Vigorous nodding More vigorous nodding. I was going to make this point earlier but I was getting tired of typing. Why would you want to give players extra incentive to avoid moving around, and try to attack from the back or side as much as possible? I've certainly learned that charging down the side ramps in Countdown at an enemy below is a good way to get killed - all it takes is one fortuitous sword block and you're too far from your target to attack again, with nowhere handy to get out of the line of fire. But sitting above the little "drop hole" and jumping down to attack your enemy's back as he runs up the same ramp is a great strategy, because they have no recourse unless they manage to turn all the way around before you lunge. The sword block in its small way promotes playing in a manner that makes the game stagnant and aggravating. All in the name of nerfing a weapon that could be nerfed several other, better ways. The only good things about sword block (and yes, I acknowledge there are some): 1) It turns a formerly binary weapon into one that is occasionally survivable. I don't think this is a big deal or really needed because the sword has other downsides in Reach anyway, but I understand the argument. (I just happen to think the block is poorly executed - like a medicine where the side effects outweigh the cure.) 2) It theoretically introduces another skill mechanic into the game. (This only holds true in local games though; in matchmaking it may as well be random.) 3) It's fun for the person who gets the block. To me, these things aren't sufficient benefits to outweigh the more serious negatives, and I think if you straight up removed it from Reach the outcry would be a lot smaller than the anti-block outcry has already been. And I invite 343 to try it out.
It isn't gambling, you and Nut both viciously overstate how "random" it is. Besides, even something as simple as choosing a target to attack is technically a gamble. Just ask Eightball about our recent game on S for a good example of that. In his words, I always had the right weapon to kill him. In previous games, bum-rushing worked very well even if you died in the end. In Reach, you have to be more conservative in your approach because your attack has the potential to be slowed. It may not actually be slowed very often, but the potential should be enough to make you think twice. Let's not kid ourselves, either; People camp with all three CQC weapons, especially the shotty. Sword blocking is not the critical factor in that regard.
EDIT - You know what, I'm bailing on this discussion. Not worth it. I think I've made my case as plainly as possible, it's now up to you if you agree or not. Clearly though, you're not changing my mind and I'm probably not changing yours.
We don't overstate anything; we tell it like it is. I don't know about you, but if I see someone holding rockets, or any other power weapon for that matter, I run away and attack someone else. I might keep my distance from the shotgun guy, pepper the sniper guy with bullets, try to get above the concussion rifle guy, etc. It's Eightball's fault if he kept getting into a situation where he was in a disadvantage, since he could've just as easily done many other things in order to avoid you or kill you. In Halo 3, the sword required quite a bit of CQC space in order to work. If you bum-rushed more than a single person while wielding the sword, you would most likely die if you didn't plan out your strategy well enough. In Reach, sprint allows you to cover larger distances, but kill-times are faster, which already balances out the sprint/evade-sword combo. (Not to mention Jet Pack, Armor Lock, or any other AA's which almost directly negate the sword's effects.) Go back to my point on slowing down the game/camping and read it again. Sure, people will always camp. Removing sword block might just be a bit of incentive in helping lower camping rates. There are no absolutes when it comes to problem-solving, all you can do is decrease the problem. By removing sword block, you're ridding the game of a factor of frustration and randomness, and possibly a bit of camping. While sword block remains, randomness is being promoted, as is camping and slowing down the game in general.
And that's why they change it; people are more vocal about hating something than they are about letting it be. You weren't even there. It was an objective game, so he doesn't necessarily have the luxury of running if he wants to win. I wasn't doing anything as obvious as toting Rockets in the open, either; I can hold and switch various weapons. There's no real way for him to know until he engages me, though. He could have done a lot of things, but hindsight is 20/20, after all. That's the gamble you have to take. The other armor effects can negate all of the CQC weapons in the same way, so that is irrelevant. Go back and read all of my posts. That's completely one-sided. What is frustrating for one person probably isn't frustrating at all to the other person. What you assume is random is likely good timing to the other person. Camping would not be impacted, and for whatever insignificant amount it did change, you'd see an equal rise in players that act too reckless with the sword. The last thing you want is to have a teammate who loses your power weapon because he bit off more than he could chew due to the absence of sword blocking.
