Regarding the discussion about pro-vision. I don't think it is overpowered at all. Just because you have the ability to see around corners and through walls doesn't grant you the ability to get the kill any better. The best advantage it gives is the moment of surprise where you can catch at most one player off guard coming around a corner or a bend allowing you to get the first shot, and that "moment of surprise" isn't a guaranteed thing every time you use pro-vision. I use it to assess what level enemies are on in multiple leveled maps and anticipate where enemies are moving toward. That is more support and analytical than immediate tactical advantage.
Considering it only exists in games with radar, yes. If you could use it in games without radar then it'd be huge in the ways you're talking about. Tbh, in closer quarters I find it most useful for little things like seeing which way an enemy is facing when they're hiding on the other side of top mid on Haven or something, so I can try to go the other way and get first shot. Most of the use I get out of it is orienting myself when there isn't an enemy within radar range. It's incredibly useful on Haven for working out where groups of enemies are/where people are spawning. This enables you to flank effectively and not waste time off spawn even if your team mates aren't communicating at all. I find that to be a big difference maker in how many kills I get per match. I disagree about it not being a directly tactical advantage, I think it's precisely that. Not necessarily on a per-battle basis (in terms of contributing to one you've already started/know you're about to engage in), but again on maps like Haven it's a central part of my positioning which is a fundmental part of second to second tactical approach.
It's not "overpowered" in the sense that it makes a bad player into a good one, or a good one into an unstoppable killing machine - but it's sufficiently powerful that I doubt in a few weeks time (or even right now, today) any really good player would use anything else. It confers too necessary of an advantage to the kind of players who rely on getting first shot in any confrontation - surprising the enemy and never being surprised themselves. That is a subtle thing that changes how the entire game plays for those people who use it. Basically everybody else has regular motion trackers, but they have enhanced, plus a huge range boost to go with it. You can hold your own against a pro-vision user with other AAs if you're smart and use your own AA to its fullest advantage. I'd say in particular that camo and hologram (go figure on that one) are particularly advantageous in their own ways, and particularly useful against pro-vision. However, that's only one form of balance. I think with a loadout-based game, you want there to be valid incentive for players of varying skill levels to pick different loadouts. The two biggest deficiencies in the game in that regard are pro-vision, which is more useful than any other AA by a significant margin, and the boltshot (except in BTB, where larger map size and vehicle use makes the plasma pistol superior). They did a better job with the primary weapons, thankfully; you can legitimately use different ones of those depending on your play style, and they do actually hold their own against one another while still retaining some basic differences. But with the AAs I don't see where anything else is nearly as advantageous to anyone who knows what they're doing in a FPS. I also think you heavily undervalue that "moment of surprise." For more competitive players, just getting the first shot in most confrontations is the difference between a mediocre game and a really good one. It's why camping and staring at your motion tracker is a successful tactic, and it's why being host is good for an instant k/d boost in most matches. Beyond first shot though - which is the true advantage of the AA and one that you gain constantly - there's a lot more to it than that. Leaving a 'nade at someone's feet just as they walk into the open is a sure kill 80-90% of the time for a player with thumbs. If you have pro-vision and a 'nade and your opponent doesn't know what's about to happen to him, that should be an automatic kill a lot of the time. And then there's simple anticipation of player movement - which way they're headed, which level they're on, if they double back, if they stop moving somewhere, if they're camping, if they're going for ordnance or an objective... on and on. Granted, you'll get a fair amount of that information anyway in any match with trackers, but only if you're within range and they're moving at some point during that time frame. I would love to see them turn this thing into, like I suggested, a single static "snapshot" at the time you activate it. It confers a similar advantage but without the ability to flat-out know *everything*.
