Halo: Reach Forum
This topic has moved here: Poll [205 votes]: Bloom or no Bloom?
  • Poll [205 votes]: Bloom or no Bloom?
Subject: Bloom or no Bloom?
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.

Poll: Bloom or no Bloom?  [closed]
Bloom:  32%
(65 Votes)
No Bloom:  68%
(140 Votes)
Total Votes: 205

In future halo games and as well as the current one, developers may want to ask themselves this question. What feels more satifying? The shoot where you aim approach or the random thing called bloom approach. Before you go flaming on me, let me explain and before you vote, let me explain.

Option 1
Let's say you fight a guy/girl and you need one shot and you aim at the head, which of the following two options would you rather have? (and it's really as simple as this)
1) No bloom, you shoot, you kill.
2) Bloom, you shoot, you have a chance to kill, but also a chance to miss.

Option 2
Let's say you fight a guy/girl and you need one shot and you aim at the chest, which of the following two options would you rather have?
1) No bloom, you shoot, you hit the chest.
2) Bloom, you shoot, you can hit the chest or head.

In both cases I would rather have option 1, for it shoots exactly where you aim. Where as in option 2, you can get lucky or not. So I ask you, from player to player; what is more satisfying? To shoot where you aim or to get lucky or unlucky.

I'm also not talking about pacing your shots, I'm talking about the moment you're in the "bloom state".

  • 04.28.2012 5:14 PM PDT

Vote for me for a free cookie.

I like bloom.

  • 04.28.2012 5:34 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.


Posted by: da 70 70 hatred
I like bloom.
So you take luck anyday over a satifying skillfull kill? Good to know where gamers now stand, without reason it seems.

  • 04.28.2012 5:38 PM PDT

Biased options are biased.

Bloom was intended to prevent the ability to spam at a target who is far away. The DMR isn't meant to kill in five quick shots no matter the range. The bloom ensures this.

I don't like the game at 100% bloom. I think 85% allows pacers to shoot fast enough to where spamming relentlessly is actually detrimental.

No bloom is ok, but I honestly think it works better as a niche setting for the hardcore players.

I think in future Halo titles it should certainly be a toggleable setting, but I think it should stay in non-hardcore lists.

  • 04.28.2012 5:39 PM PDT

Citizens of Me! The cruelty of the old Pharaoh is a thing of the past. Let a whole new wave of cruelty wash over this lazy land.

Hear the word of Pharaoh. Build unto me a statue of ridiculous proportion. One billion cubits in height......that I might be remembered for all eternity!

And be quick about it!

Bloom is terrible and it should be gone.

  • 04.28.2012 5:43 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.


[quote]Posted by: An average gamer
Biased options are biased.
quote]Care to say why they are biased? I know it's the hype here to shoot people down down, before they start flying.

  • 04.28.2012 5:45 PM PDT


Posted by: TS Legaia
Care to say why they are biased? I know it's the hype here to shoot people down down, before they start flying.


Your scenarios basically outline "Would you rather hit where you intend to hit, or miss?"

Seems biased to me.

  • 04.28.2012 6:21 PM PDT

Loading...

No Bloom, but there are other factors that would have to be in place to make it all fit together.

An example would be a proper ranking system where players of the same skill level compete together and then no bloom would not be scorned upon as much due to everyone is on the same playing field. Reach just doesn't do this and it creates a negativity toward no bloom.

In my opinion playing with bloom creates a safety boundary to allow all different skill levels the ability to compete together.

[Edited on 04.28.2012 6:24 PM PDT]

  • 04.28.2012 6:21 PM PDT

<3

Bloom sucks, it takes skill out of halo and replaces it with luck

  • 04.28.2012 6:22 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Veteran Legendary Member

Always up for REACH customs!


Posted by: An average gamer

Bloom was intended to prevent the ability to spam at a target who is far away. The DMR isn't meant to kill in five quick shots no matter the range. The bloom ensures this.

I don't like the game at 100% bloom. I think 85% allows pacers to shoot fast enough to where spamming relentlessly is actually detrimental.

This 100%

  • 04.28.2012 6:24 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

My Level. Get on it.


Posted by: RC Clone
Nope. SouthPole isn't a person. He's the avatar of the force of tryhards everywhere. He stalks the web looking for retards to set straight. He can not be stopped by mere bans or thread locks for he shall rise anew.

Anyone who actually votes for bloom is bad. Fun fact.

  • 04.28.2012 6:33 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.


Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: TS Legaia
Care to say why they are biased? I know it's the hype here to shoot people down down, before they start flying.


Your scenarios basically outline "Would you rather hit where you intend to hit, or miss?"

Seems biased to me.
Actually it's as simple as that, added by you have a chance to hit. But more importantly can you counter that question?

  • 04.28.2012 6:36 PM PDT

Why even bother, really?
I rage.


Posted by: SouthPoIe
Anyone who actually votes for bloom is bad. Fun fact.

Proof

  • 04.28.2012 6:51 PM PDT
  •  | 
  • Honorable Heroic Member
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Your 'beliefs' mean less than dick to me.

There is no defense for bloom. None.

  • 04.28.2012 6:55 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.


Posted by: MrR46
There is no defense for bloom. None.
No but it seems stubborness alone makes even the weakest arguments valid.

  • 04.28.2012 7:00 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Hey, uh, if you like vs threads, then check out this little group right here, if you have the time. It's pretty fun, just hop right in.