So speaking for him is fine? his exact words where: "I don't think the sword is overpowered without sword block, buteven if it was I'd rather not have sword block" So he admits he doesn't think the sword would be OP without sword block then he said "buteven if it was(OP) I'd rather not have sword block" So his exact words where he would rather a OP unbalanced sword then have sword block. Spoiler mainly for Rorak kuroda but if you want this gist of it, I want to know what nutduster was/is trying to accomplish? Spoiler I'm using the best logic and understanding of the game I can, to come to to a definite conclusion though logical compromise and discussion. Meaning I will generally ignore personal statements about "I haz dis gayme wher sword block killed ma RAGE FACE" you can call them "researched cases" all you want most of the time they don't help come to a conclusion. I thought I had come to a conclusion: And you seemed to have taken offense to this statement because this statement is such a bad opinion to accuse of someone having? Judging from nutdusters statement after my conclusion: His post is more to support my conclusion then disagree with it. And I think he just took the "Your right but I'm not admitting it" approach.(and may have confused that with wearing out) If he doesn't agree then I would like to hear his opinion on conclusionand find out what his trying to accomplish) You personally dislike sword block and want it removed regardless of how it would effect gameplay and since 343i base there work on personal complaints and don't regard gameplay so it's reasonable that if you complain it could become a reality? Complaining to get sword block changed?
Here are my exact words for the record, which you can tattoo on your forehead if it helps: I don't think the sword is overpowered in Reach even if you remove sword block. I think if 343/Bungie did feel it was overpowered, however, there are better ways to nerf it than the sword block counter. Yes, I find sword block personally frustrating, but the main reasons I find it frustrating are randomness (impossible to tell if you or your opponent are timing it properly) and the fact that no other weapon is countered this way. In other words, I am a competitive-oriented player and things that seem illogical and anti-competitive to me, as well as things that reduce rather than enlarge the skill gap, bother me. This isn't about one bad game here or there, it's a cumulative negative impression gathered after playing many hundreds of games, and not ever seeing any consistency or logic behind the sword block mechanic. I see how it was probably supposed to work, but I also see that it doesn't actually pull it off. I feel that Halo is fundamentally a competitive game - not MLG-style competitive, but one where good players consistently beat bad ones and skill is rewarded over luck or exploits. It also should be a fun game, where frustration is minimized for the greatest number of players. I am opposed to faults in the game that detract from that experience - that make it more random, less competitive, less fun. A great number of players agreed, loudly, and that's why it's getting patched. So... I win. Hooray! Refer to the above I do think 343 (and many other developers) put out patches based mostly on the "putting out fires" theory. Lots of fans bitching is fire that in the long run may cost them money; a title update is the water that hopefully puts it out. They want to make sure the patch doesn't break the game or imbalance it too badly, so yes they do test it and make counter-tweaks sometimes (though not this time), but the primary concern is making sure the community happiness level goes up. If you don't believe this is even somewhat true, you are extremely naive. We as fans therefore have great power so long as the developer has a vested interest in keeping us happy. One reason I devote time and energy to typing long-winded posts on game mechanics (sometimes against them, sometimes defending them) is that I think we owe it to ourselves as a community to understand the game, and ask for the right fixes. Removing sword block will benefit me, but I believe it will more importantly benefit the game and most of the people who play it. The idea then is that other people express their points of view and we make our respective cases in a way that's visible to the developer - then they make the final decision. Except in this case, they already made it and it's already been patched - just not unilaterally, which I feel is a mistake. (By the way, the fact that it was NOT patched unilaterally is more evidence of one of my points. 