By your own admission of how you use the ability, it could hardly be considered "over powered" in that respect. A larger working knowledge of what to do once you use the AA does not inherently translate into better match results, it doesn't hurt but remember we're discussing whether something is "overpowered". The stigma there is that it grants an unfair advantage that cannot easily be countered and that equates to significantly better match results for that individual for using that ability. As I said before, that "second to second tactical approach" allows for a surprise tactic to get a first shot some of the time. In regards to be being "overpowered" though I just don't think those moments occur frequently enough over the course of a match to warrant the ability being unnecessarily unfair to players without the ability. Would you say from your own experience your scores were on average better with that AA than with other ones? Nutduster, then we aren't talking about whether something is "overpowered". Just because it is highly useful and a lot of people use it does not throw off the balance of a match. If anything the more people use it the less useful it becomes (what is the point in seeing where your enemies are if they are doing the same thing to you, essentially canceling out its tactical advantage)
@ Nutduster: I knew before the game even came out that I'd solely be using the Boltshot. Watching one game of MLG with Legit using it made it pretty obvious. As for Pro Vision, when we first started seeing videos I was really interested by the balance between that and Thruster. Before the nerf, Thruster sent you further and kept you first person, making it MUCH more useful (it was basically an ever so slight nerf of Evade). When I saw that I was thoroughly looking forward to how that and Pro Vision would interact as choices (since none of the others looked worth considering for skilled players). Do you choose a serious movement advantage which could really help with battles (Thruster) or do you go for an awareness and positioning boost (PV)? I was really hoping that choice would define the competitive experience with AAs and solidify their place in high level player (and hopefully MLG) as something with balance, options and purpose. Then they nerfed the hell out of Thruster and suddenly PV was the only one worth using, just as you say, removing the dynamic potential for AA choice meta game in competitive play. I was really, really disappointed with that, pre nerf Thruster looked beast. I can see why they wanted to be sure it wasn't OP, but keeping it first person and giving it a boost length somewhere in between now and the original iteration would have kept it a viable choice. The third person aspect almost rules it out as a mid battle one-up, which I suspect may have been their intention, wanting to keep it a defensive/nade dodging sort of thing. Disappointing imo. @Pac: well it depends what you mean. In the context we're talking about (ie. viable choices in AA), it's the only one worth choosing as far as I'm concerned. I don't think it breaks the game (which is what you seem to mean by overpowered in this discussion), but compared to the other AAs it's OP, or rather none of them are useful enough. Jetpack is by far the closest, but still not there imo. It doesn't have to break the game to damage the AA choice aspect.
Did we really believe that the meta would ever feature anything but the best choice? Balance will never be perfect unless the abilities function the exact same way and we're playing on the same, static field. I mean one of the greatest factors in choosing PV over anything else for me is the fact that there really aren't any arena spaces. Haven comes the closest and is one of the maps that I use PV less on (it's always equipped, I'm just not relying on it). If we had more maps with selective vertical movement, we'd see more jetpack for sure. Currently it's just the map selection that really leans toward PV being the ultimate ability. Thruster still has its uses and while it is nerfed I think people just haven't learned it well enough yet (like the Boltshot complainers). But really, we have Camo, Regen, Holo and Sentry outside of Jetpack/PV/Thruster. Regen is either going to be OP or crap, Camo is niche and annoying gameplay, Sentry is the same deal as Regen and Holo really can't be much more effective than it is. So your complaint is really that there aren't enough jetpack-centric maps (those maps are usually bad) and that thruster is nerfed/people haven't figured out all of its uses yet. I don't really know that the meta can be much different than it is. PS: One thing I think that hurts JP is control schemes. I'd use it if I didn't want Bumper Jumper. Fully customizable controls needed to exist for this game.
It's nice to be back here. I've put together a first impression hopping from house to house while I still didn't have power. I don't have the time to scroll through everything I missed, so I'll spoiler this and get back to the topic. Spoiler When I play MM I think I'm starting to see a huge shift away from CQC gameplay in the Trilogy in most cases and an emphasis on scopes and long distances, much moreso than usual even for BTB. Most games I play on Meltdown, Complex, Ragnarok/Valhalla (especially this) and to an extent the other two BTB maps Vortex and Exile become games that remind me of 'Trench Warfare' from Halo 3/Reach. 8-16 people staring at each other over hills and various cover gunning down anyone foolish enough to try and do something in no man's land. The center lift on Valhalla is practically a suicide if the other team is positioned by the laser spawn. The middle bridge on Meltdown has the same effect. Ghosts get shredded after a splatter or two on a scoped Spartan, and only heavy vehicles and coordinated pushes seem to have a chance at breaking a stalemate or gaining ground. Even maps like Haven have a lot of LoS and few places where you are actually safe from most angles. It looks to me like the incentive to move is greatly diminished, and people are beginning to figure this out. With huge open areas and LoS for sprint, most drops being personal ordinance in Infinity modes and the others being largely in out of the way areas, and an emphasis on high-powered scope primaries (DMR and LR seem to be the weapons of choice, particularly the DMR), pushing is a lot more difficult and a lot less rewarding. It makes me sad; I usually love to be aggressive and push. I roll Boltshot, PV, Shielding, and Dex on all of my kits except Heroic, which has no AAs or perks. (So to relate to what was being said above, I have to agree that PV and the Boltshot are very useful. Not necessarily OP out of their minds, but they have a more useful function than the other options.) Only difference is BR/DMR/Carbine (and soon to be LR for loadout 5). I started playing Objective more while the playlists still have a very healthy population. At least people have to cross the map fairly frequently. On another note, I thought the campaign was stellar, if not a bit too easy and hard to follow for anyone without a Halo background. A couple of my friends were completely lost. Looking forward to completing SpOps with friends, but I think I'll tire out of the MP in a month or so. I don't like every game playing out like Boardwalk or Blood Gulch did, and to me that's the shift I'm seeing. PV being a go-to doesn't surprise me. I'll bet a go-to primary (coughcoughDMR) will emerge within half a year. The others will have uses, but the general, all-purpose, useful to all thing tends to win out. Loadouts tend to do that after a while. Best counter-example I can name is TF2, but even that has some obvious 'this isn't going to be the best choice' weapons. Also about the maps, I really miss CQC, and Ragnarok is slowly turning me bitter towards Valhalla, which is something I don't want to happen.
