I don't feel that any of the points you brought up add complications to the issue, if anything they enhance basis for discussion because 343 is an unknown quantity. Could this lead to an even more vehement support for the decisions already made during Reach's development? Quite possibly, but considering not only the comments cited in the OP, but also comments from Frankie regarding how he feels about the core mechanic of Halo as it has been established in the series thus far, I think there's room for conjecture on what could happen and how 343 might react. And even if not, what's lost by discussion? Who knows what 343 will do and how they will approach this? You're right, it leaves an atmosphere rife with questions. But don't questions give basis for more discussion, not less? Pessimistic to the possibility of change, or even to the purpose of it. Pessimistic about pleasing either party enough (in any given instance of 2-sided disagreement on a possible point which a TU could address) to make change worth it. Again, the idea that all possible change is purely preferential holds little weight either in theory or in practice. Bungie, just like other devs for other games, have held opinions on possible changes in the past enough to implement them. Nothing is philosophically imperative, that's blindingly obvious, but if enough people in the community feel a change would benefit the game, and the dev in control of said game agree with them, then this change will be implemented. What do you really mean by 'necessary?' Do I think that without the changes I've proposed Reach will be a worse game than it would with them? Obviously, and I don't think you have any basis for expecting me to not hold that view. I prefer a balanced game, and I hold the opinion that the changes I support would further this endeavour. I'm not simply objecting to things because I don't like them on a subjective level, I'm putting forward attempts at a logical argument as to why I think they're objectively detrimental to the balance of the game. So no, it's not 'merely preferential' and your overreaching attempts to nullify any founding for discussion are getting a bit tiresome tbh. By keep it in mind, I assume you mean account for it directly in my posts, like I did here amongst other times: When you resume your former approach of bringing actual cogent points to the table rather than non-specific and trite rhetoric, I'll take a more forgiving attitude. How can you honestly sit there and defend comments like the one about precedence for inaction with a straight face?
Nothing is lost, it's simply not a discussion I had any intention of having. If you responded with the intent of a more general discussion aimed at no one in particular instead of responding directly to me, that's fine; I'm only clarifying that I wasn't asking your opinion on 343, just tossing out some more meat to be chewed on before the topic actually becomes relevant, assuming it ever does. But isn't Reach itself already a rather substantial change? How much change do you suggest I be content with? Should I agree with change that might actually be making things more the same as they used to be? Again, rhetorical, but perhaps you can see how limited of a scope you have in this particular instance. There are more perspectives than the one you're using. It's like what I said in the other thread, there really isn't anything present in Reach that is legitimately game-breaking or exploitable in some way. Sword lunging in Halo 2 is a fairly good example of something that was definitely not intended in the game's design, and essentially needed to be addressed. However, just about anything they choose to do in Reach will only be what some people might want. You're definitely entitled to that, make no mistake, but I can't be expected to agree without question if people pretend that such changes are necessary. Before you get started again, know that I'm not going to continue to make drawn out posts like before. My posts have been short, much to your disdain, because we scare people off with this level of banter. If you're genuinely interested in discussing these subjects with me, you're more than welcome to hit me up on Live. It's much easier anyway, and I'd undoubtedly enjoy playing some games with you to boot. I really do enjoy a thorough discussion, but I'd rather not inundate every thread we enter with it, you know?
It seems this discussion has strayed a bit (not necissarily bad, I enjoyed reading it) but I feel it needs to get back on track. Here's my problem: 1.Bloom- I love the idea of bloom, and with a little tweak it could be great. I think bloom should be increased a bit, and reset on an exponential curve so that maximum spamming will be very far spread but the bloom will not punish those who dont wait the entire two seconds or so as much to keep gameplay from slowing down too much. 2.Armor Lock- Make AL last 4 seconds and drain the user's shields upon leaving armor lock. This still allows it to serve it's purpose as surviving lethal attacks while not allowing it to become a 'get out of jail free' card in a 1v1 DMR duel. 3.Grenades- Simply put, they need a 10% damage nerf. 1 DMR shot and a grenade? Really? I hope something to that effect is done in the update, I hope AL isn't nerfed too much as most of the Bnet community wants, and I think bloom could be a great system. The grenades are annoying, but I wouldn't complain if the other two were addressed. I don't understand why melee is too much of a problem, sure it gets annoying but a little DMR work on the herp-a-derping melee guy or customs with 75% melee damage solves the problem.
