You know what I want? A game people don't complain about continually, all of the things Peggy has brought up pretty much to a nail, a COMPLETE removal of Jet Pack (being a forger, anything that was created to **** map flow pisses me off. I know that PoS would be bad since the beta,) and most important, INCREASED JUMP HEIGHT. I have been playing Halo 3 the past few days, since I lost my Reach disk, and I gotta say; I miss nothing more than the jump height. I averaged about 3 ninjas a game, preformed all sorts of trick jumps like a boss, and confused the **** outta people just with a 15% increase. Just that slight bone-up would make the game a hundred times more enjoyable, easily.
Ok, so first off is how on a good connection you can fire faster than the logical RoF (the 'logical' RoF being one that is in line with the visual bloom, ie. your reticle must have contracted far enough so as to fully be covering the target to get a hit) and still have shots not only hit the target, but even fall dead centre of a significantly bloomed reticle. The only reason I can think of for this is high bullet magnetism (a mechanism which draws bullets towards a target that, by dint of the user's aim and the bloom random number generator alone, should have missed eg. Halo 2 Sniper and its 'sweep sniping'). If it was the RNG alone deciding to make bullets fall towards the centre of bloomed reticles with high probability, then there is no logical reason that worse connections should suffer more. On to what I suffer on worse connections: These are not connections so bad that bullets simply aren't registering, since if I pace uber heavily and let the bloom fully reset in between each shot, all of them will register fine. However, if I do the same 'semi-spam' thing which works well on LAN/Host and pretty well on good connections, the majority of my shots miss. The only logical reason I can think of for this is that the bullet magnetism discussed above is somehow less effective as connection quality and ping degrade. In a sense this means that the situation I describe is how bloom should work, as I'm not being robbed of shots that definitely should have hit (ie. the reticle was contracted far enough so that it was fully covering the target area). Ok, so sometimes I am, but on a bad host there are gonna be dropped shots and poor registration. My point is that in general I'm experiencing what bloom should logically mean, ie. having to use the visual aspect of bloom as a definitive guide for when to fire, and if I go against it I'll miss, not just some of the time but most/very close to all of the time. The downside is that those on better connections don't have to do this, and can still semi-spam... At pretty long ranges then yeah it does have an effect, but I just think the practical effect of bloom on the AR is nowhere near what it should be. Like I said, I think that killing a fully shielded opponent with strafing and anything over 10-15 feet range should require at least a single pause in firing. Perhaps it'd be better if strafing was more effective, in that the width of bullet cone on the AR was slimmer allowing you to dodge a little more, then this wouldn't be such an issue as bad players would be punished for their hold-and-swing approach to the AR in a different way. But as is, I just see so little depth to AR battles between opponents of quite significantly differing skill levels.
I don't know, unless you do some controlled testing, I'm not sure how it could go beyond the element of chance that a larger circle causes. Sure, firing faster than bloom still works, but mainly because there is no downside to bodyshots unless the shield is down, so you have a larger target as compensation for a larger reticule. However, I can't seem to land the headshot at medium range with any consistency if I'm using that accelerated approach. I can once in a while, but it seems better if I either wait for my aim to deflate or close the gap enough during the fight that I still have a decent chance of hitting the head even with my expanded cone. As for the AR, I like that the hold and swing is still feasible at close range, because it feels more like the other Halo titles, and people do that habitually. However, the AR is pretty weak in Reach, and if you make someone miss even a little bit in AR fights, they will be forced to reload before they kill you, allowing the people who control their fire to get the kill in the end. Even though the gun is weaker, I like that it doesn't require bursting to the same extent as other weapons, but it still benefits from it.
I never understood why they implemented bloom yet changed halo 3's bullet mechanics to hitscan. If the point of bloom was to make recoil realistic, then keep the bullets that it's shooting realistic as well.
What I would like: Nerf- Armor Lock, Banshee, Frags Fix- BTB spawns, Boot system, infection glitch Slash- Rejection medal
The AR is essential for scoring. The hammer tends to knock the ball way too far or without enough accuracy. Using the AR allows you to get the ball rolling with more precision. About the bloom though..I'm telling you guys, an increase in bloom expansion and reset speed would be awesome and pacing your shots would become a huge advantage.