Yeah, but the "best choice" would have been much less clear cut if they hadn't nerfed Thruster. I definitely stand by that. Movement and battle advantage vs. positioning and awareness advantage, that seems like a pretty obvious balance to me. It's so strong in terms of division and player preference that you have more slack in how perfectly balanced they have to be to still both be viable. If they hadn't uber nerfed the Thruster I think we'd have two viable choices, and even with a preferable one we'd still see them playing off against each other. Now Thruster is.... I won't go so far as to say useless, but nothing near a contender with PV. That's specifically not my complaint, and for the precise reason that they are awful. JP isn't an enhancement to standard movement, it's an alternative to it, and that's why you need maps which accommodate it. This inherently demands a reduced emphasis on regular movement to traverse it, which compromises it in terms of the basic game mechanics for the sake of one ability. That's why Thruster would have been so perfect. PV is a compliment to standard awareness and positioning (since an alternative type of awareness isn't really a possibility, it's not subject to distinct dimensions like movement around a space is), and Thruster would have complimented standard movement. That's your meta game right there. It's only got 2 sides, it's not Starcraft by any means, but it'd be interesting to see who chose what and whether people switched, and how teams set up the roles. You've basically described exactly how it could be different, but totally glossed over it by saying "the thruster is nerfed." Yeah, it's nerfed, and one of the two viable options is basically no longer useful enough to be viable anymore at a competitive level. That goes from interesting (if binary) meta game, to next to no meta game at all. I don't understand how you can't see the difference a stronger Thruster would have made. Seriously, go back and watch some early Thruster footage, then tell me it doesn't look beastly. It's the kinda thing you could use to actually get the jump on someone, not just move like a metre or two closer to them. It also had infinitely more potential for use mid battle, something that's all but gone from it now. As for other uses, yeah I guess that's probably true to an extent. But in terms of a truly viable alternative to PV, it must be a strong compliment to movement in a basic sense. It can evolve, but the basic usefulness of it should be clear since it's complimenting such a fundamental part of the game. "Other uses" for stuff like this generally end up being situational, like being able to get from point X to Y on a given map which is a nice leg up, but not a general use for the thing. If it was gonna be an influential part of battles at large for the user, that's the kinda thing that's reasonably obvious from the start.
Except I'm not entirely sure thrusters even accomplish getting to X to Y faster. With sprint default the time it stops you using sprint could be more detrimental then actually using it. Unless mean X=in open and Y=behind cover. I use 10 sensitivity and doesn't move you that much faster to the side behind cover then turning and sprinting (and sprinting get you there faster if not immediately beside you) It doesn't actually move you that far or fast.
I wasn't really directing that you peg, more so all of the people on your side. However, my point basically is: you're not specifically concerned about a more interesting meta as you are about a better thruster. IMO binary meta doesn't really work because balancing those two is nearly impossible. On will always be better than the other in some ways and if those ways suit the specific playspaces better, it will be the better choice. The BR vs DMR is a perfect example of how this binary meta doesn't work. The DMR is the better weapon in a straight up fight between the two. This doesn't mean the BR isn't still useful in many situations, but currently the BR is really useful in stuff that wouldn't necessarily be brought into this meta (like SWAT). Basically what I'm saying is: if thruster wasn't nerfed and was its good, ol' self then it would be the choice, especially if the competitive meta for maps moves toward an arena setting (where PV is less useful already). So without the ability to have multiple choices in the meta (which is difficult, given the general on/off oped nature of the other AAs), you're going to end up with a fight between PV and Thruster. PV won this one and I think it's more so that you're upset that it isn't Thruster that did, not that the meta isn't interesting because for the meta to be interesting Thruster and something else would have to be both equally as viable. Also MLG isn't using PV (at least as of Dallas) and likely neither will any other competitive scenes. Thruster will get some better usage on maps designed with it in mind I think. As for matchmaking? Again, I think it's the current map selection. Even changing between gametypes you see various AAs used. With some different map styles, I think PV could see a decrease in use even in slayer.
