yeah, but it ruins the competitive side of the game. Have you met a single call of duty fanboy that can articulate why he prefers that game franchise? No. Why? because they're the casualest of the casuals. I bet half of them don't even realize that they can change their starting guns. I dunno. The developers do this kind of thing for a living. ask them.
Way to make yourself look like a fool there, kiddo. I feel like this has been discussed a billion times in this thread so maybe we should just stop it before it gets stupid. Any news for today? (Man, i hope Cluckin has got something good for us today.)
well, It's not my problem. Surprisingly enough, I don't have years of experience developing games. EDIT: aww. What a shitty 200th post. [br][/br]Edited by merge: By the way: new Forward unto dawn trailer: Forward Unto Dawn: "Squad" Halo Official Site
And I eagerly await the day that this philosophy becomes obsolete in FPS games. It's hard to find a single shooter without this crap nowadays. It's been done too many times IMO, and the last bastion I had from this has fallen with Halo 4. To the PC, away! Even there it's still hard.
Actually the underline is a fallacy. You make a game balancing for all tiers(first timers to Professionals and everything in between) of players making sure no one tier has a predominant overpowered tactic. Catering to only the highest tier can be bad, Example: One weapon could be perfectly balanced in Professional games(players can easily counter it making its slightly underpowered in professional games) but the lower the tier of player gets the more overpowered that weapon gets(because countering it is a acquired skill) so first timers/very casual players can pick up this weapon and go 50-0 every game. Meaning 90% of your players will think that weapon is unbalanced. So do you nerf the weapon giving bulk of your players a fair weapon and making it less viable at professional levels and committing the ultimate sin of catering to casuals or leave it as is with 90% of players raging about this weapon?) Catering to only the casuals can be bad, Example: "We want pelicans in multiplayer" Could be fun(for all tiers) and in 80% of games it could be balanced(people can kill it easy and not to over powered) for the lower 80% tiered players. But the higher tiered players will min/max the potential of the pelicans and it could easily dominate games even amongst professional players. Meaning 80% of players will think its balanced. But you wont have a competitive game because there is one overpowered dominate tactic. (unless game is designed that way Pelican vs pelican as the only viable competitive play) So do you nerf the pelican making it viable but not overpowered in high tier competitive play but make it feel weak and underpowered in 80% of the games? All tiers are equal. (even though I'm secretly thinking elitist thoughts) I'm not a developer but I like to think I understand a bit about developing, My opinion:It's REALLY REALLY REALLY hard to making everything perfectly balanced for every tier of players and in some complex games its literally impossible to do. So instead of attempting that you allow certain tactics to be more and less powerfull in certain tiers but balance everything to make sure no one tier has a predominant overpowered tactic(and trying to make sure no tactic is absolutely useless at any tier but overpowereness is priority). So there will be tactics at every tier of gameplay that people will complain about but overall anyone with outside perspective can grasp its fine.
Well this isn't specifically halo 4 news but if you watch 3 of presidential debates through xbox live and are an xbox rewards member Microsoft will give you a multiplayer spartan armor for your avatar.
good god.. you guys are rediculous.. this isn't an essay contest.. for the sake of lazy people and those that can't read keep your posts to like 1000 characters lol. "TL DNR!"
First you state that better players are better at countering some weapons but not better at using them, and then you state that better players are better at using some weapons but not countering them. The AR would fit the former description, and you seem to insist that there is a problem if it is not viable in higher level games, even though there is no problem. You may think that the BR fits the latter description if you think that there shouldn't be a weapon that is used most often; if you think that predominant use of the BR is what makes it overpowered, even if everyone has it. What you must mean by counters is weapon counters. The solution to this is making all but a few "training wheels" weapons have a learning curve and power similar to the BR at their own ranges. This would be like the spiker/plasma rifle instead of the AR, storm rifle or surpressor. It is not quite as necessary that power weapons have exactly the same learning curve, because they are less frequent, and they are contestable. This effectively means that power weapons cannot be a dominant tactic at lower or higher play. This still does not mean that the scattershot (much more powerful shotgun), SAW (much more powerful AR) and incineration cannon (more powerful rocket launcher), all three of which require less reticle and range positioning precision, are balanced for any tier.
Stop arguing and bask in actual footage of the Mantis/Ragnarok. Waypoint Link Teabagging Mechs? Sold. Also, there's a gallery up. Click through the image below
Dammit cluckin, why are you up at this hour? I was just about to post that! Lol Yea that tea-bag at the end sure does top it off.
Mantis looks terrifying, though I'm sure a banshee can easily bomb it and destroy if the Mantee is unaware of its location. And of course it can teabag it's victims... lolz I dont think it's op. The Mantis in the video gets first shot every time, and is never in any real danger. It may very well be very powerful, but I am sure that a few land troops or that tank or the banshee could have gotten it taken out if te circumstances had changed.
Damn, the Mantis looks really powerful. Hopefully it gets a nerf. Also, Ragnarok looks good, but I'm not liking the dried and cracked look of the ground much compared to the green grass of Valhalla.
I can see taking out a Mantis with a banshee if I could stay over it, and while the Mantis is devastating at it's specific range it can't do a lot of the longer range stuff. Plus if even one player gets behind it you are done. Personally I see it in around the same league as a scorpion, though I did like how when it shot the warthog a few times it only managed to flip it. Could be fun to do some drive by's on it with a good hog driver. Oh, and he completely missed two of those sniper shots on the banshee at around 7:10 in cluck's post.
wow, that thing is cool. i hope it's not so OP'd that it ends up never being used, like the scorpion.