Am I right in saying every online Halo game had a title update which dealt with similar issues at one point or another? And am I right in saying this update made playing the game substantially more enjoyable, and also this update came out roughly 7 months-a year after the games release? If I'm wrong, then I'm wrong. But I have a strong feeling I'm right.
I don't totally agree with the last bit of your post, but I do see the value of the sentiment, so I'll keep this somewhat short (well, short for me), which is also easier since I see your point with much of this post. Basically, I'm not expecting you to just roll over and accept my proposed changes as necessary by any means. I obviously think they are, and through discussion I at least partly aim to show others why I think that and potentially convince them of it if they hold a differing view, whilst also trying to understand their points of view as to why they disagree. Without logical retaliation to my examples and arguments, however, I have no reason to abandon my view that my changes would benefit the game. I say this because what I gathered from your former points wasn't just that you didn't think the changes were necessary to the point of benefiting the game, but that you believed this to be true in an objective sense that should be universally accepted. I don't even think that 'gamebreaking' is a necessary basis for change, and your example of the sword in H2 is interesting because it was never fixed even though I agree it was pretty stupid. Past TU's have 'tweaked' the game, a prime example being H3's melee system and how it changed, and I consider my proposed changes to be tweaks in a similar vein, perhaps a little more major though it's hard to quantify tbh. Balances to improve the game in small but noticeable measure, just like past TUs, and tbh I never actually claimed that either bloom nor AL in its current form were truly gamebreaking, just that they could be changed with some (as I see it) benefit to balance, and not just to my personal preference. Again, fair, but I will say that in one sense I personally resent the idea that discussion cannot be had for fear of scaring people off. I feel that short posts in a complex discussion leave too much room for interpretation, shorter points which stand more for rhetorical value than a message clearly conveyed. If discussion in short form (at least in ones like this where there's essentially a lot that can be said and chewed over) ends up hurting the purpose and process of discussion, and in more detail it ends up alienating newcomers and polarising the discussion to who's already here, what do we have left? EDIT: @ Scorch: Yeah I feel a similar way about most points. I dunno if I agree about the AL nerf because I personally think that the quick spam is more of a problem than the drop-and-hold, which a shield drain on exit would nerf. Quick spamming whilst no shields would still be just as effective, and it'd still impact negatively on CQB with your proposed setup. I think the single most important thing is to have a slight activation time, just to nerf the way it can negate a melee that's already been initiated in terms of the person having started lunging, both with sword and regular melee. I also feel the same way about nades. I'd like to see a more significant damage drop but actually a widening of the radius. Post beta they dropped damage and dropped radius, whereas actually I think weaker nades than what we currently have now but with a radius closer to that of the beta would be better all round. Though, like you, I'd rather see other changes over this one if pushed. As for melee, I don't personally feel that 75% customs is a viable answer to something like that, as it doesn't change MM which is the bulk of the Halo online experience. By that logic you could make all of MM have Hammer starts and say 'well if you want to play with regular weapons, just play customs,' see what I mean? Though again I don't feel that this is the most pressing issue, however it is one that in an ideal world I'd like to see addressed as well.
You're using those extremes again; I never said you should abandoned your views on the changes, just that you should always be aware of their status as a want rather than a need. Keeping such a mindset as you move forward will allow for more compromise, and if changes that meet your standards ultimately aren't accepted, you'll likely be more forgiving. I agree about things like Halo 3's melee system, as its what pushed me away from the game to begin with, though I would say that was more severe than anything going on in Reach. However, that goes back to my other point, which is that it's rather late for minor adjustments to have the same effect as they would have last year. As for what's left, people can share their opinions and discuss legitimate issues, but heated arguments over what only amounts to speculation? It's not worth monopolizing the thread. Much of our posts end up being digression and semantics anyway.
