Many people think that using AA's or power weapons cheaply is like exploiting the game, when in reality they're using them the way they were intended. The downside is that AA's like AL and Invis were intended to slow the game down and power weapons were intended to get one shot kills and be spammed like a *****. The problems with AA's could be fixed with better map design, and the problems with power weapons could easily be fixed by lengthening the spawn times and decreasing the amount of spare clips.
It's not only the individual AAs that cause problems, it's the idea behind them. Choosing which AA you spawn with completely ignores what Halo has always been about since Halo 1: Beginning on an even playing-field. With AAs you have to guess which AA the other team will use and respond to that (by deciding which AA you will choose) even before you're still what you're up against. It's like rock-paper-scissors to a certain extend which doesn't just sit well with me. This is incorrect. There's never been bloom in previous Halo games in a way that Reach has. And I'm not just talking about the visual feedback. People need to stop saying this.
I agree with this. The AA's in Reach were sort of like a simplified version of CoD classes. The thing is, Bungie overlooked the fact that it was additions like that, along with a shitton of perks, that made many people dislike CoD in the first place. . . . At least, that's what I thought. ¯\(°_o)/¯
Almost right. Halo 2/3 had spread (negligible in 2, far from it in 3). Spread is not affected by RoF, thus making it different from bloom, it's also generally less extreme (the spread in 3 may have been significant, but not as much as a fully bloomed reticle is in Reach) I guess to account for not being able to control it. If the H3 BR's spread had been as significant as Reach's DMR bloom, whilst also being in effect regardless of RoF, it'd just make the BR near unusable. However, the CE Pistol had both spread and bloom. There were three levels of input/output. First is holding the trigger, which fired at full RoF and had significant spread. Second is feathering the trigger but doing so at max RoF, at which rate the accuracy was still less (albeit not by much) than if you employed the third method: feathering the trigger and pacing. This equates to bloom, even if it was no where near as significant as Reach and was basically worth ignoring. The thing is, even if you feathered and paced, there was still slight spread, meaning that even the CE Pistol was never truly accurate. The difference between paced and max RoF when feathering was negligable, thus it wasn't really worth paying attention to for the most part, but there still technically was bloom in the sense we know it (ie. spread influenced by RoF). In fact, both the base spread and max RoF feathering bloom were so insignificant that we're left with a scenario where many people had no idea that either was present. /technicality. Sorry to rant over such a small point, but the fact is that you're essentially right: people have heard this idea that "all past Halos had bloom" and just tout it around in arguments like this without even thinking about it. It's convenient for the argument they want to make and thus they spout it out without a moments reflection on their own experiences in these games. But if we're gonna call them out on it, we might as well get our facts straight. Even with the above in mind, it doesn't detract from the point that Reach bloom has a significant, detrimental effect on what has been the Halo tradition of precision weapons.
Besides what you just said, Pegasi, it's also true that automatic weapons have had bloom (without the visual cue) since CE - which is why burst fire or rapidly pulling the trigger to reset the spread was a good idea in certain situations with the AR and plasma rifle. But since most people talk about bloom in how it affects precision weapons only, this is at best a mildly interesting footnote. The main thing is that every Halo has had a specific precision weapon that drove the action due to its range and accuracy combination: the magnum, the BR x2, and the DMR. The magnum and the first BR were deadly accurate and nearly bloom-free for all intents and purposes. The second BR was less accurate but still bloom-free, so firing faster was always rewarded if you aimed well except in cases where spread just screwed you over. The bloomin' DMR takes an element that was either missing or only present in a very subtle fashion in Halos 1-3, and pushes it to a level that it's annoying. Back to topic though! Personally I'm hoping they ditch armor abilities. I'm used to them to an extent and I play a lot of Reach games involving them. But I don't like how exploitable they are. It used to annoy me in Halo 3 when somebody would pick up a regen, go to a good high ground position with a bit of adjacent cover, and throw their regen down to become basically invincible for 15 seconds of BR battles. But it was nice to know that if you waited them out, at least they wouldn't be doing it again for a while. Reach has pushed that kind of strategy to a new and frustrating level. Too many players have figured out which armor abilities can be used as a "get out of jail free" card, and they lean on them hard. (If I never play a good team all using evade on Asylum again, I'll die happy.)
Just so you know, that's not how I intended to use that argument. I was just pointing out that people seem to talk about H:R bloom as if it's some brand new thing exclusive to Reach, when in reality it isn't. Also, am I the only person who actually (not necessarily liked) but appreciated bloom? It's a way to force you to pace your shots and not just spam DMR shots.