That exact argument could be used to justify not having bloom at all. Being able to fire at full RoF with precision weapons would make it feel more like other Halo titles, and people do that habitually. It seems like these kind of arguments are often made in a more forgiving way towards things like the AR, whereas when people put forward the same point with respect to precision weapons they're simply told to 'adapt' and 'stop asking for a Halo 3 clone.' Idk, it just feels like the design attitude at Bungie was to heavily focus on restricting and specifying use of skill weapons, but only make vague gestures towards doing so with weapons that lesser skilled/average players tend to gravitate to. It works out like a sort of handicap mentality, a more active approach to levelling the skill gap than any previous title. The AR really isn't weak. In terms of aim required to attain damage (factoring in not just the pure damage per bullet but also the hitscan which increases the effective range of the thing) it's actually pretty generous. And a big part of this is what I said about how wide the bullet field is, meaning that strafes have to be so wide to actually get you fully out of said width that it almost negates it as a viable strategy at anything inside of red reticle range. If it were a more narrow field of fire (obviously with slightly fewer bullets so it wasn't just the same damage concentrated tighter, effectively making it more powerful) then I'd agree with you. I don't think it needs massive changes, and I'm not talking about a straight up damage nerf at all, just more influence from bloom and a tighter field of fire would add so much depth to what is currently a much more shallow weapon than it should be imo. I'd really love to see an AR which actively promotes getting good with the thing to a noticeable degree in most AR vs. AR encounters, whereas currently even a good playing fighting an average one will struggle to come away with full health, let alone any shield.
That's not really my argument, I just like that it allows you to hold the trigger down AND burst fire, without either one being completely useless. Just because they've adopted bloom for this title doesn't mean they have to abandon everything that defined a weapon in previous games. It currently feels like the normal AR, but now you can burst fire if you want to make it slightly more effective. I think that's fine.
Categorizing Mutually Exclusive: People can't agree on if it should be changed or in what direction. Changing these might benefit one part of the community but alienate another. Examples: Armor Lock Reticule Bloom Core Gameplay Mechanics: These will mean everyone essentially must relearn the game, and even the people who clamor for these changes won't be happy. In most cases this just involves people wanting gameplay to be a copy of previous games or more like other games. Halo: Reach is not Halo 3 Battlefield or CoD; deal with it. Examples: Nerfing grenades Nerfing Armor Lock Boosting Assault Rifle Reticule Bloom Changes that don't need a title update: Go ask for these in the optimatch forum. Examples: Quit-ban system MM gametype setup Legitimate Problems: These can and may be fixed in the Title Update. There are not conflicting sentiments over whether or not they should be changed, although there may be over how much they should be changed. Examples: Betrayal Booting Setup of Custom Gametypes (Note that this can be fixed with downloadable updates Insignificant: Not many people want these changed, and they really don't effect core gameplay. Examples: Removing certain medals Additions: Maybe Bungie will be nice, but these are a low priority compared to things that are really wrong with the game considering how much time they take to implement Examples: Grenade Regeneration Multiplayer Generator Defense Return of some Halo 3 weapons
If a nerf of AL means you have to 'relearn the game' then, well, do I really need to say more? Also, in terms of making bloom more consistent (and bear in mind this is only with one weapon, the DMR, albeit the primary precision weapon in the game), the path I support would make the noticeable difference in terms of how the majority of players react to the bloom pretty minimal. The main difference would be that players would see a more consistent representation in the visual aspect of bloom of what was actually happening. Basically: make it so that bullets can only fall towards the edge of the reticle, meaning that you will only ever have a bullet land dead centre of the reticle when it is fully contracted. This will slow down the effective rate of firing a little since the current best RoF is slightly faster than what the visual bloom would suggest in totally logical terms. Therefore, you increase the reset rate just a tiny bit to bring the effective firing rate at any given range back to what it is now, the only change meaning that it's consistently effective as opposed to random chance occasionally deciding that you'll miss like 4 shots in a row that you'd normally hit just by probability sending them all right to the edge of the reticle every so often. This wouldn't change how you fired the gun in real terms, it'd just yield more consistency and promote real skill with the pacing as something truly worth learning and mastering in all situations. The difference would come from the visual representation changing just a little (since the visual bloom would be contracting a little faster than currently) but this only takes a bit of experience to realise that you should still react in the same way as the user, and for those not already wedded to the way the DMR works it'd actually make it easier to learn since the visual aspect would be totally in line with how to use the thing most effectively. Also I don't see how those asking for the changes won't be happy even if they're implemented. I agree that many calling for changes simply do want a return to what they're used to, but there are plenty of others who use logical arguments and reasoning for their requests (which are usually less extreme than the requests of all out Reach haters), embracing change in principle just not without question of whether it adds or detracts from balance/the overall experience.