Basically that, yes. It's not overpowered like rockets, it's overpowered like the precision weapon du jour in Halos 1-3. As in, you COULD use an AR or SMG instead, but if you do so you're choosing to disadvantage yourself - sometimes just a little bit, sometimes heavily so. And I think this will become more apparent as people start using pro-vision more, and more intelligently. It's a small (but still meaningful) advantage mid-combat, when people duck around corners and so forth, but its bigger gain is in showing you the position and heading of most of the players on most of the map, even when behind cover and not moving, which is significant. What separates the best MLG players from the mediocre ones isn't just a superlative set of twitch reflexes, but a brain that is constantly computing this kind of information based on limited data. Pro-vision is or will be an overwhelming favorite for anyone who understands the advantage it gives, which basically detracts from the interesting possibilities of the meta game. Personally, I could never see myself using any other AA on any map except BTB, where a couple of others might come into play, and pro-vision is inherently less useful.
Chrs. No. I think the Thruster was the best offset against PV to create the better meta. It's a means to that end. I think the interplay of movement and awareness are, out of all the AAs shown here or in Reach (and those I've seen suggested), the two most fundamental and general and thus provide the best two dynamic, offsetting choices rather than situational crap. I know what I think, chrs, I don't really need you to tell me that rather than just reading my posts and taking them at face value. I totally disagree that Thruster would be the only choice worth making in a competitive sense if it wasn't nerfed. PV would still be awesome, why do you think it would be shoved aside for Thruster? If it was, I'd just just as disappointed, hence why I disagree about this just being a complaint regarding nerfed Thruster for its own sake.
Honestly, I find camo to be more OP'ed than PV. I'm pretty much guaranteed +10 to my spread when I use it over any of the others. I've really enjoyed the Mp, but a lot of the additions were just as bad as I had thought originally. Ordinance: everyone with binary or rockets is infuriating. I think I understand why they did it (less need for map knowledge I guess, more noob friendly) but couldnt they just have set weapon placements with those ordinance packages dropping every 2-3 minutes to notify people that it respawned in the same spot? Im pretty sure new players would pick up on weapon locations if they see something fall out of the sky in the same place every 3 minutes. Instant respawn: this in combination with sprint allows me to get a revenge within seconds of respawning a lot. Its too easy to get back to a fight before the enemy recharges his shields. No more ally indicator for when they shoot. Your teammates' tags used to flash yellow when they were firing and red when they were getting shot. It only shows when they get hit now. No more "on my x": not a big deal just kind of inconvienient. Grenades: why no halo3 grenades? It seems like the grenades take longer to explode. Which is annoying because even if you throw a grenade right at their feet, they have plenty of time to just sidestep it. Also, I practically don't use BR anymore unless it's abandoned or haven. The DMR is clearly the better weapon. It's easier to use and it has much more range.
That was a painfully obvious result of this change. I called it months ago. But as frenetic as the multiplayer is, it seems to matter less than I would have thought. Map control in general is less of a big deal now (mostly because of ordnance, also partly because of AAs and map design) so the fact that you can race back and kill someone who just killed you usually only affects the final score by that one kill. In my so-far-limited experience, anyway. They (343 and Bungie) have never quite figured out 'nades. It's been this constant push-pull since the original Halo of nerfing them, buffing them, changing the physics and the fuse time, etc. The addition of sprint, evade and thruster in Reach and H4 probably only made that equation more complicated. They definitely feel weak to me - I think 343 underestimated how a 'nade nerf + everyone always having sprint would make the things substantially less useful than they were in Reach.
I really liked grenades in Halo 3. They weren't meant to kill; they were meant to take away someone's shields to finish him off with a headshot afterwards. An original and fun approach at grenades, and increasing the grade of skill in gameplay. But from what I've heard grenades in H4 are at least not as powerful as they were in Reach so that's a huge plus. I wish they would be exactly like H3 again though. That just sucks. I don't have the game yet but I will definitely start with the BR. I really missed that weapon and it's a shame the DMR is better then, because I just don't like that weapon as much as the BR.
Knew that'd be your response lol. All I'm saying is I feel this is another DMR vs BR situation. You're not mad the DMR is better are you?
Does anyone else think the BR just looks like a Famas from MW2? Lol. It almost sounds the same as well! I don't really know what's going on with the PV v Thruster AA discussion but I dislike the Thruster now. I used it for the first 3 days of online play solid, and it's sole usage is to dodge a grenade and nothing more. It doesn't assist in crossing gaps, it's annoying as hell going into third person which is completely unnecessary, it doesn't assist in dodging bullets and it doesn't actually dodge anything fast or quick enough... PV on the other hand is pretty useful (It works a lot like Blacklight; Tango Down) and it's cons are it reveals your position on the radar even if you aren't moving.