Yeah I'm on a derpin' spree today, it'll all be good. Also agreed, bad idea all round. As for the last part of your post before, about background toggle settings like flag cooldown and AA use warmup, AFAIK MLG is the only playlist which changes either of these from default, so I don't think it's too confusing. I actually think that Classic should turn of flag cooldown because it's, well, classic. I'm kinda of the mind that we can't call for greater customisation in core gameplay terms, then complain that actually using these settings makes it too confusing. EDIT: REALLY glad TU is being changed to ZB only. I'm playing right now and NO ONE is voting for any ZB gametypes. The ONLY playlist in the game where they exist, yet it seems no one who goes in there wants to play them. Most of them are picking AR start gametypes, seriously wtf?
I'd be fine with only having a few different gametypes in most playlists. I don't give a **** about Hot Potato, 3-Flag, Flag Slayer, Neutral-Flag, Speedflag or any of that crap and I doubt many people will miss those gametypes. I'm all for having a lot of options for custom games, but using a ton off different settings in matchmaking only causes confusion. Even active people in the Halo community can't tell what settings they're going to play half the time (hyperbole, but you get what I mean). I wish we could go back to having a few great gametypes instead of having a ton of mediocre ones.
Oh yeah then fair enough. But that would involve literally axing all the old stuff. That'd keep us happy, sure, but would be pretty harsh to all the people who like the stuff that's currently in place. To be honest, it'd kinda be suicide as well, since it'd rely totally on those who were calling for the changes the TU brought, many of whom aren't coming back to Reach either way. If they implement the basic TU stuff across the board then I don't see it as confusing. That means 85% bloom, AA nerfs, bleed through (though I know you disagree with this, much as that surprises me) in to all the 'default' gametypes. Then you just have two basic variations aside from that: Anniversary gametypes with the 3sk Pistol (I agree it's retarded, crippling bloom AND spread? wtf), and ZB gametypes with no bloom. The 4sk Pistol is being axed anyway, so even if they keep non bleed through gametypes there won't be 3 kinds of Pistol any more. I honestly don't think it'd be that confusing. Yes, this relies on the TU changes being applied across the board, but I see the changes to Squad, MT and Obj as a move toward this tbh.
I help run a customs night once a week so it all blurs together for me, but I think you're right about matchmaking. It does get confusing in our lobby because we have a mix of MLG/competitive guys and people who think AR + pistol starts are ideal. Sometimes it makes my brain hurt how many different CTF configurations we'll use in a single 3-hour session. And it affects how I play because I'm constantly trying to figure out if I can juggle the flag, what armor abilities I should use or others might use, etc. I'm not sure if I really support even the current degree of customization, at least as it is currently presented (with everything on equal footing right there in the game settings). I used to be part of the "more options = more AWESOME!" crowd. But I do really feel now that Reach has tried too hard to be all things to all people, and the game experience is actually too diverse and random to be as purely enjoyable as the older Halo titles were. I mean, CE was completely primitive by comparison: gametypes were limited to a handful, game settings for each gametype were relatively slim pickings, and you had 10 multiplayer maps (I think). Boom, done. Somehow that straightforward setup sustained about three years of constant LAN play from me and my group of friends. We weren't constantly fiddling with settings or downloading new **** - we were playing CTF on the Gulch and Damnation over and over and bloody over, trying to find small ways to get an edge in a game we knew inside and out. Nowadays - and maybe this is just grumpy old man syndrome talking - I feel like every third time I turn on my XBox, I'm playing on new maps, or old ones with different weapon configurations; the power-ups suddenly behave differently; I have bloom or no bloom or some bloom; I have bleedthrough or maybe not; I can juggle the flag or maybe I can't; I have a slightly different set of armor abilities to select from, or perhaps one or none; I might or might not be able to make certain jumps; I might kill a guy in three shots, or four, or five or ten... etc. Playing more customs with forgers and fiddlers will exacerbate that feeling, sure, but where it really comes from is that the game is almost TOO variable to begin with - plus they have title updates, gametype updates in the playlists, different playlists with different settings, etc. Even if you stay away from my freak friends and their bizarro gametypes, matchmaking can still make one's head swim at times. What am I suggesting? Honestly, directly: just a little less variety. DON'T give us control over a few of these things. (I was one of the few people in favor of them flat removing VIP, for instance, because that game sucked 99% of the time and I just don't need it cluttering up my headspace any further.) Or - here's the more reasonable position - make it a little harder to adjust this stuff in the game, so the hardcore will still have it but most people won't bother. Hide it slightly under "advanced settings" or something. More importantly though, have a coherent vision for the matchmaking experience, and stick to it. Dozens of different playlists with hundreds of maps and a thousand slightly variant gametypes didn't serve to make Reach more popular; it just made it more confusing. When people complained about something like bloom or armor lock, instead of creating some playlists with those things and some without and some with a patched version of both, just come up with a good compromise, implement it, and end it there. (Or, ya know, get it right to begin with.)
