- Murcielago00
- |
- Senior Legendary Member
- gamertag: [none]
- user homepage:
Posted by: MongotheRed
Posted by: Murcielago00
And this can be applied to everyone I was discussing who were arguing that AL did, indeed, slow the pace of the game.
And that is where you are wrong. The FACTS are that the AL last for about 10 seconds and the person using it is completely invincible. As opposed to the person being vulnerable at all times, this does actually slow down the game.
And this is where we have to part ways. I never felt the pace of the game was slowed in the slightest, even when almost everybody was using Armor Lock. My perception of time, more or less, told me it felt it was that same "Halo pace."
Posted by: Hylebos
Posted by: Murcielago00
And this can be applied to everyone I was discussing who were arguing that AL did, indeed, slow the pace of the game.That's a little different.
I can compare Reach to Reach without Armor Lock and agree that Reach without Armor Lock has a faster pace because players do not have the abillity to waste three seconds of our time on a five second cool down. You'll notice that the only variable that changes is the presence of Armor Lock, which allows us to easily compare the two scenarios.
You were comparing Reach to Halo 3, which introduces too many confounding variables. The game feels slower, but is that because player speed is slower than in Halo 3? Is that because the weapons are balanced differently? Is it because players sprint away from combat too much?
Do you see the difference? Yes I do see the difference, now.
[Edited on 12.04.2012 8:39 PM PST]