Well, the BR has its strong sides, it just loses in a battle with an DMR mostly. And stevo, i agree, it does look like an famas. But the famas is one of my favorite weapons so i dont really care. But the halo version does sound better. The complex bug is really annoying me, and it does not only count for Oddball. I have been encountering this bug in flood too. The last man would just camp in that wall until its over.. Those people who do that are game-ruiners. Or bitches. But flood is becoming irritating anyway.
Frankly, the DMR vs. BR situation isn't quite as bad as I thought it'd be. It's more viable at short range than I initially thought, partly because it's got more forgiving aim and bullet magnetism. Would I prefer a harder to use but more powerful/versatile BR, even though I'm a DMR user? Yes. I would. But I guess the main argument against that is that, to achieve it, you basically have to give the BR more ranged capability, which then brings them even closer together in functionality. EDIT: Though actually, I'm really coming round to your old suggestion of making the BR a 4 shot but decreasing the RoF a tiny bit (as well as making it less forgiving in terms of aim and bullet mag, of course). It should still kill a little faster than it currently does, bringing it inline with the DMR, but I'm realising that lowering the kill time whilst keeping it a 5 shot would be difficult and, imo, not as useful. If it maintains it current range capability, but is more of a force to be reckoned with in mid to short range precision battles, it'd be able to hold its own an appropriate amount imo. 4 shot, slightly lower RoF and harder to use would be, imo, an ideal BR to balance against the DMR. I think it's somewhat different from the PV vs. Thruster argument, because those are two distinct abilities which are fundamentally different in purpose, as opposed to two almost identical weapons with nuanced differences. Keeping them both viable but distinct wouldn't be nearly as challenging.
Perhaps we should avoid using the word "overpowered" then. Overpowered implies significant advantage is given to players who use the "overpowered" thing that others can't compensate for easily. Equating to higher scores on average for those who use it to those who don't. If the context is just "in comparison to other AAs" then sure, pro-vision is more useful in more situations then the other ones but again, to claim they are "overpowered" just by nature of the others being less useful is not what "overpowered" should mean. Yes, it's a semantics argument, sue me. As chrs was pointing out, the problem then lies with the other AA's being less useful not pro-vision being as useful as it is. To "nerf" pro-vision would not balance the AA use. How do you nerf it in a way that would? Reduce the time you have to see? Reduce its range? All things that keep its tactical advantage and the same amount of people who still be using it just because its very nature is more helpful then camo, thruster, regen field, etc.
I'm still runnin' Thruster Pack. It gets panned a lot, but it's damned useful, especially for someone movement oriented like me. -Use to get off grenade impacts -Use to dodge vehicle splatters -Use to jump around corners when one-shot. -Can use to dodge backwards into fun and hilarious assassinations. -Can change your direction mid-jump. I honestly like it a lot more than Promo vision.
I already made a pretty specific suggestion on that: when someone scans using it, just give them a static image rather than a moving one. They see exactly the same thing they normally would for that millisecond, but it's just where players WERE and which way they were facing, etc. rather than giving them x-ray vision updated in real time for as long as it's active. The basic information is still given (and is still incredibly useful), but you can't just keep it on and plot a course to intercept. If you want regularly-updated pro-vision info, you'd have to scan multiple times (each one draining a fair amount of the available energy, I would think, so that it depletes quickly and you can't just keep tapping it over and over). This approach actually makes more sense to me given the way the scan is depicted, and I think it would balance the AA better against the others in the toolbox, making it about 25% less useful and therefore not a clearly-superior choice compared to the rest.
