This. Armor lock, tbh, has too many pros and not enough cons. The ONLY con is being frozen in place. And while your'e frozen, you still get shield recharge, sticky rejection, EMP e.t.c. It has too much going for it, which is why you rarely see a game full of people using jetpack or sprint: Most use AL.
Don't call it alienating, if you want. It's not that people would necessarily quit right off the bat, but just having one more reason to move on to another game is all it really takes. Think of it as a way of shortening the lifespan of the game for players, even if that lifespan will vary from person to person.
Whatever the timescale, if solely the ability to use AL in it's current form (not even at all since the majority of people accept that a balancing of it is much more likely and reasonable than total removal) sends you from playing the game to moving on, I have no real sympathy. I get that Bungie do and have to, but from a purely personal standpoint in terms of fairly catering to every side of an argument, I don't feel that essentially saying gtfo to people who fall in to that specific category is that unfair...
The people saying they will quit due to the Armor Lock problem are probably the ones with better alternatives and not players who just simply hate Armor Lock that much. Nowadays, I'm rarely playing something other than customs due to the fact that I have many alternatives to this game. Halo 3, Mass Effect 2, Left 4 Dead 2, Battlefield Bad Company 2, etc. With that being said, I'm not going to quit the game, and instead just cut down on how much I play. Why? For the exact same reason you stated - this game has potential to be good. I get so tired of people saying that this game is perfect and does not need major changes. This is completely untrue. Personally, I find grenades and Bloom to be some of the most annoying things in this game. Until both Bungie and 343 decide that they won't release a Title Update, I'll continue to play this game.
I was talking in terms of the other way around, ie. people who only play the game because they can use AL and would quit without it, rather than those who quit because they can't stand it. Though tbh I do think that people who quit a game because of one AA are going overboard too, there are playlists without it and it hardly impacts upon every game. I find it pretty frustrating as is pretty evident from my posts on the matter, but it won't put me off the game as a whole. Hardly. As I said, I'm not saying that the inclusion of a single AA is the difference between me playing Reach or moving on to other games, whereas those I'm talking about literally only enjoy Reach as an entire game when they can use AL, and it's pretty obvious why. Even if you support it, can you honestly tell me you think that's a reasonable standpoint to feel lots of sympathy for when balancing the game? Also, that's not even a direct equivalent to what I'm saying. A proper comparison would me saying that I would refuse to play the game if Sprint was nerfed in some way (not even removed, since I'm proposing a nerf of AL and not a total removal) and considering that I directly stated that this wouldn't be the case, you should probably try to read my posts more carefully before jumping to your overly critical tone. As for being helpful or relevant, there was a discussion going on whether it's A) a good decision in terms of balance for Bungie to modify AL and B) whether it would be wise to do so in terms of maintaining player numbers and alienation, a point you yourself brought up. I was addressing my personal feelings in terms of prioritising A over B (obviously based on my asserted premise that nerfing it would benefit balance), but also accounting for the fact that Bungie cannot afford to (nor do they necessarily have the mind to be even if they could) think or act in the same way. So yes, I would call it relevant, and once again please try to read the discussion more carefully or chill out a little, preferably both.
Peg, my point is you're speaking in extremes; I've not claimed that people will quit if AL is touched, so not only does your lack of sympathy for this faceless group not concern me, but it can also go both ways. Basically, I could also say that Bungie telling people who will quit if they don't get the changes they want to gtfo is not unfair either, but that really isn't relevant to this discussion. Does that make more sense?
Yes, and it is indeed a fair point. Tbh it was more that I took exception to being lumped by implication as part of the opposite extreme, when in fact I just have an opinion on AL (albeit a strong one) rather than acting upon said opinion to the point of rejecting the game outright. But to be fair, talking about such changes driving people away was a point you brought up in the first place: Whilst these are general points, I don't feel that applying the principle to a specific example in changes to AL (as one of the most debated points in pretty much all TU discussions) is that much of a leap, so I don't think that 'faceless group' is entirely accurate even by your own logic. In terms of actually driving people away, the only changes I'm really pushing are A) A Banshee nerf, which I think we can both agree is too specific to push people away in any volume, B) a DMR bloom modification which takes minor mental adjustment but no actual change in how you use the gun (and even then it only affects a single gun) and C) an AL nerf. Therefore the AL nerf is the only one which actually runs any risk of alienation, this is the train of logic which led from what you said about alienation to my point about having little sympathy if an AL nerf alone causes said alienation, thus players moving on.
The faceless group was the AL quitters that you brought up all on your own. Sure, they're probably out there, but I didn't single anyone out. If anything, the fact that there are such groups that represent every side of any changes made only illustrates my point; you can't please everyone. Just because you don't feel certain changes are bad, it doesn't mean it won't affect peoples' opinions and attitude towards the game.
I brought them up with regard to AL in particular, but as I said it was you who first made the point of people actually moving on because of changes. If this doesn't include changes made to AL, then what were you referring to? Even other posters than myself, like 4shot who was the first to specify a list of changes before you made that original comment about changes alienating people, pretty much made an identical list to mine in terms of major changes (ie. a bloom fix and AL nerf as major changes we have in common). So I still don't get how you can completely separate your general point about changes alienating people from my specific relation of this principle to AL, as probably the foremost change in discussions on this subject, both ITT and in others. So yes, I was the first to specify AL in relation to this alienation, but I'd still maintain that it's too direct a chain of logic from what you yourself stated for you to totally divorce yourself from discussion of AL nerfs possibly alienating players to the point of making them not want to play anymore.
