Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Subject: Make the whole of reach ZB with no Bleed Through.
  • Subject: Make the whole of reach ZB with no Bleed Through.
  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3
Subject: Make the whole of reach ZB with no Bleed Through.

When there was no bleed-through melee became a massive crutch where you could easily equalise the results of a battle you were losing by simply going straight for a pummel.

With bleed-through you if you sprint in for the pummel, then more often then not the person who shot you while you were doing so will kill you with their pummel and you will only take of their shields.

The same goes if you are ambushed by somebody. If they have one or two shots on you with bleed through you cannot use pummel as a crutch because you will die from their pummel. On the other hand with no bleed through you will equalise a battle that you should have lost due to your lack of awareness but may end up winning due to a stupid shield system.

So basically, bleed through rewards people who shoot over those that mindlessly rush in for the melee. There are other arguments for it which I can't be bothered going into now so I'll just say go play any of the prior Halo's and you'll see it is a better system.

  • 02.22.2012 5:30 PM PDT

Forget it man, and get with the countdown. Shake this square world and blast off for Kicksville.

Reach host ranking algorithm: (a*quit_percentage + b*isMexican + c*(1/KDR) + d*hasGuest) * 100
where a > b = d > c

Posted by: Tomberry
So basically, bleed through rewards people who shoot over those that mindlessly rush in for the melee. There are other arguments for it which I can't be bothered going into now so I'll just say go play any of the prior Halo's and you'll see it is a better system.

I concur, although I will say that it works somewhat better with a fully regenerating health system.

  • 02.22.2012 5:36 PM PDT


Posted by: Tomberry
When there was no bleed-through melee became a massive crutch where you could easily equalise the results of a battle you were losing by simply going straight for a pummel.

With bleed-through you if you sprint in for the pummel, then more often then not the person who shot you while you were doing so will kill you with their pummel and you will only take of their shields.

The same goes if you are ambushed by somebody. If they have one or two shots on you with bleed through you cannot use pummel as a crutch because you will die from their pummel. On the other hand with no bleed through you will equalise a battle that you should have lost due to your lack of awareness but may end up winning due to a stupid shield system.

So basically, bleed through rewards people who shoot over those that mindlessly rush in for the melee. There are other arguments for it which I can't be bothered going into now so I'll just say go play any of the prior Halo's and you'll see it is a better system.


Melee is still used as a crutch with bleedthrough. If I spray my Assault Rifle at you and charge mindlessly forward, we trade kills when we melee.

With no bleedthrough, if I de-shield you first while you're meleeing me, I'll punch you while you're still recovering and then I'll win.

It can be hard to beat an ambush, but that's whether or not bleedthrough exists. You should be having teammates back you up and tell you how much strength the guy has left regardless.

No-bleedthrough works the best if you can think during your battles and not just mindlessly mash melee the second you're in range.

  • 02.22.2012 5:36 PM PDT

Hi.

Posted by: An average gamer
No-bleedthrough takes more skill to be good at. With bleedthrough, you can just AR and deathcharge a melee. Your opponent will shoot you with his DMR, you'll both be weak, and you'll both trade kills with the melee.
This is a claim paired with a situation that is uncommon with competent players. Say it's common, though, 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.
Posted by: An average gamer
With no-bleedthrough, the guy would stupidly charge you with Sprint, you'd shoot him three times before he arrived, then he'd melee and you could shoot him a fourth time as he hit you, this would lower his shields, and while he's recovering from the swing, you melee him and he dies.
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.
Posted by: An average gamer
Moreover, with weapons it's harder to tell when something like a DMR/Pistol shot will kill you. If your shields were down, but are recharging, it's hard to tell when you could charge back out and fight again. One does not always have the time to wait for a full shield charge, especially if a teammate needs help. It's hard to tell when a melee will kill you when your shields are low too, especially with the healthpack glitch.
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).
Posted by: An average gamer
No-bleedthrough caters to the more skilled. Bleedthrough just doesn't work, especially in Reach.
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.