I doubt that suggestion would curb the amount of people that would use it. As I said, just the very nature of the AA in giving you positional awareness makes it very useful in many maps. Since we're no longer referring to it as "overpowered" as I have been defining it in terms of actual numbers or capability of swaying a match and just in terms of its use compared to the other AA then we have to also take into account each AA in turn. Even if you nerf pro-vision to a third of its tactical usefulness the other AAs just don't have the same value in using them as often. I realize competitive players dislike AAs in general and this discussion is obviously bordering on the discussion of "well if we just get rid of them we wouldn't have this issue to begin with" but they are there and each one is different and each one is not equivalent to another one despite what 343 might have hoped for. Making one less useful doesn't make the others all of a sudden more useful, not when the others each have distinct uses and situations when they are useful that do not overlap with what pro-vision does. As chrs and I have tried to point out, the complaint should be why the other AAs aren't more useful, not that pro-vision is as useful as it is. If we make each AA so unuseful that they no longer provide any advantage to using them then sure they become "balanced" in relation to each other but now no one will use any of them.
This is why a lot of developers scale UP instead of nerf. For example, increasing the distance of Thruster Pack to make it more appealing. Or, Extend the duration of Jet Pack again (This got nerfed a little hard IMO). Other ideas include: -Allowing your shields to regen while using Hardlight, albeit at a reduced rate -Better programming for Hologram to actually make it shoot/strafe. (This is possible) -Making the knock back/regen on Regen Field ACTUALLY useful. -Active Camo is mostly fine as is. It's the nature of the beast for good players to be able to pinpoint you regardless. Though perhaps make it so the radar cluster isn't necessarily centered on you. Just some thoughts.
Hologram, jet pack and camo are sufficiently useful as-is that I think they would be used more if there wasn't a clearly more-useful option in the form of pro-vision. Thruster probably needs a buff to compete; they went overboard in scaling it back from evade. This is all sort of guesswork without actually playing them in a live game context, of course. But right now I think pro-vision is inherently TOO useful and gives the player too much information, for too long of a period of time, for there to be any other rational choice for a good, tactical player to make in a standard 4v4 game. I'm curious, Pac - is there anything in any Halo game that you would change? Your fundamental position on everything seems to be "it's fine as is." Personally I like all the Halo games, but I also like to tinker - I don't think there's a single one of them that couldn't have benefited from a little fine-tuning.
The issue here is you're stating a problem (which, personally I don't believe is one) that has no solution. If you scale back pro-vision in any numerous of ways you still have an ability which grants the user enhanced positional awareness. Since you, nor I, have anyway of knowing how many people would not use that AA if it was nerfed we can't just say it would be a better alternative to what it currently does. As I said, if 343i keeps nerfing every single ability to the point of all of them being "balanced" in relation to each other yet useless as an option players would want to use then that causes larger problems then currently exist. I would change lots of things in the various Halo games I've played over the years, however I temper my expectations with reality and simply bitching about them (not saying that is what you're doing) doesn't fix the problems. If I agree with what someone is saying about some change they would like to see, what is the point of me chiming in to reaffirm the same belief, other than as a form of digital pat on the back to the person giving the same opinion as me. If someone directly asked me my opinions regarding something specific I would give them but I won't just regurgitate things others have said just for the sake of me seeming like I engage in conversations that aren't just arguments. Also, as a basic point of contention to your statement, I just did tell you something that I would change in my last response by saying "the complaint should be that the other AAs should be made more useful"
That's why they call it "speculating." I for one have never held to the notion that reality will always be wildly different than the on-paper version, when the paper is drawn up by smart and experienced people. Of course there are always surprises, but what we're doing here is very-educated guesswork; nothing wrong with that. All I'm saying is that when I first fired up the pro-vision myself I immediately had one thought: "I will never use anything other than this. Good God." And I don't believe I would have had that reaction if the feedback it gave me was static rather than dynamic. That's the thing: you seem to approach everybody else's suggested changes as if they are merely bitching or at least engaging in wildly unrealistic wishful thinking. What part of what I've said here triggered this response from you? Or what part of anything I've ever said, for that matter? I'm hardly part of the "no more AA's!!!!" crowd. I just think the sandbox would be more interesting if more of the options in it seemed viable to me, and with pro-vision as it currently stands, they aren't. But you don't actually think that, do you? I took that as you engaging in speculation about how to fix a problem if there even was a problem, which you don't believe there is. Correct me if I'm wrong.