I'm not for removing the option to change certain settings. I just think we should keep most of that stuff to custom games.
I think this is really the meat of it. The vanilla Reach settings were so drastically different from what would keep the standard Halo crowd happy that I don't think there's any comfortable compromise. Or rather, I think Vanilla Reach with the TU settings is the compromise if they implement it across the board, Anni and ZB gametypes would just be some sprinkles at that point. Kept to their own little corners (on that note, I don't like how common Anni gametypes are in Classic Squad and BTB, I find it hard to get a game of standard, or rather TU BTB on Ridgeline, and it's kinda annoying), I think they'd be pretty unobtrusive. Again, either we keep the gametypes that have just been introduced, and are what we really want, to customs, or they axe all the vanilla ones and basically update the whole game. The former makes the TU next to pointless in my eyes, and the latter would be suicide.
I think delivering a lot of this stuff via gametype has been another source of confusion, by the way. Especially since sometimes you can't tell it's in there unless the name of the gametype says so. The power-ups are a prime example of something that should have simply been universally patched rather than slipped out there the way they did it.
That's because you all agree. Allow me to disrupt that: sword blocking was fine and I can't understand why they would remove it.
Because the Sword became the worst 'power' weapon in the game. Unless the person wasn't looking or wasn't playing, it was a dice roll at best. Plus, with the huge latency window, they could block well after I'd lunged. I respect your opinion, but are you deliberately playing devil's advocate in these discussions?
I'll be holding my breath for the most part until I really play these changes. Although, I do agree with the lot of you when it comes to the gametype-change system. I made my own organizational system for the new gametypes (It involves making quite a few of them), but it works and it's very handy. I'm especially glad that we can store 1000 gametypes. I don't see why, though, these changes can't be implemented universally. It just seems odd to me. Also, Overdoziz, can you spell out your exact qualms with Bleed-through? You of all people would seem to be someone to support it, like Pegasi mentioned.
It's just a terrible idea from a competitive standpoint. You work to gain the advantage of a power weapon and then somebody with the right timing/luck/connection combo deflects you and causes you to possibly die/not get a kill instead of getting a kill/possibly living. In one-on-one situations the sword block isn't so bad (still annoying) because persistence will usually give you the win - especially if you have sprint to close those gaps before the enemy can shoot you much. But how often is Halo played one on one? Half the time when I get sword blocked, I turn tail and run. It's not worth it to keep clashing away until one of their teammates or a feeble last-ditch grenade kills you. There are already ways to counteract the sword, and they're the same as with any power weapon: get it yourself, use cover to stay out of the line of fire, use a different power weapon against it. It doesn't need a special get-out-of-jail-free card just for it that in some games seems to happen way, way too much. There should be a medal for swordblocking (there isn't already one, is there..?) just so I can dig up examples of games where I got blocked 3-4 times in one game, sometimes 2-3 times in a single battle...
I like the clarity that the Reach system gives you. The visual feedback has never been so clear and consistent in any of the Halo games. In Reach you know exactly when you can killed by a single shot or melee. With bleedthrough you can sort of guess when you're one-shot, but that only goes so far. You can't be accurate. I know people dislike the Reach system because it encourages people who don't shoot but run straight for their enemy and melee twice for the kill but I'll gladly take that over bleedthrough. Maybe melee damage should be set to 75% across the board, making it a 3-melee kill and therefor making it less of a problem. That would help a lot. I just don't think bleedthrough is the way to go.
I'm legitimately confused by that particular decision. I may not agree about the bloom, but I understand why the changes were made. I can't grasp the sword changes, though. In my experience, latency only causes people to miss the block. On the few occasions where I was blocked, I would simply use the quick swipe with the melee button to beat their timing and secure the kill. If you're honestly clashing more than twice, you deserve whatever happens to you because you were too predictable. What's more, you still take damage when you block based on the weapon you're using, so to say that nothing happens when you are blocked is simply false. The person blocking the sword is still in far more danger than you are for being blocked. It just doesn't seem right that the sword is even more dangerous in this game than previous titles, but you should have no way of compensating for this increase in killing capability.
Every time I block someone's sword I didn't expect it to happen. I think that pretty much says enough.