[Edited on 02.22.2012 5:39 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2012 5:37 PM PDT

Posted by: An average gamer
Melee is still used as a crutch with bleedthrough. If I spray my Assault Rifle at you and charge mindlessly forward, we trade kills when we melee.
You will only trade if they also shoot. With bleed-through in order to have a trade both people need to shoot at each other for a trade, if one person doesn't shot they will almost certainly lose.

On the other hand without bleed-through shooting is hardly necessary to trading or even winning CQC fights. Trades are far more likely in CQC combat without bleed through.

With no bleedthrough, if I de-shield you first while you're meleeing me, I'll punch you while you're still recovering and then I'll win.With bleed through if I have a feel for how much damage is required to get a melee as early as possible then I will also have the advantage you mention. Just because you do not have the visual indicator of shields popping doesn't mean you cannot time melees.

Although I will agree that with bleed-through the time window is much narrower, but I guess that does put importance on being aware and not caught of guard.

  • 02.22.2012 5:48 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Posted by: Horse Repairman
RC RuNz the internet. Like the superintendent.

Posted by: SouthPoIe
Clone is an internet God.

Posted by: DerpRoids
RC Clone is the anti-thesis of a lurker.

Ah yes. The perfect mix of users who regularly post more than a sentence and explain what they mean.

Unfortunately they disagree. This should be entertaining.

  • 02.22.2012 5:50 PM PDT


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.

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.

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.
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.
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).

  • 02.22.2012 5:51 PM PDT


Posted by: Tomberry
You will only trade if they also shoot. With bleed-through in order to have a trade both people need to shoot at each other for a trade, if one person doesn't shot they will almost certainly lose.

People will shoot then. People only started double meleeing and sprinting because they could get kills off of idiots by doing so. Put bleedthrough in, and AR/melee charges will return just like in Halo 3. People adapt to whatever will get kills the easiest.

You can kill a double meleer and only lose shields. You trade kills with an AR death charger. I'd prefer the former.

On the other hand without bleed-through shooting is hardly necessary to trading or even winning CQC fights. Trades are far more likely in CQC combat without bleed through.

With bleed through if I have a feel for how much damage is required to get a melee as early as possible then I will also have the advantage you mention. Just because you do not have the visual indicator of shields popping doesn't mean you cannot time melees.

Although I will agree that with bleed-through the time window is much narrower, but I guess that does put importance on being aware and not caught of guard.


A few bullets from any gun will lead to a killable shield amount with melee. That's the problem. You'll shoot and know you have taken enough health off, and he'll shoot a couple rounds and you'll trade. No-bleedthrough makes the smarter player able to walk away the victor.

  • 02.22.2012 5:56 PM PDT

Posted by: An average gamer
People will shoot then. People only started double meleeing and sprinting because they could get kills off of idiots by doing so. Put bleedthrough in, and AR/melee charges will return just like in Halo 3. People adapt to whatever will get kills the easiest.

You can kill a double meleer and only lose shields. You trade kills with an AR death charger. I'd prefer the former.
AR/Melee charging was hardly the problem you are making it out to be. Sure, occasionally someone would get away with it but if you have good teammates and are playing on a proper map with BR starts then it was hardly successful.

AR/Meleeing really only occurred in largely unorganised games when players were forced to start with AR's and had little alternative. If a team has good teamwork and have BR's then a retard charging in a straight line with an AR will get mowed down before he reaches his target.

The major difference between H3 and Reach is that melee combat can be forced by the person using sprint. If you are well positioned and aware then melee combat can be avoided if you so wish as long as sprint is out of the game (as it was in H3).

The trade-of with using sprint and meleeing is that you cannot shoot at your target while you are charging and therefore they must either be one shot or the result will be a double pummel or your death.

