I say just have everyone start with Sprint and the other AAs not even be an option for a pickup and do it like in Halo 3. That was what kept us better than CoD, we had equality when we spawned so it took skill to be good. No we are just as bad as them.
You guys don't know what you're missing. Peg in bed is like a three-way with Stephen Hawking and Brad Pitt, where Stephen just spews out logical thoughts and Brad spews out... other things. After getting the Anniversary Map Pack, I must say, I haven't enjoyed Reach this much in a while. 85% Bloom works wonders on BTB maps, and the 3sk magnum is horrifying when it comes to teamshotting, but in 1 on 1 battles, it's actually a nice close range precision weapon. My ideal precision weapon for halo would be something with a high RoF, no bloom, and little damage per shot. The more shots that are required to kill, the better, so long as kill times are still about on par with a 5-shot DMR or 4-shot BR. And as for armor abilities, Peg was right on the dime. They're much better than H3 equipment in terms of effectiveness, but they could be much more balanced, and should be used as pick-ups rather than spawn options.
Loadouts are symmetric, Symmetry isn't dependent on choice, Symmetry means two sides are exactly the same. If both teams get no choice it is Symmetric, If both teams get the same choice it's Symmetric, If both teams get different choices it's asymmetric. (my train of thought) So the issue must be players aren't symmetrical to each other which is true but why is that an issue? Players can pick up a weapon and become unsymmetrical compared to other players. So the issue is you spawn with the AA's and there not pickups like weapons. But why is that a bad thing? Because you get the advantage of AA's without and disadvantage of having to find it/fight for it/etc, But that's basiclly the whole point of what loadouts do. So your just plain and simply against Loadouts which is fine everyone can have there gametype preference, but that doesn't make AA's in loadouts unsymmetrical or uneven or a bad gametype. I agree it's not the same "core halo pickup system" that doesn't make it bad and I wish they had AA pickup gametypes just as predominantly along side AA loadouts but the point of discussion is if AA loadouts are even/balanced/symmetrical and they are. (if they made SWAT the default gametype it would be annoying but still technically balanced if you get what I'm trying to say)
Ok yeah, that's actually a fair point. Bad analogy. Yes, precisely. I'm against load outs because I don't think giving the advantage of an AA choice without the disadvantage of having to work for any advantage gained (again, one of the cornerstones of the Halo and general pick up shooter mechanic up until Reach) is a good thing. Reward should be worked for, so that you can't just choose to have an advantage, even a situational one, without having to work to gain it. This ensures that said advantages are not used as a crutch to simply make up for a lack of skill, as an advantage gained in one area requires an outlay of skill in another. It also promotes other game enhancing aspects: like enforced map movement and control, as well as timing to an extent. That's precisely my point. I never said it was objectively bad. The very idea of it being objectively good or bad is stupid any way. The point is that I, subjectively, don't like it as much, but that it's also an objective deviation from what has formed a cornerstone of Halo gameplay for every single other game, so surely even someone who likes the new mechanic on a subjective level can see why so many who were staunch fans of previous Halo games don't like it as much. As for the discussion as to whether they're balanced, you're oversimplifying. I argue that AAs are balanced in principle, but as loadouts they're not. I think some AAs are simply more powerful versions of others (Evade) thus are inherently not balanced. As pointed out earlier, playing whole teams of Evade players is a nightmare as it's near impossible to finish any battle without being at least one, generally two men up on your opponent and cutting them off at all points. I also think that, on maps like The Cage, you have things like Jetpack which are clearly more powerful than the other choices, to the point at which I consider having them as a spawn option to nearly break gameplay on that map. Tbh, I've of the mind that Sprint is the only AA that isn't a ***** to play against when a whole team is using it. Whole team Evade/Jetpack/Armor Lock are truly horrible, whole team Camo is definitely frustrating, and whole team Holo is pretty retarded but still not really fun imo. I know that's coming back to subjectivity, but I do think there's some small objective foothold here in the examples like how Jetpack whoring on Cage really does do damage to the map design. I think it's not a great example of game making, and would be slightly better if AA choices were map specific, but even better if AAs were pickups. So I definitely argue your point that AA loadouts are balanced. AAs have the potential to be balanced if used as pickups. They're different, but this is accounted for with placement and integration in to map design, just like power weapons. AA loadouts are, however, unbalanced, and detrimental to gameplay in other ways besides. I don't agree that simply having the same thing available to both sides equates to balance. To take your correction of my analogy from earlier: it may be symmetrical, but that's not inherently balanced, in the sense that you can have symmetrical maps that still play awfully. Or, for example, if you could all choose to spawn with a Nuke in CoD. Sure, everyone's able to, but does that make it balanced, or even a functional game?