Nothing wrong with an argument. Mudslinging and contradiction are bad. Nothing wrong with 2 people discussing their different views on a topic. According to the vocal members of Bungie.net (and the "geniuses" who figured out how "where Bungie went wrong" or "why Reach is dieing") people don't like bloom and armour lock. Bloom; Halo has always had bloom. Bungie said that before Reach was released. We've seen videos of people testing the AR in Halo CE and it more accurate with short sharp bursts. It appear the issue is people now know what its called and are blaming that for their lack of skill. Armour Lock isn't broken. It does what its meant to. It gives you a temporary shield but makes you a stationary target. That's what its meant to do, thats what it does. So, to cut out some of the tension in this thread (and perhaps get back on track, rather than arguing about arguments) just list for me; what you want changed whats wrong with it now how it should be made better And to do that, can you consider Reach as its own game, without referencing any other Halo game or any other game on the market? Also, do it without thinking about whats best Bungie's fanbase or the Halo community because anyone who would have left because they don't like 1 aspect of the game has probably done so already. Just as it stands, forgetting whats happened since Reach's release, forgetting what Bungie did in Halo 3, what do you want changing in Reach and why?
Yikes. Dude, to put it plainly, this is simply not true, or at least is a large distortion of the facts. Previous Halos did have a bloom-like effect on the spread of bullets fired from automatic weapons, yes. Burst fire with those weapons (not just the AR but also plasma rifle, SMG, etc.) was often a wise approach because it confined your shots to a tighter circle. Yes, that's true. But with the weapons it really counted with - the pistol in CE, the BR in 2 and 3 - there was basically no bloom. The pistol in CE was deadly accurate at any range so long as you pulled the trigger for each shot (i.e. didn't rely on the auto feature), regardless of how fast you fired. You couldn't squeeze off shots fast enough to make any difference in your aim - the "bloom" reset occurred by the time your next shot went off. And it was only marginally less accurate even on full auto - certainly more accurate at greater distances than the DMR in Reach. I remember getting 3 and 4 shot kills from one teleporter to the other in Blood Gulch constantly with that thing, and every single shot was fired as fast as the gun would let me. You simply can't do that with the DMR, not even at half the distance actually. The BR had a three shot burst and the shot spread would increase a little if you spammed shots, but again, not anything close to what the DMR does. It was ALWAYS in your best interest to fire as fast as possible, whereas the DMR actively rewards pacing. There's just no comparison at all. A person with great aim firing as fast as possible with either the original pistol or the BR would always beat someone with great aim pacing shots. The DMR is the first weapon in Halo that is mid-to-long range and basically forces you to pace. Mind you, that alone wouldn't be such a problem - clearly it's a conscious design decision they made with this game - except for the quirks Pegasi has described in how it affects gameplay. This response lacks merit. There's a long thread on armor lock and all the problems with it, some of which has been reiterated here. If you're not willing to deal with the details, you're just dismissing people's thoughtful arguments out of hand.