The person engaging in melee combat is much more likely to die if the threshold required for a melee kill is much lower (bleed through) and therefore I believe it is better.
A few bullets from any gun will lead to a killable shield amount with melee. That's the problem. You'll shoot and know you have taken enough health off, and he'll shoot a couple rounds and you'll trade. No-bleedthrough makes the smarter player able to walk away the victor. The smarter player only engages in melee combat when they can win it or it is the best alternative. With sprint melee combat can be unavoidable and therefore I believe requiring the least amount of damage to earn a melee kill is for the best.

  • 02.22.2012 6:17 PM PDT


Posted by: Tomberry
AR/Melee charging was hardly the problem you are making it out to be. Sure, occasionally someone would get away with it but if you have good teammates and are playing on a proper map with BR starts then it was hardly successful.

AR/Meleeing really only occurred in largely unorganised games when players were forced to start with AR's and had little alternative. If a team has good teamwork and have BR's then a retard charging in a straight line with an AR will get mowed down before he reaches his target.

The major difference between H3 and Reach is that melee combat can be forced by the person using sprint. If you are well positioned and aware then melee combat can be avoided if you so wish as long as sprint is out of the game (as it was in H3).

The trade-of with using sprint and meleeing is that you cannot shoot at your target while you are charging and therefore they must either be one shot or the result will be a double pummel or your death.

The person engaging in melee combat is much more likely to die if the threshold required for a melee kill is much lower (bleed through) and therefore I believe it is better.


I can't say I fully understand your point. A well set-up team will stop a charger whether he be a double meleer or an AR death charger. And yes, a person who is charging can't shoot that's why you shoot him first, lower his shields, then melee him when he tries to hit you. If you wait a second and shoot the second he smacks you, then you get the extra bullet in that you need to lower his shield and finish him off with your own melee before he can double pummel.
The smarter player only engages in melee combat when they can win it or it is the best alternative. With sprint melee combat can be unavoidable and therefore I believe requiring the least amount of damage to earn a melee kill is for the best.
Sprint might force melee combat, but you can win it more regularly with no-bleedthrough. Again, if you take bleedthrough out, people won't sprint, they'll just charge with guns blazing and tactics will change.

I really don't want to debate this with you or Zome or half of this board all night though so I'm going to not reply anymore. I've been debating this all day and it's refreshing enough to see that some others are agreeing.

  • 02.22.2012 6:24 PM PDT

Hi.

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?

  • 02.22.2012 6:24 PM PDT


Posted by: Zomechin


I'm avoiding a quote storm by shortening your post and trusting that you're not going to edit it after mine. Furthermore, as I posted above, I'm not going to argue this all night. I need to sleep soon.

I will start with your first statement in that AR melee rushing is rare. I use that gun as an example because it is well known from H3. Nowadays, especially since DMR gametypes are more common, a DMR beatdown is extremely fast and also common. It used to require one player to de-shield the other for the victory in a melee contest.

If you put three shots into me, then meleed, yes, it equals my one melee. That's not inconsistent with how the game is supposed to work. Your complaining is simply showing you DON'T know how it is supposed to work. If you knew, you'd take the extra second during my melee to put a fourth shot into me and then finish me off while my melee is recovering. You'd then win and show a higher skill.

No bleedthrough can widen the skill in that sense.

As far as knowing when a melee or shot will kill/not kill you anymore, honestly, that is a matter of preference and I don't see the need to argue it any more. Whether you remember that a headshot won't kill you when the bar is 30% full and that a melee won't at 90% or you just know that either won't kill you if you have shield is irrelevent. Either way you will know whether or not you die at some point, I suppose.

Given the way that the melee/health pack glitch effect the game, however, no-bleedthrough does work better in a competitive setting. It ends up being more consistent which is what MLG is typically trying to incorporate into their games. Dying sometimes after picking up a health pack form a single melee isn't as consistent as staying alive from a melee because you had shields (that's evidence to back my claim up, by the way).