I ABSOLUTELY will NOT be buying the game if there is armour abilities in it or if even look like it plays remotely similar to reach. So I'm preying that that don't. haha.
...sigh. Why do people keep saying that and then not listening when people answer why (including Frank O'Connor who answered questions about that)? The Mark VI MJOLNIR suit that Master Chief wheres has zero-g thrusters built into the suit. If you have ever read Fall of Reach or First Strike you would know MC has used them a fair bit in combat and in zero gravity situations. That is what you're seeing in the trailer.
True, Symmetry doesn't mean balance, Countdown changed to improve the sword/shotgun effectiveness would be symmetrical but unbalanced. It's varied from the rest of the Halo's no doubt but that doesn't make it bad, As any change it does remove and add aspects to the game that's not bad that's just change, You would agree that loadout/class shooters can be balanced? Then that would mean on a balanced map with balanced placed weapons and balanced AA's the Halo game would be balanced even if it deviated from the norm. Keep in mind that your making the accusations, I'm not saying anything is bad I want there to be AA pickup gametypes. I'm defending Loadouts as a balanced game mechanic even though it's not traditional Halo even though AA's themselves might not be balanced in Reach it's still a viable balanced mechanic. If Reach didn't include AA Loadouts it would of been a bad thing, It's a new feature and new features are good thing the only bad thing about it is that it's forced onto everyone by been put into almost every playlist. I'm over simplifying to avoid discussion of individual AA's (which in Reach do not have perfect balance) In Halo 4 if AA's where balanced and used as loadouts as long as there was alternate playlists AA pickups along side playlists without AA's it would be a good thing IMO and I don't know why people would be against it having playlist options that suit everyone. Word it however you want but Master Chief used a jet Ability from his Armor in a Halo 4 trailer. So AA's are "in" Halo 4 not confirmed to be in the game(even though it seems pretty likely) but they where in Halo 4 trailer so they are involved with Halo 4.
I worded it the way Frank O'Conner did. Master Chief's had them the whole time. They aren't a "jet" ability as they wouldn't be able to carry his weight on land. They are zero-g thrusters because they can maneuver the massive weight of the suit in a zero-g environment. So no, that is not a justification for why there "must be AA in halo 4". I'm not saying there wouldn't be but looking at that scene as justification isn't right.
I didn't say Jet pack, By jet I simply meant His armor has the ability to use jet propulsion. Justification(The action of showing something to be reasonable), I think it's very reasonable to think there is a good chance that there will be some form of armor ability's because of that trailer. There just needs to be one space mission(which isn't unlikely) then it wouldn't be unlikely for Master chief to use his Zero-G Thrusters AA.
If we get the jetpack back again I hope it's more like a jumppack this time around. Giving you a small boost when you jump.
But we're discussing AA's in the sense of how they are used in Reach. As a gimmick to be used in 1 level doesn't count as a true AA. My point is what was shown in the CG trailer was something that the suit had all along and isn't a "jetpack" as cluckinho's post stated. You form any opinion you want regarding whether AA will be in Halo 4 or won't be or what AA there will be but using anything within that minute teaser trailer isn't a good justification for anything.
This argument is akin to saying that Master Chief's shielding is evidence that there will be armor abilities, because he has the "ability" to generate a shield from his "armor." The zero G thrusters are not a jet pack, even though they kind of look like one. They would have no use in multiplayer whatsoever unless there are a lot more zero G environments than we have now. And were they to be put in for that purpose, it's extremely doubtful that they would be something you select as a loadout ("Hey, guys! Want to be useful in the entire gravity-free part of this map? Or would you rather have armor lock?"). Once you acknowledge that the thrusters aren't a jet pack, you should quickly realize that this has actually nothing at all to do with armor abilities as they exist in Reach. I don't know if 343 might be thinking about it on this level, but to me it makes more sense philosophically to have AAs in Reach than in Halo 4. Reach is about a team of spartans with very different abilities and situational skills, and multiplayer is kind of an extension of that. (Of course Halo 3's armor permutations somewhat blow a hole in my theory, but whatever - at least they weren't loadouts in any way that affected gameplay.)
