It doesn't make sense. An energy sword would slice through a dude's arm and/or weapon. Unless he's Chuck Norris.
That's badly oversimplified. The quick swipe doesn't involve a lunge (or as much of one) so depending on the results of the clash - which sometimes will send both players backward in opposite directions - a quick swipe might not be a viable next option, whereas the lunge still is. Why is it more dangerous than in previous titles? Because of sprint/evade? Armor abilities make all power weapons more dangerous in different ways - camo for sniper, jet pack for rockets, sprint/evade for the shotgun and hammer as well as the sword, etc. It also counteracts all of them - camo can hide you from a sniper, jetpack can get you away from a rocket's blast radius, armor lock (duh), drop shield, etc. If you remove armor abilities from the conversation, I don't see how the sword is more dangerous in Reach. It was by far the most dangerous in Halo 2, to the point that we called it The Crutch in my LAN games. It didn't have ammo, for one thing; the lunge range was long; and you could use it more quickly after a weapon swap, I think (there seems to be an intentional nerfing in Reach by making you wait a second after bringing out the sword before you can use it, and also after lunging with it once there's a longer cooldown before you can use it again - no more charging into a room full of people and slicing them all to pieces in 3 seconds). Fundamentally, I think if they wanted to make the sword less dangerous, they should nerf it in the obvious ways. Decrease lunge range, decrease ammo. Simple. Sword blocking smacks of something where they liked the general idea of it (and it is cool on paper), but didn't think through the ramifications on competitive play. To me, the sword doesn't need nerfing anyway - it's not meaningfully more powerful than the hammer or shotgun (in fact it loses head-to-head against the shotgun almost always, which is disadvantage enough), and you can't melee-block either of those weapons.
Being able to block the sword ruins infection. [br][/br]Edited by merge: They changed the swap mechanics in Halo 3. I remember running around in Halo 2 with a BR and charging up to someone just to immediately pull out my sword and kill them. They never saw it coming. That tactic made the sword over powered and that's why they changed it.
And they probably should have (though it makes for some very frustrating moments when you switch to the sword and are yelling "SWING, DAMMIT!" at the screen). But they kept that for Reach - so I don't really see why we needed sword block on top of it. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Indeed. I had some disgusting abuses of power with that thing. I used to grab it on Midship and do what I thought of as "The Lap" - run up to sword spawn, jump into one of the bases, slice up a couple of guys, and repeat. It was so easy to rack up 15 kills in a row with that thing. Lockout was even worse at times, though opponent patterns were less predictable and occasionally you'd get sniped from afar. But if they'd had the extermination medal back then, I would have had a war chest full of them on Lockout. Having the Halo 2 sword was the only time you were HAPPY to go around a corner and find the entire enemy team right in front of you.
Play SWAT Get Headshots ???? Profit. I don't really have an issue with 100% bloom as long as it's not in every playlist
I don't agree about not being able to tell when I'm one shot. I agree it's difficult, but it's something I got used to in past Halo games, and I'm already getting used to it in Reach (the difference being damage dealt, thus getting that instinctive judge of how much shield is enough. In a way, I almost think that no bleed makes it too easy to judge, whereas I like little things which promote awareness skills. However, the other side of the equation, which you actually didn't mention, is impossible ultimately. What I mean is that you can't tell when someone else is one shot definitively, your only indication is how many shots you know you've landed, which obviously relies on you being the only person who's hurt them (far from always the case). That said, I kinda take the opposite stance from you: I don't mind a level of uncertainty, which I had no problem with in past games, over a very damaging mechanic like no bleed. Yes. It's very inconsistent and incredibly dependant on connection. I guess this is why the action-trade window is so wide in this case, but it still doesn't fix the issue and also adds a level of frustration to the Sword user when someone who it looks like should have taken a blade to the face then sends in a retroactive block. I hated the Sword before the TU, hated it.
You can't just remove armor abilities from the convo. Most games in Reach use them, and they do make all the power weapons stronger. This is the very reason that I'm puzzled that they would nerf defensive abilities like AL and sword blocking. It might be worth pointing out that getting a bulltrue and still surviving is way more difficult in Reach than it was in 3. More often than not, you simply exchange kills, even with the shieldless zombies of infection. Whether it's a latency issue or some other factor, that's the reality of it. Something else to consider, you can take damage from every other power weapon without actually dying, so why shouldn't you be able to do the same with the sword? It already has more "ammo" than most power weapons and better kill range than the other CQC weapons (though I'm aware shotgun tends to win anyway due to the gap-closing nature of most encounters) so why should it always be an unavoidable one hit kill when the other weapons are not?