I will agree that gameplay is a little longer with no bleedthrough, but I feel the sacrifice for the sake of consistency (in the face of the glitch).

  • 02.22.2012 6:43 PM PDT

Hi.

Third paragraph:

I know how it works. If you think I'm inexperienced, you're extremely wrong. I play Halo way too much, man. You're arguing using a situation that suits your argument - a situation that isn't as common as you're suggesting. In this perfect situation, knowing what to do is obvious even for a beginner. Saying that adds skill of any sort is ridiculous.

Sixth:

You're acting as if the bug is on tier with the BxR or something. It's rare. Very rare.

More skillful gameplay, faster paced gameplay, and more sensible gameplay is a good product to purchase for the price of an inconsistent fight that happens every 1 out 50 DMR fights, if that.

  • 02.22.2012 6:50 PM PDT

Forget it man, and get with the countdown. Shake this square world and blast off for Kicksville.

Reach host ranking algorithm: (a*quit_percentage + b*isMexican + c*(1/KDR) + d*hasGuest) * 100
where a > b = d > c

Posted by: An average gamer
If you put three shots into me, then meleed, yes, it equals my one melee. That's not inconsistent with how the game is supposed to work. Your complaining is simply showing you DON'T know how it is supposed to work. If you knew, you'd take the extra second during my melee to put a fourth shot into me and then finish me off while my melee is recovering. You'd then win and show a higher skill.

That sounds great in theory, but practically speaking depending upon the connection latency and how late during your melee I make a fourth shot, there's a good chance we could end up trading. There's not a whole lot of leeway in this scenario, and the trade window is relatively generous in Reach.

Consider another scenario: this time your starting point is slightly closer to me, and I shoot you twice as you close in and a third time as you melee. Shooting you actually disadvantaged me; now my best recourse is to try and shoot+headshot in the time it takes you to melee again, which obviously isn't going to be very successful. I would have been better off simply waiting to melee simultaneously then trying to headshot, which doesn't strike me as an encounter with much depth (or much of a skill gap).

One can come up with almost infinite permutations, anyway. The basic point is that with bleedthrough, you have less encounters where your opponent can force a CQC situation that obviates the damage you have already dealt to them.

[Edited on 02.22.2012 7:02 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2012 7:00 PM PDT

I have a solution.
Put your Halo 3 disc in.

  • 02.22.2012 7:01 PM PDT

I rarely had double meleers become a problem for me. If somebody charged, I was able to do as I suggested to beat them.

What pisses me off about bleedthrough is when I think my shields have recharged enough, I pop out into a fight, and get killed in one shot. I also am not a fan of a single melee killing me when I have a vast majority of my shield remaining.

The way it seems to me is that the black & white shield = live no shield = die system worked is you knew when you'd die or not (which is good) and you knew how to work around charging opponents to live through the battle and kill them (which is also good).

  • 02.22.2012 7:02 PM PDT

Forget it man, and get with the countdown. Shake this square world and blast off for Kicksville.

Reach host ranking algorithm: (a*quit_percentage + b*isMexican + c*(1/KDR) + d*hasGuest) * 100
where a > b = d > c

Posted by: An average gamer
I rarely had double meleers become a problem for me. If somebody charged, I was able to do as I suggested to beat them.

What pisses me off about bleedthrough is when I think my shields have recharged enough, I pop out into a fight, and get killed in one shot. I also am not a fan of a single melee killing me when I have a vast majority of my shield remaining.

I could equally say that I rarely have a problem with popping out prematurely and getting killed in one shot. You really only have yourself to blame if you do.

Conversely, there are situations where sprint-double-melee'ers can force you to trade, and the blame for that rests entirely on the game.

  • 02.22.2012 7:05 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: xxx FrOMeX xxx
I have a solution.
Put your Halo 3 disc in.