If they were going to replace the BR with the DMR (which I thought was a good thing) then they needed bloom. Look at how good the gun is now and imagine what it'd be like without bloom (or play the TU playlist) and you can see how OP it would be.
Well the second you start a game not when you spawn when the game starts and you have 5~ seconds to pick your loadout at that moment you are at a 100% even playing field so you do in fact "Begin a Game on an even playing field" Halo is full of rock paper scissors which is a good thing. Rock doesn't always beat scissors and paper doesn't always beat rock etc but it does give Scissors a good advantage over paper. Without AA's you start a game at even ground then you choose a route or weapon to rush and those choices before you even see an enemy has a Rock paper scissors effect. The path you choose any weapons you go pickup all effect the first encounters meaning you start the game on an even playing field any encounter with an enemy it will be uneven because of a scissors paper rock effect which is dependent on weapon choice or chosen path. So without AA's Start Game everyone is even>Player made choices(path,weapons)>First encounter with enemy effected by choices whoever made the best choices has the best advantage. With AA's Start Game everyone is even>Player made choices(path,weapons,AA)>First encounter with enemy effected by choices whoever made the best choices has the advantage. Adding a different layer to the game isn't a bad thing. You may be against the individual AA's that's not the point. AA's are even spawning, Sure it's guess work but it's not random use logic and experience to try and predict what AA's will most likely used and put yourself in a position to potentially counter them just like you have to predict what path an enemy would take or weapon they might have.
Overpowered? No. You get outshot quicker because the skill gap is increased. The guy who outshot you is better than you. The game also becomes more fast-paced, making power weapons far more difficult to use, especially against good players. As an experiment, get some games on the same map (Let's say...MLG Warlock. A pretty straightforward Arena map that is easy to learn right from the start.) In this experiment, first play on regular Slayer DMRs with bloom. Then, play on that same Slayer DMRs gametype, but without bloom. Then, remove all AA options other than Sprint. Then, use the most skill-requiring gametype currently available, Gold Pro settings. You'll likely notice that the score will slowly move in favor of either you or your opponent as the gametype you're using changes. This is because the skill gap continues to increase. The default Slayer DMRs gametype should be one of irremovable gametypes on the list, I believe. The Slayer DMRs No Bloom gametype can be found in the File Share of GT: HaloWaypoint. The next gametype is an easy edit. The Gold Pro gametype can be found at GT: Gold Pro Customs. Let me know the results.
That's like saying that if 2 players have everything unlocked in a CoD game and they play a game together they start on an even playingfield. It's simply not true. Halo has always been about giving everyone equal chances of winning. Loadouts completely throw this out of the window. Now you can lose a battle simply because the chose the 'wrong' AA at spawn. This has nothing to do with Halo, something which the sandbox designers of Halo Reach didn't understand. Halo Reach was Sage's (lead sandbox designer) first Halo game and it shows. He is obviously not to blame for everything, but he certainly is responsible for the end-result. He doesn't get what Halo is about.
What you think "Halo" is about is just opinion if it has a Halo title it's Halo end of story but that's besides to point, The point is if two teams start with equal opportunity's then its even so, In COD if both players both only had the default classes exactly the same, They do start on a even playing field and equal chances of winning. Depending on what class they choose gives them advantages and disadvantages and those advantages and disadvantages are available to both teams so it's even. AA's are not random choices so it's not like your losing because you "randomly choose the wrong AA" therefor you where doomed to lose from spawn there chosen just as randomly as you choose what weapon to pick up or what path you take. If you mean AA's are to powerful to spawn with? If that's the case that's a issue with individual AA's been unbalanced or OP.
Point is that the match shouldn't be influenced by decision made before the game even starts. Only by actions made during the actual match (out-shooting someone, winning a battle over a power weapon, making a good push etc.) should the match be influenced.