I've never once classified them as a need. I'm more than ready to compromise in many senses. First and foremost, if nothing that I push for ends up being changed, I won't play Reach any less nor slate it like others do. But even then, I take care to put different emphasis on each point with regard to how highly I rate it in terms of what I'd like to see changed. I'd like to see grenades and melee changed, but I barely even mention them because I don't consider them as important to what I'd like to see the game become, and when I do I take specific care to say that there are things which matter more to me. I talk in certain imperatives because I do feel there would be benefit, but when I've never specifically said anything about changes being needed, or current situations being gamebreaking, but you make points like the one you're continuing with here, how am I supposed to interpret that other than you wanting me to go even further and simply abandon any conviction I have on the matter? I honestly think that melee bleed being removed is worse than the H2 to H3 melee change (though that's not to say I don't agree that prepatch H3 melees were pretty awful), since the H3 situation affected the outcome of melee battles more than it changed how people approached melees themselves (though obviously this in turn had some ramifications on how you approached it). So no, I personally would disagree that the H3 issue was more severe than this, as with AL's effect on CQC in particular it's not just a questionable mechanic, but one that people can choose to have off spawn, adding inequity to the mix. Also, I still don't get your other point about it being rather late for adjustments. We're in pretty much the exact same timescale as when the patches for H2 and H3 came out relative to retail release, so how/why exactly is it too late? Post H2, we had exactly this same 'H3 sucks, series is ruined, we've all left' spiel that we have now with Reach. I don't accept the idea that a patch now/soon would be too late to have an effect on player opinion. I personally don't feel that we're monopolising the thread, anyone is free to join in and I again return to the point that fearing to discuss to supposedly help discussion along is a self defeating principle. The basis of this thread is discussing the possibility of a TU, so I feel that either discussions of what it could include or thoughts on how likely it is (ie. interpretation of the quotes etc.) or even if its necessary are fair game. I'd personally go with 'emphatic' over 'heated,' and even then that's a bit of a stretch considering what's actually been said in here. Any heated tone in here has been more to do with the approach to discussion than the actual topics up for debate here, so if you'd object to continued discussion on the basis of any negative effect, I'd actually argue that it's only said objection itself which prompted any negative discussion to start. @DMM White: Yes, I agree with megapwn here once again. The old 'Halo has always had bloom' argument is so old and tired that it literally needs to be taken outside and shot. Without bloom. And please, please, please will people stop acting as if anyone who says the word 'bloom' in relation to a TU is asking for it to be removed. Whether Halo has had bloom before is irrelevant because no one in this thread is asking for it to be removed, merely to be fixed and made consistent. In fact, this would amount to it being less forgiving and thus a bigger factor in the game. Not only have I, like others involved, made this point again and again in past discussions, but I've detailed my thoughts about bloom and how it should be changed (note 'changed, not 'removed' or even 'made less noticeable') in this thread specifically. Maybe this is more what you're talking about with 'heated arguments', Chrono, but I'm genuinely getting tired of people just seeing the terms 'bloom' and 'TU' in the same vicinity and apparently thinking 'ooooh, another chance to trot out this random tidbit of information I read in a Bungie update ages ago (and didn't even really fully understand or think over) without actually reading the post to make sure it's relevant.' If it is, then guilty as charged, but I don't think even long posts are an excuse for failing to take in to account such a basic point as this, let alone when it's been stated and restated countless times. As for the AL discussion, there's been some discussion in here about how it affects game pace, and particularly how it affects CQC (as a 'melee canceller'), but there's also been a much more in depth discussion in the AL thread. You're not really bringing anything new to the table, and failing to account for arguments that have been made time and again. If you disagree with them then fair enough, that's discussion moving forward, but restating what you've done there is just resetting back to square one in the whole discussion.
Forgot about the quick spam of AL, hm... I suppose the lengthening of activation time would solve that problem, but it would reduce AL's ability to quickly avoid lethal attacks, like a splatter, which I believe to be it's intended purpose. Perhaps a slight period in deactivation that leave the user vulnerable and still immobile? I agree on that nade idea. The radius is a bit tight which reduces its ability to clear cover and camping spots, but within the radius grenades are pocket nukes. Evening this out would probably fix the nade problem. I see your point with the melee argument, and I suppose I really don't know what to do with the melee system. I don't think they should resort to completely trashing it for the H3 system, but "herp-a-derping" is too effective. Unless, instead of changing melee you changed sprint and evade so that you need to wait for the animation to stop to melee, so rushing would not be nearly as effective? Just a wild idea. I suppose a change to the H3 system would not discourage me from playing, but if grenades do not get a sufficient overhaul but melee does? That would be even worse. Another issue I want addressed is the nerf on the sword. Not only does shotgun absolutely trump the sword 9 out of 10 times, but any player can block a sword with a "well-timed" melee? Either reduce the window for sword cancel, or do not damage the sword user with the cancel. As with Pegasi, I will still play Reach without a TU, but I would enjoy it more with changes to the issues that have been addressed in this thread.