That, totally. I like Reach, I just think it needs a little fine-tuning. It's worth pointing out that Halo 2 and 3 both got title updates that made some not-insignificant adjustments to gameplay. I don't think it's very crazy to want to see the same thing in this game. Nothing as loony as removing armor lock or bloom entirely - there are customs and specialized playlists if you don't like AL, and bloom is obviously built into the game in such a way that it won't be removed. But both of those, and other areas, could use a nip and tuck.
See, here's the thing. You say that all the people that care have already moved on, and then when I say "I care," you readily dismiss me, along with everyone else in this thread. Cut this circular logic **** and realize that these ARE issues in most people's minds. Would I still be playing Reach despite a title update? Yes. Would I keep playing Reach if Bungie and 343 announced that nothing would be changed? No. A friend of mine made a really good analogy; Starcraft 1, when it first came out, was full of issues. They tweaked it for about a year, and once that tweaking was done, the game was ****ing amazing. Halo has the potential for that, which is why people won't shut up about these issues. Hell, I've talked to people who said that they'd come back in a heartbeat of AL was nerfed and there was an option to turn off bloom. A good player can think about all these things WHILE pacing their shots. In doubles, I usually time every power weapon, and try and keep a constant eye on where the enemy is moving, and when they're out of sight, I usually mentally track them, so that I can actively flank while my partner acts as bait, or vice-versa. I can do this all while pacing my shots, simply because pacing has become instinctive for me. Bloom is still an issue, but this isn't a very good argument against it. Play me in a 1v1 and you'll understand what I mean.
@ Bolded, exactly, this can't be overstated. People seem to have this almost spiritual view on development processes that whatever devs come out with at retail is somehow perfect, and questioning aspects makes you a hater that should just go play a different game. There's a good reason why Blizzard are so well looked upon for their attitude to updating SC2. There's a quote by Shock that pops up from time to time about how no map is every truly finished, that you can always do something more to improve upon it and refine the gameplay if you're willing. Sure after a while these things tend to become more polishing, but extended gameplay on a map may evolve the meta-game to a point where it's even worth questioning some more major aspects of its design and rethinking them. That's not to say that you should never give up working on stuff, it's all about how far you want to take it, but the principle of just assuming something is ever really finished is misplaced is what you should really take away from what he said imo. I think the same applies to games in general.
You're missing the point; I'm simply saying that the damage has already been done. People have made up their mind about Reach because of its differences from previous titles, and nothing short of major changes is likely to alter their view. I have no doubt that there are exceptions like your pals, but I'm not speaking in absolutes anyway, so it's irrelevant. I find no joy in admitting that Reach's community is as small as it is, but I'm not clamoring for changes that would only further divide the people who do remain.
I think you'd actually be surprised at the numbers of people over at the Waypoint forums contributing to the possible TU discussion in very mature and moderate terms. Obviously not thousands, but again these active forum numbers are always indicators rather than full figures. I'm not gonna disagree with your major statement that the damage has already been done for the most part, but I think Halo has something up on other games in that the same past iterations which caused such entrenched views also leave more scope for people to return since their love for the franchise is more deeply embedded than other games. People are less ready to simply give up on Halo and move on to a different game regardless of changes made past that point due to how long they've enjoyed the series. I'm not saying this is enough to counteract your argument by any means, but I think you may be overstating the case just a little.
Oh I don't claim everyone even gave it a fair chance before bailing, but it is what it is. I just don't feel the need to start trying to mess with things beyond minor tweaks; you can't make everyone happy, so you don't want to end up alienating everyone by trying to do so.
I honestly don't think a bloom tweak (maybe not the most minor, but I still think it qualifies as a tweak) would alienate many people. I don't think there are many people who vehemently defend the current bloom system, or at least not to the point where they'd be alienated by the changes being suggested since all it'd do is add consistency, which no DMR user would really object to even if they don't think it necessary enough to actively call for. An AL nerf: yeah I can see that alienating quite a lot more people. Is this because quite a large number of people gravitate to it as what I consider a crutch, and even the more forgiving often agree is an overuse? Yes, but either way it's alienating users in a game which one some sense needs to maintain online numbers, so I can see the logic more. I'd prefer it if balance was placed above pandering, but I'm far from stupid. I know that sounds kinda critical, but I don't think it's unfair tbh because if you're alienated from the game itself because a single AA is nerfed then I only consider that a demonstration of how people rely on and thus abuse its presence. Even if Sprint (the only AA I really use in general) were removed, obviously aside from the balance issues this would create, I wouldn't consider myself alienated since I enjoy the core mechanics of the game itself. I've seen people quit out of stuff like Pro variants, and when I asked them why it wasn't even just that they disliked the whole thing of Pro variants, it was literally just because there wasn't AL available.