I personally HATE the armor abilities, although its not really easy to say why. I didn't read all of these posts but I did see what the last poster said about the fact that the game should not be affected by decisions made before the start of the game, but I don't think that's necessarily true. (EDIT) Actually I do think there is something to this. Now that I've though about it a little more, it just reminds me of how much better it was when you had to fight for the camo and the overshield. Despite my other reasons for hating AAs, I think they would be a little more bearable if maybe they were on the map and you had to pick them up. That said, I would rather they be gone totally. What I DO know is that armor abilities, particularly the jet pack and to some extent the others, have removed a BIG factor from the gameplay and that's the use of terrain. The idea seemed to catch on unintentionally at first, but then they came out with maps like that one with the beach and the gate on halo 3 (whatever the hell its called). On that map and maps like it, you could use vantage points, bottlenecks, etc... and that was a big part of the fun to me. But now that there's jet packs and infinite stealth+radar jam, you could just fly over the gate or simply walk through if you wanted, among other things. On top of all that, armor lock pisses me straight the **** off. It's so stupid. Especially in matches of team slayer, which used to be hardcore competitive, where now people can (and often do) vote elite slayer and DERP PLASMA GRENADE UH OH I BETTER ARMOR LOCK. That's just another aspect of play AAs take out: having to try not to blow yourself up. All that + bloom affect with the DMR, it all just seems like more ways for casuals to be able to get more kills and higher ranks (ooo don't even get me started on the damn ranking system) without having to shoot as accurately, or cooperate with their team, or use terrain strategically, or think
I do not like armor abilities at all. The only thing I like is Sprint. Sprint should be by default and not classified as those silly abilities. All though, I wouldn't mind if they where optional, but not as default in default gametypes, Slayer, KoTH, CTF, ect. It wouldn't make sense to have them, unless 343 makes something cheesy like "All teh forreruners took all your abilites after Reach and kept them, TROLOLOLOL." Honestly, there is no way.
Well technically the game starts then you have 5 seconds to make a decision then you have 5 more seconds to choose a path to take both of which are decisions made before "the game starts" by that I mean before any possible action could happen. But fair enough its just down to opinion now, You dislike AA spawns, I Like AA spawns(doesn't mean I wouldn't like to try AA pickups). So there is no right answer basically just different game type preferences. But I do want and expect AA's to be in Halo 4 in some way as pickups or in loadouts or both or other.
I thought we'd addressed the "even playing field" argument. Having the same choices available to you off spawn is not an even playing field. Having no choice available to you off spawn is an even playing field. You can say that the options given to you are balanced against one another, but again that doesn't mean the playing field is even, it's just balanced. Any game where off spawn options are available yet they clearly aren't balanced isn't a "uneven playing field, " it's just an objectively bad game because it's unbalanced. Think of it like this: Valhalla was an asymmetrical map. It was (imo) very balanced from end to end, but that didn't make it symmetrical, it just made it asymmetrical yet balanced. I would personally argue that, even in their own terms, the AA choices aren't perfectly balanced. Not bad by any means, and just like an asymmetrical map is near impossible to perfectly balance without just making it symmetrical, it's very hard to balance any approach to loadouts, but I still think there are a couple of issues with the balance of AAs. @ WWWilliam: I agree that personal assertions of what Halo "is about" or "means" in gameplay terms aren't really useful. However, you can't deny that, up until Reach, the core of the Halo mechanic was based around starting with exactly the same things as an opponent, and anything else (be that weapons, nades or equipment in H3) had to be gained, rather than chosen. There are two main schools of FPS games, loadout shooters and pick up shooters. When people talk about the "even playing field" of the Halo mechanic, I should have thought it pretty obvious that they're talking about how it falls in to the pick up shooter camp. The fact is that it's the definitive console pick up shooter, and with games like Quake passing out of the limelight, it's arguably the definitive pick up shooter on any platform. Surely you can see why quite a few people dislike this stark deviation from what has essentially been at the core of the Halo mechanic for every previous game. I'm not saying it's objectively bad, anyone who does is clearly getting a little too emotive, but I definitely identify with people who see it as a bit of a loss to the pick up shooter style. There are so many fantastic loadout shooters, I still don't quite see why Bungie felt the need to muscle in on that even though it's not a full switch (ie. power weapons are still worked for and picked up), and abandon a good part of what defined Halo for every previous game. I personally like AAs as a principle, it's the use of the loadout system which I dislike. I know I say it a lot, but I love the way MLG does it: Sprint starts and other AAs as pickups, as it maintains the "even playing field" and worked-for-advantage traditions of Halo, but still allows for the increased dynamics which AAs bring. Why Bungie even decided to implement them as possible pickups, yet took NO advantage of this with any of their own gametypes, is utterly beyond me. But that's my point: Bloom in the way Reach employs it (as it's pretty drastically different from the only past instance of Halo bloom: CE) is a brand new thing. No, not at all. I'd very much like a functional bloom system over no bloom at all. As I've said before, a bloom system which allowed a slightly faster average RoF (about the same as offered by 85% bloom actually) but consistently punished spamming would be fantastic. Not only is it possible for a bullet to still fall dead centre of a fully bloomed reticle, but it's actually reasonably likely. This is what's intolerable about bloom imo. Adding an extra level of skill is great (so long as it doesn't slow down the game too much, hence wanting a slightly increased effective RoF), adding randomness isn't, and actually hurts the whole idea of what bloom was supposedly meant to do.