His point about AAs is that if you remove them totally then all the AA + power weapon combo benefits are gone (of which the Sword is only one) and if you have them in the game then each has a power weapon that is suited to it. It's not like Sprint + Sword is an isolated example that isn't paralleled pretty much across the board, is what he's saying. As for the all or nothing damage thing: because the Sword is a fundamentally different weapon, that's the point. It's binary, you either do all or nothing. The trade off with being able to ensure you get a one hit kill is that, if you don't, you did nothing and are incredibly vulnerable. Also, the partial damage of all other power weapons is, if it happens, down to the user. I think that's the fundamental complaint with Sword Block and AL: the damage not done isn't down to a mistake/mis timing by the user, but is done in a way which enables the subject to 'deny' damage that the user would otherwise have gotten. That's fundamentally different, and imo harmful, since it eats away at the basic premise of being better with a weapon = more effective use.
You can argue for both sides, but I personally like the fact that there is a clear distinction between being one-shot (I'm talking 1 headshot, by the way). Also, you can clearly tell when someone else is one-shot because you see their armor flickering. I think the most problems occur when you just came out of a fight and you're shields are recharging. Mid-way through it recharging another guy pops up and I this is where bleedthrough can be very unclear. I often go into a fight thinking I can take more shots that in the end was the case. Of course, you have to get used to going back to bleedthrough again, but I still find that in the end Reach's system is more consistent (for the lack of a better word). On a sidenote: For some reason the 3-burst BR in Halo 2 and 3 seem to work better (for me) with bleedthrough. When I go back to those games I don't mind it at all, but in Reach I do.
I can understand feeling deprived of a kill, and I do agree that your own skill should be a factor when attacking someone. However, I don't see how you can justify making power weapons like the sword more dangerous without any real way of countering this increased offense. You also have to realize that there is another human on the other end of your weapon. Why should my survival depend solely on whether you misclick with your power weapon? You can't make the other player feel helpless in order to make yourself feel more skilled.
Again, why do you object to this example but not to how Jetpack affects Rockets, or how Camo affects Sniper? It's not isolated, and imo is the least worth focusing on in terms of how obtrusive it is in gameplay terms. Because your standard way of avoiding damage or a 1hk is, just as it has always been in Halo, movement, use of map and cover. It's not about feeling helpless, it's about avoiding giving them a 'no' button which takes little to no skill to use and has massive defensive reward. This is true of Sword block and AL, it's the ultimate get out of jail free card. Just as a hit should be earned when using a weapon, a dodge should be earned when being subject to one. Strafing is a skill, map movement is a skill, use of cover is still somewhat of a skill, awareness of a skill. Pressing a single button which negates damage done and yet requires nothing like aiming etc. is not a skill, thus does not deserve to be rewarded. And it's not about 'feeling' more skilled, it's about reflecting skill in effect. I don't know if this was your intention, but your word choice makes it seem like you're thrusting some sense of insecurity or satisfaction on to this point, which is unfair. EDIT: Overdoziz, I think another part of what seemed different in H2/3 was, aside from the burst weapon (which I agree affects it somewhat), the slower shield recharge in Reach. This really comes in to play in the situation you outlined, as the time taken to actually get safe when recharging is significantly increased. I think the Classic gametypes should really be using 125% shield recharge, 110% doesn't cut it imo, the change is negligible.
I know it's not isolated, but I have no reason to talk about the other buffs. That's more in line with the AL discussion, and you are already aware of that point from a previous thread. I've noticed direct sword dodging is somehow more difficult in Reach than it was in other games. Sort of beside the point, but worth noting. Also, blocking does require skill, and it's called timing. I don't know what games you're playing where everyone is apparently a sword-blocking master, but for most opponents it's never even an issue. When someone is good enough to block me, it turns into a sort of duel; who will win the timing game? Of course, the blocker is always losing because damage isn't negated either, as you still get hurt badly after just one or two blocks. Not only does a block take some measure of skill, but you are still punished even when you pull one off. I don't understand how you can make statements that are so blatantly wrong when I know you have a firm grasp on the game's mechanics. Things like awareness and map movement in relation to power weapons is a constant given in Halo, and you can't try and pass that off as a counter for the more dangerous power weapons of Reach.
How someone can be against removing sword-block is beyond me. It's random as ****. No other arguments needed.