343 gave us a title update to deal with the main things people hated in Reach - armor lock, bloom, sword block - yet didn't extend it to all playlists, even now? They're doing exactly what I said: trying to keep as many people happy as possible. Please tell me how there's any other way to spin that. We don't really need a game with three different bloom settings depending which playlist you go into. The one thing they haven't realized is how their decision actually makes some players unhappy, because matchmaking has gotten extremely confusing. The logic seems to be that you'll go to the playlist with the settings you prefer, but if you actually want to move around in different playlists, you'll have to remember which settings apply where. I believe it would be a better business decision to just patch everything and make some players temporarily unhappy, and let them adjust. They apparently disagree.) Finally, let me apologize for making an obviously hyperbolic statement which you have siezed on as the only thing I said in this entire thread that matters to you. I don't actually believe that we should take out sword block and replace the sword with a nuke that kills every enemy simultaneously. OK? I have made my argument as to why I think sword block is bad for the game, and it's re-stated for probably the tenth time in this very post. I can't be more clear than that. [br][/br]Edited by merge: Yes, agreed. But in this case do you really think it's going to matter? You've said yourself in this thread that sword block happens "rarely." And it probably should - if it happened much more often than it does now it would cripple the sword's usefulness. Given that it's a relatively rare occurrence on the whole though, how much is it really going to impact the game if it's removed? The sword will be maybe 5% more powerful, some players will be surprised to realize they can't block any more and will stop trying to do it, and that's it. I'm truly mystified that you and Wwwilliam have dug in so hard defending something that you both say doesn't even affect the game that much. Let me say this also: I've had a lot of discussions about bloom and armor lock. Both of those things have many, many vocal defenders. And you'll note that the default TU settings now are slightly reduced bloom and moderately nerfed AL - they didn't flat out remove either. They tried to hit the middle ground because they knew just removing them would make too many people unhappy. But sword block? Just chucked it. They didn't make it less frequent or change its behavior, they trashed it entirely. And up until this thread, I can't remember anybody even caring. You and Wwwilliam are the only two people I've met who are bothered enough to even defend the dumb thing. I'm sure there are others, but all I'm saying is, on this issue the silent majority is very, very silent. And I'm sure that's why the TU ended up the way it did.
Ok so you don't think sword block should be removed in default playlists, Good. You have made your argument as to why sword block is bad for the game ok but Besides bunch of random complaints only argument I can pull from it all is....... Actually I can't compile a one line argument of what your trying to prove, I was going to say "Latency makes sword block to random" But you would want sword block removed even if latency wasn't a issue and was 100% based on skill(but still hard to do) So arguing latency is a problem is avoiding the core issue which is why discussion gets no where. But I can see why you would be against sword block based off skill because it would still feel random there's ways to work around it in game etc but you might not want or feel you should have to do those things. But fair enough you dislike this part of the game your entitled to not like it. But when you start accusing it of been a horrible game breaking unbalanced mechanic that's when it starts been a problem to me. But I would really like just 1 or 2 lines summarizing what what you think the core gameplay issue with sword block in default playlists that is all I want. (not a page of text explaining the relationship between development and complaining)
Derp. Derp derp derp. DEEERRRRRP [br][/br]Edited by merge: I'm moving on to just quoting myself. I've already answered these f-ing questions a dozen times.
If you can't see the reason why there is TU playlists and Default playlists and why there needs to be both I don't think my explanations are going to get though. No other weapon is countered this way? meaning the only melee weapon that can be blocked yes it is, that is what it is, not why or how it is good or bad. You dislike that you cannot tell when someone is going to block your sword fair enough, Doesn't make it a bad game mechanic just because your don't like it.
Removing sword block makes the person with the sword wins(in a situation where sword block would had an effect), Having sword block means the person with the most skill wins. Whoever has the best timing and game smarts wins. In all other situations and if the sword block didn't sword block would all be exactly the same.
So you think sword block is balanced and latency is the only issue? I doubt that very much. Since it doesn't matter why a sword was blocked it's still blocked. Nothing will change with how people use swords and nothing will change how people defend themselves from swords in local games or matchmaking it will be exactly the same tactics. (I don't know for sure but some people could argue that you can judge for latency making that a skill in itself just like people would judge latency for sniper headshot)