Overdoziz doesn't like cqc because MLG doesn't like cqc lol I personally love cqc. But i'm not against long range dmr/sniper battles either. I believe they both have their place in the game. I hate sword block because I'm not really a camper i'd rather rush someone taking a chance that way knowing I'm not gonna get blocked at the same time.
That's why I said that I dislike CQC power weapons anyway. They can be abused too easily. I don't understand why Bungie always felt the need of giving them a **** ton of ammo too. Numerous times have I walked around with a shotgun that had like 30 shells in it and the 10 kills a sword can get is also way too many. A sword/hammer should have 'ammo' for 4 maybe 5 kills max. Shotgun should have like 10-15 shells of something because it's a bit harder to use than the melee weapons. Make them more like the Rocket Launcher, easy to get kills with but with a limited amount of ammo. There's a reason for that. It's not fun running around a corner only to be instantly killed because there was some guy camping with a sword. The weapons simply cause terrible gameplay.
See this is the kind of idea I would prefer over stuff like Sword blocking. Why Bungie moved away from simple balancing acts like this in favour of gameplay 'curveballs' which seek to balance by adding a new facet of gameplay is beyond me. That's not to say adding new facets to gameplay is bad, not by any means, but I dislike using them as a balancing tool because I think it's counterproductive. It complicates the given issue, adding more room for circumstantial inequity, and ends up being (imo) a very clumsy approach to balancing attempts. Even the ability to alter charge on plasma weapons like you can with spare clips would have helped massively, as it effectively achieves the above but leaves room for more specific balancing in custom game/alternate variant situations.
Y'know... I actually kind of think Bungie retrogressed in some areas. Vehicular physics more than anything. In previous Halo titles, the physics were amazingly fun but in Reach it seems like they don't fly as far, are not as fast, don't handle as well, etc. It's not like vehicular combat is in MLG. Remember Cat 'n' Mouse in Halo 2/3 or throwing a million plasma grenades at a vehicle in Halo 1 to see how far you could make it go? I miss those days. It seems like Bungie tried to homogenize MLG and "casual" gameplay in Halo: Reach. As a result, both play styles suffered while no real benefit was made. (I consider myself a "casual" by the way)
To be fair, it's also not that fun to get teamshot by four guys with DMRs simultaneously any time you go in the open because your teammates are less competent with range weapons and don't understand the concept of suppressing fire. Most aspects of Halo can be annoying if abused. I think CQC is fine but as you suggest, the weapons need to be appropriately nerfed (the shotgun ammo thing is ridiculous when it happens, e.g. COUNTDOOOWWWWNN), and the maps need to be designed to account for it. Any maps with little rooms that have just one or two entrances, and lots of hard 90 degree corners, will promote camping; such maps either need fewer/no CQC weapons, or they need to be designed a little differently. Swords and shotguns don't bother me much on more open and round-ier maps like Zealot, Asylum, and others. Actually I feel the same about jetpack. It's OK but it requires proper map design - otherwise it's hugely annoying, as on The Cage and Asylum. Jetpack is a slightly more extreme example though. [br][/br]Edited by merge: They've been trying to do this since Halo 2. That's the burden of making a game that is immensely popular with two very different crowds.
Pegasi was talking about how Bungie has shifted their game design philosophy. I brought up vehicle physics as an example of how the casual players in particular were affected. Both the hardcore and casual communities have been "damaged," coincidentally by each other.
I was relating to what Pegasi was saying... I can understand that you might think I am, but I'm not arguing.
There should be a Gravity Hammer block. But both your arms in the way of the hammer. BLOCKED. Sounds good to me.
They didn't decrease ammo on CQC weapons because you put yourself in much greater danger while using them. It's only natural that you should be able to get more kills if you are able to stay alive long enough to do so. That said, I was surprised there was no option for tweaking plasma ammo. I would have liked to reduce the amount that the focus rifles use on one of my maps.
Fair enough reason to hate it but you gotta take into account that everyone else(who doesn't want to purposely disadvantage themselves) will still camp with it making camping a stronger tactic. Which might be a bit counter intuitive. Been able to change the ammo of plasma weapons would of been a good option(Always in favor of any options), But as for a default setting only having the sword unblockable but limited to only 4 kills would be kinda pointless. Who would choose the sword over rockets then? Rockets get 4 instant kill bullets that could miss but could also get overkills on grouped enemy's and also has range. I could choose sword over rockets on a CQC map because it reasonable to assume I could earn 10 kills where rockets reasonably only earn me 4. Taking away the swords sustainability takes away it's main benefit over other power weapons. For MLG or TU sure if you want but default playlists it doesn't fit in. Also shotgun only has about 7 shots or something but the reason some people get up to 30ish shots is because it's a map with 2 shotguns(or it blackscreened) and they where able to get to both shotguns since they would be either both neutral spawns or one for each team they either fought for both and won or they stole your teams one under your nose then if they can do that they deserve that advantage.
You really need an explanation on why weapons should be balanced? (Could explain your views on sword block. >;] ) Every weapon needs a purpose if one weapon beats anther weapon in every way there is no point to having both those weapons. If rocket has 4 shots and sword has 4 hits the rocket beats the sword in every way so there is no reason to choose a sword over rockets therefor unbalanced. If sword can has 10 hits you have more potential kills throughout a longer duration and more risk to your own life so it balanced compared to the rockets.
Which is why the rocket launcher would go in the center of the map in the continuous explosion and bum rushing area as a neutral weapon whereas the sword would go somewhere easier to get.
You make the weirdest conclusions. I agree that it can be harder to get kills with the Sword than the Rocket Launcher but that's no reason to give it an obscene amount of ammo. You also have to take in account that missing a rocket will result in you wasting ammo. If you miss with the Sword your ammo count doesn't decrease. Also, with the addition of Sprint and Evade it is much easier to get kills with the Sword than in any previous Halo game. I think an ammo count of about 5 is greatly justified in Reach.