeds up the pace of the game, which Reach desperately needed, outside of MLG.
The increased damage and speed, along with the absence of armor abilities speeds of the gameplay. It doesn't need to be Call of Duty fast. Bleedthrough caters to slow thinkers. You just have to mash melee and you're done. The game kills the enemy for you.* No bleedthrough makes you have to plan. That's what always separated Halo from other games.** Planning and tactic, not just run, gun, and smack. It should stay. It improves the gameplay drastically by adding consistency and a wider skill gap (knowing when to punch and when to wait a second longer).It's nowhere near Call of Duty-fast. It's still not even as fast as the trilogy's gameplay.
Do you remember 5 minute average games?
*No bleed-through caters to slow thinkers. You just have to mash melee after you see an orange explosion and you're done. The game kills the enemy for you, and it even tells you exactly when so you don't have to do any of that pesky "remembering" or have any of that nasty "experience" stuff.
**No evidence or examples. Also slightly ironic, as you said "Halo's always been about planning and tactic" yet Halo has always had bleed-through. What are you even arguing against if you believe Halo already was good in the factors that you're saying no bleed-through attributes to Halo?