its hilarious and ironic that this thread is titled "has anyone else read this?" because yes, I've read most of this thread before in 20 other complaint threads. Hearing the same thing over and over is getting old. "AL is gay. Bloom is BS, it needs to be taken out. Also evade. AND this list of 5 maps need to be tweaked in this way, specific to MY needs...." Its hard to make a game that pleases everyone. Particularly a game with such a rabid, broad fanbase as HALO. I think certain issues need to be addressed, sure. I DO agree bloom needs to be changed somewhat, it is inconsistent and as result is just annoying. I'm not going to address most of what is here because I don't really see an issue with any of them. Grenades are fine as they are, the bleed through to the health makes sense to me as they are small yet powerful FRAGMENTATION EXPLOSIVES. The sword was OP before, I think (not that I didn't love every second of it. well, when I was holding it ). That well timed melee block that was added was, I think, a good idea. Now sword wielding players must try a bit harder to surprise, sneak, come from the side or behind. You can be caught by surprise, manage to turn around to see one coming straight at you, time it right and still have a chance at survival. Now, the biggie. Armor Lock. When the game first game out I was completely satisfied (albeit often annoyed) with the way it worked. You develop strategies for games with a high ratio of AL players. Keep your distance. Make sure they've exhausted their AA before rushing in to melee. Learn when to throw that grenade, when the lightning bolts are shooting out at a high arc, so when he comes out of it he is immediately brought back to no shields low health. It does occasionally slow down gameplay, but thats the very nature of it as an AA. My only complaint is.... The quick turn around and melee when they come out of AL. Most players don't pull it off, but those skilled at AL can be annoying to the Nth degree. Sometimes its so quick, you've been meleed before it even seems like he's completely back on his feet (I realize this could sometimes be lag, but not 100% of the time). I think there should be some type of nerf here, maybe a slower turn speed for a second, or slower everything. Similar to when you get jacked from a vehicle, but for a much shorter period. Going into to armor lock can stay as quick and effortless as it is now, but there should be some type of downside when you're coming out of it. (maybe make it so this only happens if you stay in for a full charge? I dunno) Anyway, thats my two cents. And if they don't change a single thing, I'll still play all the way to inheritor. and beyond.
I was using "you" in the general sense for that first part. I already know how you feel about the matter, as I'm sure everyone does at this point. I would insist the Halo 3 situation was very much worse, as it absolutely did change the way you approached melee as well as entire fights at close to mid range. Your distance from the opponent and who fired first were far more important factors than who could out-shoot who, excluding power weapons, of course. You're right though, the patch did take longer than I remember, but even at that time, the player-base was still substantial, so looking at the time passed on its own isn't very telling. It'd be nice to get a bump over the summer months, but you must admit that a Reach patch just won't have the same effect. The game is too fundamentally different for some tweaks to sway people back in its favor, and the more time that passes, the less people that are left on the fence, and that's only magnified by the already weak base. You say you welcome others to the discussion, then proceed to chastise another poster, so I'm not sure what to make of that. Direct him to some other threads, by all means, but you can't expect everyone to be as well-informed as we happen to be. Sure it's been said, but this is why I don't mind standing on the sidelines and letting them say it.