As Overdoziz says, it's insanely random. I'd like to think my timing is pretty decent, I can act with precise timing in movement, aiming and firing terms, all much more complex than simply pressing a button. Yet the consistency with which I'm rewarded a block is hair-tearingly bad. I think it's barely a skill, and one which can't be relied upon in practice. Without seeking to get any more personal than this statement already does, that's pretty much how I've felt every time I've had a discussion with you about AL. I find it genuinely mind boggling that someone of clear intelligence, with such a keen focus on the details of game mechanics, is so keen to see Halo turned in to a game of rock paper scissors. The Sword, even without blocking, is not one of the more dangerous power weapons in Reach. It's reasonably powerful on Countdown, useable on Zealot, and in general is one of the more non-issue weapons even without Sword block. I have no idea where you're getting this from. Also, the Sword is a natural extension of CQC, like the Shotty but even more so since it's a melee weapon. You of all people should know that the built in counter to CQC applies here too: Armor Lock. You know I disagree with that, but to be brutally honest I don't even really like the Sword at all, didn't like it in 2 or 3 and don't like it here. It's not horrible, but I've never been a fan of binary weapon damage at all. I don't think breaking it and making it inconsistent AND making it near redundant in many situations is a good way to deal with that. And as stated earlier, 1 on 1s are not the basis of the game. If I'm rushing two enemies, a Sword should be a kill on at least one of them, even if I die (which I admit I deserve if rushing, but that's kinda all a Sword can do). As it stands with blocking, someone running in to CQC (the SOLE use of the sword) with a POWER WEAPON can come out with nothing even though they may have done all in their power to dodge damage on the way there, and often do. I don't think I've met anyone in discussion so far, either here or on B.net or on Waypoint, who disagrees that the Sword nerfs in default Reach are overkill.
Pegasi said a lot of this so I'll be brief in my responses (as brief as I get, anyway): Again, just for clarity's sake, are you referring only to armor abilities? Because in all other respects the sword has been nerfed relative to Halo 2, and even nerfed a little bit relative to Halo 3, I think. If you're only talking about armor abilities I don't think you have a case at all. Armor abilities increase your capability with all weapons (especially power weapons, but not just those). They also increase your defensive capabilities (e.g. sprinting or evading away from danger, armor lock, drop shield, camo to hide from power weapon users, on and on). If your concern is that evade or sprint make sword more powerful, I say unto thee: evade AWAY from the guy with sword. Sprint AWAY from him. Or use camo so he doesn't know where you are. Or use armor lock and laugh as he bounces off of you (and if you're lucky you'll EMP him - then you can drop a 'nade, re-lock, and laugh again as he bounces off you and dies shortly thereafter). Or jet pack up out of his lunge range. Sword is useful only within a particular, fairly short range, and I have to go get it (I don't spawn with it). The slightest corner of a wall or bump in the floor between me and my target will deflect me without harm to my intended victim. There are MYRIAD ways the other person can use skill or strategy to prevent me from killing them. They don't need melee block too. My biggest beef with it is that timing seems to have almost no bearing at all in matchmaking. It's by far one of the most connection-dependent acts because the window in which you're supposed to melee to perform a successful block is fairly small (which I admit is how it should be). Therefore, the timing of when you should melee to get a block in the vast majority of games - all non-local games, that have a less than stellar connection between the two players involved in the battle and the host - isn't about skill. It's about getting lucky. I'm not a fan of that in any context in Halo. I don't like when I feel I timed it perfectly and I die anyway. I don't like when I swoop in on a guy who appears to not even be facing me, and I start to look for my next target because I assume he's dead, and then I realize no, he's alive and ARing my befuddled ass. Matchmaking and lag always introduce elements of random, but the game mechanics should (and generally, do) seek to minimize that. The sword block is one of the worst offenders for NOT minimizing it. The timing discussion reminds me of when people talk about timing your hammer swings in Grifball. Theoretically, in a near simultaneous-swing situation, the guy who swings a split second earlier (but still within killing range) gets the kill and escapes unhurt, or just partly hurt. In actuality, connection issues make it so that you don't really know when he swung, and the game doesn't really know when YOU swung either, so unless you're the host it's random as ****. The best way to do well at Grifball is never to charge into simul-swing situations at all (unless you're host) because to do so is to deliberately court random results. This is fine for a silly game like that - and is why I don't play Grifball ever, any more - but it's not fine for a power weapon in allegedly competitive playlists.
Yeah well, BITE ME OVERDOZIZ. [br][/br]Edited by merge: I will also add one thing: if Bungie wanted to compensate for the power of evadesword, they should have just given you a slight cooldown period after the evade before the sword is useful. Y'know, like they do with every single other weapon. The melee block is not the obvious or even the appropriate counter. Why did they leave it like it is? Probably because they thought it was awesome to evadesword people, which is also probably the reason they left the sword block in. Both of them are frequently fun, but that doesn't make them good for competitive play.