Pfft, nah. -blam!-ing on the forums like a bunch of 14 year old girls on their first period until the game changes over a year later is WAY easier.

  • 02.22.2012 7:05 PM PDT

Hi.

Posted by: FaxMeApplejuice

Posted by: xxx FrOMeX xxx
I have a solution.
Put your Halo 3 disc in.


Pfft, nah. -blam!-ing on the forums like a bunch of 14 year old girls on their first period until the game changes over a year later is WAY easier.
You seem exasperated.

  • 02.22.2012 7:08 PM PDT


Posted by: Sentox6
I could equally say that I rarely have a problem with popping out prematurely and getting killed in one shot. You really only have yourself to blame if you do.

Conversely, there are situations where sprint-double-melee'ers can force you to trade, and the blame for that rests entirely on the game.


One could easily tell when one would die before and one could say that a decent setup/understanding of the shield system will let you not have trouble with double meleers.

There are ups and downs to both that I can see.

Posted by: FaxMeApplejuice

Pfft, nah. -blam!-ing on the forums like a bunch of 14 year old girls on their first period until the game changes over a year later is WAY easier.

I like arguing on the Internet. It makes me feel manly. Plus, it gets my opinion out there which is definitely important since I am doing it on the website of a developer which has no control over the game anymore.

[Edited on 02.22.2012 7:12 PM PST]

  • 02.22.2012 7:10 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:


Posted by: Zomechin
Posted by: FaxMeApplejuice

Posted by: xxx FrOMeX xxx
I have a solution.
Put your Halo 3 disc in.


Pfft, nah. -blam!-ing on the forums like a bunch of 14 year old girls on their first period until the game changes over a year later is WAY easier.
You seem exasperated.


Don't know what you're talking about. I love the TU. But I only play under duress, when my friends bug the -blam!- outta of me, and under great protest. I sold my Reach copy back day one. This game is utter -blam!-, with or without the TU anyway.

  • 02.22.2012 7:12 PM PDT

Hi.

Posted by: An average gamer
I like arguing on the Internet. It makes me feel manly. Plus, it gets my opinion out there which is definitely important since I am doing it on the website of a developer which has no control over the game anymore.
...

I like you.

  • 02.22.2012 7:13 PM PDT

Hi.

Posted by: FaxMeApplejuice

Posted by: Zomechin
Posted by: FaxMeApplejuice

Posted by: xxx FrOMeX xxx
I have a solution.
Put your Halo 3 disc in.


Pfft, nah. -blam!-ing on the forums like a bunch of 14 year old girls on their first period until the game changes over a year later is WAY easier.
You seem exasperated.


Don't know what you're talking about. I love the TU. But I only play under duress, when my friends bug the -blam!- outta of me, and under great protest. I sold my Reach copy back day one. This game is utter -blam!-, with or without the TU anyway.
Oh, okay. Now you makes sense overall.

  • 02.22.2012 7:14 PM PDT
  • gamertag: ankerd
  • user homepage:

Bringing in Fikst. Bringing back lmao.
Inheritor # 475 world,

#6 In the Country.

Halocharts.com

Not going to lie i didn't read all your post back and forth between each other but i will later.

I read some of toms.

The thing is, kids don't only charge for double melee, they spray you with the AR first. They realise they are going to lose so they rush for the pummel.

Bleed through- Oh he kills me because he shot me a tiny bit with his AR.

Non BT- He takes my shield off only because he didn't deshield me with his ar.

But guess what i have a ZB DMR so i can destroy the kid.

4 shots on before the kid melee's you and if not melee each other both desheilded. and boom finish the bk off with a 100% accurate headshot.

See where i am coming from?

  • 02.22.2012 7:21 PM PDT
  • gamertag: Rakive
  • user homepage:

You must confront your inabilities
You must adjust to your capabilities

Soooooo... Halo CE FTW.

  • 02.22.2012 7:30 PM PDT

  • Pages:
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • of 3