Hmm, that's actually quite an interesting idea. I still maintain that the activation period would only need to be slight, and so avoiding splatters would still be possible, you'd just need to be a little more aware as well as have learned the reaction of pressing the AA button when you notice danger Yeah, basically, I dislike the 'all or nothing' approach to nade damage, especially when 'all' is a bucketload. I'd personally like to test out a system where melee bleed is reimplemented but melee damage is also reduced. This would bring back the purpose of combining shooting and melee, as opposed to having to melee once in range or being screwed, but maintain the nerf towards AR+smash techniques. I dunno if bleed+75% would be too weak, hence my desire to play around with it, so perhaps 90%, but on spec I'd probably gravitate more to a 75% damage modifier with bleed reintroduced. Yeah, I kind of agree, but tbh I think a more pressing issue is the massive kill trade window. The new description for the bulltrue medal might as well be 'traded kills with a sword user.' In fact, this is a perfect time to bring this up, as I do appreciate your point about discussing more objectively gamebreaking issues, Chrono, and this is number one on my list of those. What do people think about the current kill trade window? I personally think it could do with being reduced. The problems are pretty numerous: DMR headshot trades, melee/headshot trades, melee trades even when the melees were pretty far apart, shotty/sword trades etc. I brought this up on the HW forums with specific respect to the DMR headshot trade point. I made the point that, even accounting for lag, I should never see my own gun fire a split second after I have died and net me the kill. Someone replied with the point that hitscan was causing this, that the tracer wasn't the actual bullet on screen and that what I was seeing was a delayed rendering of what had already been processed. But I realised afterwards that, on this basis, it shouldn't also be happening with the shotty vs. sword and melee vs. melee situations, and it definitely does. I feel that Bungie have slightly over-accounted for latency in implementing their window which allows for kill trades, to the point at which moderate to low latency games have kills awarded on both sides when it clearly should have only been death for one party.
The kill trading is a really hazy issue to me because it's so closely related to latency. How can you be sure you're timing your shot well and not that you just have a better connection than the other person? It seems like you'd get a lot more people crying "host advantage" again if you mess with it too much. I can understand why they would keep it the way it is now, because if nothing else, at least neither side feels like they were screwed out of the kill that they both might have deserved. Perhaps it's just a lesser of two (or more) evils.
agree with this. As annoying as it is sometimes, I wouldn't want it changed. Also, when you get a bulltrue and survive, its like a nice little surprise.... "hey! I got a TRUE bulltrue!"
As I said, if I see someone's else's gun fire after they have died on my screen, you could argue that latency is to blame since on their screen (or rather the host's screen) they probably fired before they died and therefore what I'm seeing on my screen is just behind what's actually happened. However, if I see my own gun fire after I have died, how can latency be to blame? The host's xbox can't be ahead of mine in terms of what I'm doing (unless it's somehow clairvoyant), so how is that explained? Are you telling me you don't get the same problem with sword carriers killing trading with you when you have a shotty etc? Even if latency is to blame, surely it should just look as if you killed them to you but in fact you don't get the kill, just like H3. Sure this was frustrating, but it only happened on worse connections, and there's only so much accounting for latency you can do (as a dev making these decisions) before you just have to say 'sorry, but the connection is too bad, I know you saw something on your screen but your screen was, to be blunt, wrong.' Otherwise you're accounting for the extreme minority in a way which negatively affects the majority with better connections (in that this kill trade window impacts upon lower latency games and causes trades where there shouldn't have been). I personally saw no problem with the way H3 had it set up, like I say there are always going to be issued where latency-prone internet is involved, but they were relatively few and I can accept that sometimes the connection is just at fault in a way the game can't be expected to account for.
Who says you're even the host in that situation? Do you actually know? If you're not, I don't see why you wouldn't be able to witness that once in a while. Still, the other side of the coin is that people aren't going to cry bullshit as often, and I really haven't heard people complain about host nearly as much as Halo 3 or CoD, so there is a definite upside to it, if nothing else.
As a person who really enjoys infection in Reach, I have to agree with this. It's a pretty common occurrence, having killed someone carrying a sword only to have them kill you too, and on lesser occasions, you get a betrayal for it too.
That was what I forgot to add; Infection betrayals seem like the only significant drawback, even if the chances of it occurring are much higher due to the very nature of the match-up.
I would agree with this - I suspect kill trading is something we have to live with. There are occasional weird situations like guns firing from a dead man's hands, and lots of minor annoyances of the "I'm sure I killed that guy well before he killed me!" variety, but if the likely alternative is what we had in Halo 2 and 3 (especially 2), then sign me up for kill trading all day long. I was so put off by latency problems and feeling cheated out of kills that I steered clear of Halo 2 on Live for a looonnnngggg time, and I was pretty much the biggest Halo fanboy around.