I'm making a distinction between simply quitting over it immediately and just growing more unhappy with the game, or other varying degrees of displeasure. Either way, it seems like a waste of effort to start catering to one group over another at this point. It feels like choosing which hobo you should toss a quarter to.
Why does it have to be solely a case of catering to groups at all? That relegates any discussion of a TU to one which basically equates to pandering in one sense or another. Whilst I agree that there are changes which come down more on the side of opinion and preference, the idea that any changes discussed so far are devoid of potential for objective discussion on balance terms is something I disagree with. Then there's the point raised before about how H2 and H3 had pretty significant TU's, very significant in terms of H2 in particular. Arguments about boosting the effectiveness of the BR and fixing melees from pre-patch could have been called 'catering to one group or another' just as much as discussions of bloom or AL could be here, yet Bungie saw fit to change them. Who knows what 343 may see fit to do now, seeing as they're not even the same group of devs who made the game and these decisions in the first place. Sure they must consider alienating users with potentially unpopular changes, like you say, but that doesn't rule out changes as a whole by any means.
Are you on here all day? I just checked this topic and then I go back to check other topics and you've already replied around 10 seconds later. Coincidence, maybe? In the end, Halo Reach needs to have a Title Update. I haven't been into a default playlist for months because of how abusable Armor Lock is.
Sure, but they made changes while people still played, if nothing else. The fact that it's a different developer makes the situation even more interesting. Are they just changes for the sake of changes then? Do they know better than Bungie? Would they know which of the vocal forum-dwellers to listen to and which ones are just selfish? Just creates more questions, really.
Can't be dicked with reading the entire thread but here's my only thoughts on a couple of things that should be addressed in a title update. a) I think you should be able to take melee damage in Armor Lock. This gives it a clear counter and prevents it from being too much of a close quarters powerhouse. b) When your crosshairs have reset to the smallest possible size, that shot should be centered. Not anywhere within the center of the smallest possible crosshair state, but exactly 100% centered. This rewards pacing between your shots and reduces most of the luck that comes with middle to long range, DMR combat. c) Grenade Damage Modifier as a custom setting OR one grenade per spawn. The only gametype I even play in Reach anymore is Classic because I feel most of my deaths are legitimate and not caused by variables out of my control. The only case where this can be argued is with the grenades, notably with them being two per spawn. Of course, despite this being the absolute sure way to improve Classic to near perfection and only promoting a much more positive gameplay experience. The first two bits don't nearly effect me as much as I only really play Classic and I always vote for AR starts because I just enjoy the variety over DMR starts more. The last piece of criticism has been something I've been nagging about since the Beta and yet it still hasn't been addressed as well as it could have been.
I know that many have been put off Reach, but many are still playing, I think the alienation already established by changes from H3 is a somewhat overplayed point in many cases. There's no reason to suspect that 343 would make changes just for the sake of making their mark, in fact it's in their interests to make changes which they're sure of in their own mind otherwise they risk giving a bad impression of how they'll handle Halo from now on. That's a rather trite way of looking at it. Again, Bungie patched their own games, so do they know better than themselves? It's a pointless path of discussion, and the fact is that changes can be made in light of long term information gathered from extended play and community feedback, filtered through the logical consideration of the devs themselves to try and decide what they think is worth listening to. It's the same principle as a beta, just extended, and is exactly why Blizzard consider SC2 an ongoing thing and patches are a regular occurrence, as an extreme example. That's their business, and as the community all we can do is voice our thoughts in as cogent a way as possible and hope, same as always. I know that's more an issue for the HW forums than here, but what harm has discussion around our various thoughts on a subject ever done? Discussions like this inform posts made over there by tossing ideas around and building thought on the subject. Sorry for labouring the point of discussion doing no harm, but it just sounds like you're going in the direction of apathy which ends in discussion of change not only being pointless, but something that should be actively avoided. If I'm mistaken then apologies, but if so then I don't really understand what your objection is. There's precedent for TU's, there's precedent for significant change, there's basis for discussion and support of various possible changes.
I'm not personally asking these questions, they're rhetorical. You have no way to answer them to begin with. There's also precedent for doing very little, if anything, so you ought to include that as well.
Apart from the answers I gave above... Do I work at 343? Obviously not. Am I part of the community who's voice has had an impact upon past Halo TUs, and therefore logically has some hope of influencing any possible decision on a Reach one? Yes. Now you're just being stupid. Why not just refuse to talk about anything that we don't have direct and total control over? It's not like this forum is called Halo Reach Discussion or anything.... Sorry, but is your point that there wasn't a new patch with every single issue raised by any sector of the community with each Halo game? There's always precedent for inaction, expecting otherwise like asking someone to disprove God. The fact is that every online enabled Halo game to date has had a significant gameplay patch (inb4 Halo wars... -.-), so why should this be any different? You're throwing out general, trite and non-specific responses which basically amount to nothing other than telling people to accept the game as it is. You're not even following that up with actual counters to their points anymore, arguing specific cases of why you think things are fine, just thrusting an air of pessimism over the whole discussion without any good reason.
Again, I'm not asking you those questions. I'm only pointing out that they are a few of several points of contention that would likely not exist at all if it were only Bungie in control. Whatever side you choose to take when and if those debates occur is irrelevant. Also, it's odd you'd call me pessimistic when I seem to be the one that's content. I was only pointing out that you shouldn't feel that change is necessary when it's merely preferential. There is a difference, and you would do well to keep this in mind. You have no reason to assume the worst of my responses, much less resort to insulting over your own inferences.