How are you not getting this? I'm not saying it's bad. Saying it's bad or good is meaningless. I'm saying that I, and many others, don't like it for very specific reasons. Not only that, but one of the main reasons is not just an isolated dislike for the way it works, but the fact that Halo has a great formula, which so many love, and it was deviated from. Ok, so if it included both then everyone would have been happy. Agreed. In principle. Bungie have demonstrated time and again that they, like pretty much any developer, are never gonna choose two paths like that and treat them with equal dedication. For one it would require something akin to two development paths when it comes to balancing, developing all the maps and game types etc. As it stands, 343 have been dedicating their time so far to making up for Bungie's neglect of those who don't like the loadouts (and other deviations), and Reach's development was rushed as it was. I'd also touch on Bungie's kinda notable "we know what you want" attitude to their own development decisions. Sure you should have conviction in your development decisions, but when large portions of the community keep telling you otherwise and you continue doing stuff like putting AL in Arena, you're kinda being bloody minded. 343 don't seem totally immune to this either tbh, look at what happened with the TU. They bring out zero bloom, much to the delight of some of the community, then proceed to put out a whole slew of 'Anniversary playlists,' without a single ZB gametype. Honestly, it's **** like this which causes the irritable attitude you likely run in to when many talk about how they dislike these changes. This is how it goes, change is given precedence, and surely you can see that. Also, I kinda dislike the idea that change (even if balanced) is inherently good, or even necessary. I honestly think this is an idea which plagues multiplayer games. Let's take football (whatever that means to you, doesn't really matter) as an example. I know there's a lot of contention over Halo being a sport, so let's take football merely in the context of a casual game played amongst friends etc. which is comparable. How would you many people feel if it were gratuitously changed every few years, just because 'change is good?' I know the key difference here is that games are inherently a developing thing alongside technology, and thus new ones are going to come out. Paying for almost the same product over and over is something people dislike, and for the above analogy you don't have to 're-buy' football every year or so. But, as an aside, people do keep buying new balls, new equipment etc. In various ways, people keep spending money on a game that doesn't change. I think how deeply change, especially drastic change, is rooted in to franchise development is annoying and partly focused on either cross-franchise market attraction, or simply those with short attention spans. I feel this is more rooted in multiplayer games, because balance isn't really relevant in single player games, but I could write a whole essay on that distinction so I'll leave it there for now. Obviously I wouldn't want to literally re-buy Halo 3 again, even just with better graphics and net code (objective improvements, entirely rooted in technology), even with new maps etc. I do want some change, I just don't want one of the cornerstones of the mechanic I've loved for all of these years pulled out from under the game. Hell, if I want to play a loadout shooter for the loadout aspect, I'd play BF or CoD, or something like Counter Strike which has a buy system (which I prefer to loadouts anyway). Again, I know I'm getting subjective here, just saying that I continue to play Reach in spite of loadouts. Not only do I pick Sprint every time, but I constantly find myself enjoying the game less than I would because of others having the choice. I avoid TS and FFA entirely because of AL, but most people who know me could have guessed that. Don't mistake my views for those of others. A lot of people dislike AAs as a whole. A lot of people don't like them as pickups either, just look at much of the MLG forums and a good proportion of the Waypoint forums. I like Sprint starts, many don't even like Sprint. I don't totally agree but I see their point just as I see my own in relation to the loadout situation. For those purposes, imagine both ways of playing co-existing. It would either result in one side getting really crappy gameplay, or rebalances of weapons to account for either the presence or lack of movement AAs, and redesigns of maps for the same reasons. It's a much larger undertaking than you're accounting for. If anything, those who dislike AAs altogether are more numerous than those who, like me, are OK with AAs but not with loadouts, and so should be weighed against loadout supporters if choosing two sides, rather than my perspective.
Not that you're really asking, but after all this time with Reach what I think I'd be happiest with is built-in sprint (that everybody has) and single-use equipment a la Halo 3. Oh, and restore the power-ups to their former glory - their misuse and abuse in Reach was shameful.
I'd be happy if it went back to Halo 3 entirely. Sprint has cod-ified halo. Not having sprint adds a sort of pacing to the game, whereas sprint just turns a game into how fast you can run into battle, die, respawn, and do it all over again. My only suggestion would be to add equipment that can counter vehicles more easily. Warthogs were kind of OP in Halo 3.