Posted by: TS Legaia
No but it seems stubborness alone makes even the weakest arguments valid.


This post alone sums up the entire Reach forum.

  • 04.28.2012 7:04 PM PDT

Halo 3 was my main Halo game, so no bloom.

  • 04.28.2012 7:06 PM PDT


Posted by: TS Legaia
Actually it's as simple as that, added by you have a chance to hit. But more importantly can you counter that question?


It's a biased scenario. Bloom's existence is to do more than make people miss. It is to prevent easy long range kills. To prevent a weapon from being equally reliable at all ranges, at all fire rates, all the time, yes, I'd rather it make people miss.

I suppose you'd rather the DMR be just as effective as a sniper rifle of sorts? There is no reason that a weapon with the DMR's fire rate should be able to get a quick kill across the map. There'd be no point in longer range weapons because it'd be easier to just five somebody across the map than to hit them twice with a sniper.

Lowering the fire rate doesn't do much either except making it useless as a CQC weapon.

  • 04.28.2012 7:07 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Hey, uh, if you like vs threads, then check out this little group right here, if you have the time. It's pretty fun, just hop right in.

Posted by: An average gamer
Lowering the fire rate doesn't do much either except making it useless as a CQC weapon.


Marksman rifles aren't typically used at close range anyway.

  • 04.28.2012 7:09 PM PDT


Posted by: And Im Here Too
Posted by: An average gamer
Lowering the fire rate doesn't do much either except making it useless as a CQC weapon.


Marksman rifles aren't typically used at close range anyway.


And utility weapons are supposed to be good everywhere. Would you rather have your DMR not be able to kill an AR sprayer before he kills you because of a slow fire rate?

  • 04.28.2012 7:11 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Hey, uh, if you like vs threads, then check out this little group right here, if you have the time. It's pretty fun, just hop right in.

Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: And Im Here Too
Posted by: An average gamer
Lowering the fire rate doesn't do much either except making it useless as a CQC weapon.


Marksman rifles aren't typically used at close range anyway.


And utility weapons are supposed to be good everywhere. Would you rather have your DMR not be able to kill an AR sprayer before he kills you because of a slow fire rate?


The Assault Rifle is a close-range weapon. The DMR is a long-range weapon. Much as it sucks, the Assault Rifle should win out in it's specialized range.

Of course I might just think this because I've always hated utility weapons.

  • 04.28.2012 7:13 PM PDT

I'm the cult of personality,
I call it like i see it, if i feel the need to be blunt and to the point, then i will, if i feel the need to be very detailed, i will, im here to stay and im here to do things my way, if you respect that or not is your choice, not mine,
and don't worry, while i don't agree with everyone's opinion, i do respect everyone's opinion.


Posted by: Lobster Fish 2
Halo 3 was my main Halo game, so no bloom.

  • 04.28.2012 7:13 PM PDT


Posted by: And Im Here Too
The Assault Rifle is a close-range weapon. The DMR is a long-range weapon. Much as it sucks, the Assault Rifle should win out in it's specialized range.

Of course I might just think this because I've always hated utility weapons.


You'd see a lot more complaining if an AR sprayer would win every CQC fight than if a sniper could out-snipe a DMR at range. The DMR, as is, is useable everywhere. The bloom just prevents long range dominance. I see no issue with this. At 85% bloom you can still shoot fast enough, while pacing, to get shots which are better than a spammer would get. There is no problem and it's nowhere as bad as the OP portrays.

  • 04.28.2012 7:15 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Hey, uh, if you like vs threads, then check out this little group right here, if you have the time. It's pretty fun, just hop right in.

Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: And Im Here Too
The Assault Rifle is a close-range weapon. The DMR is a long-range weapon. Much as it sucks, the Assault Rifle should win out in it's specialized range.

Of course I might just think this because I've always hated utility weapons.


You'd see a lot more complaining if an AR sprayer would win every CQC fight than if a sniper could out-snipe a DMR at range. The DMR, as is, is useable everywhere. The bloom just prevents long range dominance. I see no issue with this. At 85% bloom you can still shoot fast enough, while pacing, to get shots which are better than a spammer would get. There is no problem and it's nowhere as bad as the OP portrays.


Should've been called the Multi-Purpose Rifle or something then. And removed every other weapon.

  • 04.28.2012 7:17 PM PDT
  • gamertag: [none]
  • user homepage:

Neem deel aan de NL Group, om het spel beter te begrijpen en makkelijker met/tegen vele andere Nederlanders te spelen.


Posted by: An average gamer

Posted by: TS Legaia
Actually it's as simple as that, added by you have a chance to hit. But more importantly can you counter that question?


It's a biased scenario. Bloom's existence is to do more than make people miss. It is to prevent easy long range kills. To prevent a weapon from being equally reliable at all ranges, at all fire rates, all the time, yes, I'd rather it make people miss.

I suppose you'd rather the DMR be just as effective as a sniper rifle of sorts? There is no reason that a weapon with the DMR's fire rate should be able to get a quick kill across the map. There'd be no point in longer range weapons because it'd be easier to just five somebody across the map than to hit them twice with a sniper.

Lowering the fire rate doesn't do much either except making it useless as a CQC weapon.
Ok, now it's you who is biased. You are solely focusing on the misses, while I was also focusing on the hitting head while you aimed chest. What is more satifying to you? Hit head when you aim head or hit head when you aimed chest.

  • 04.28.2012 7:19 PM PDT