I just played war games again, and i have the intention that they buffed the BR. But im not sure though.. Hadn't used it a while. And the needler? Didnt use that yet unfortunatly, but i know how it acted a few days ago, so i will pay notice to that. I do agree on some of the AA opinions. - The jetpack is nerfed, yay.. But way too hard yes. - Regen field unfortunatly is not so useful. - Thruster pack is good (If they only removed it from flood..) - Promo vision does show alot, they could nerf the sight in ways that the scan goes slower, or the vision is only limited. - Hardlight shield is how it is supposed to work, but i think you should just regen your shield, but slower. - Auto sentry.. Meh. - Hologram, its as it always has been, but showing a name above it, and actually showing a pinpoint on the map, i wish however that they could make the hologram move some more, starfe and shoot. - Camo is fine.
The problem with speculating is when you start deciding how wrong something is based on how you would want it done if you were in charge. Since nothing is perfect and people have every right to discuss how to make things better I don't get involved in those kind of opinions. You started this discussion with the statement, "pro-vision is overpowered". That is not just speculation on how to fix it that is a statement which should be backed up with evidence to support your belief. My response was always to that statement of it being "overpowered". Also, just because your initial reaction to it was "this is very good, why would I use anything else" doesn't mean that it is bad and needs fixing. You're viewing it as if because it is good it must be bad for the game. I'm saying that is not the case, and if it were making it worse wouldn't necessarily make the game better (that is where the "speculation" part comes in but since your view on it is no more valid then mine it kinda is a wash now isn't it) And this is the part that annoys me when people assume my goal is to have my beliefs infringe on theirs. Just because I don't give my complaints and I argue (sometimes) with those who do does not mean I would have those people not give their opinions or complaints. Discussion or arguments are a two way street. If the other person doesn't engage in one with me then I have nothing to say either. Even if you aren't part of that "no more AA's" crowd your suggestions still overlap with those that are in that camp (essentially nerf the hell out of everything until people stop using AAs because they become more detrimental to the individual than advantageous). The alternative to nerfing abilities so that they all suck in comparison is to increase the usefullness of the other ones so they all have distinct purposes. I don't think pro-vision is "overpowered", that is the problem I don't feel exists. I didn't say there wasn't a problem with AA use in general as that wasn't the topic. The lack of any vertical oriented maps makes jetpack extremely unhelpful for movement or height advantages along with its barely 5 seconds of hang time timer. Active camo is useful in its own way, I wouldn't really change that one (and I do see a fair amount of people in games use that one). Thruster, as Pegasi mentioned should be brought back within the realm of what it did before it was nerfed, or at least kept first person. Regen is perhaps more niche to well coordinated team-play since as it stands currently it isn't fast enough or useful enough to help 1 person as well as it should. It's two sides of a coin here, you feel pro-vision should be brought down to the others level (of niche, kinda-helpful in certain situations) and I feel like the pro-vision is one of the few AA's (camo being the other) in just the right place but the less useful ones should be improved to make them hold water better. Your take is based on the predication that each ability has some sort of equivalence that if you nerf one the others suddenly are more viable. I am saying that is not the case, the other AAs are not equivalent and making one worse does not make the others better options. On a completely separate note, this video made me nostalgia. Reminded me of attempting those base to base jumps in halo CE as well as from forerunner structure to forerunner structure in the CE campaign Things to do in: Halo 4 - Mongoose Jump - YouTube
But I quickly clarified what I really meant, why are you still hung up on that? That's not true. I've said numerous times now that my main interest is in a more diverse sandbox where more of the available options are viable. The meta-game is more interesting if not everyone is using the same primary, secondary, AA and perks - I assume you would agree. Yet it's taken just a couple weeks for obvious best choices to emerge for several of those categories, even to me (who hasn't played much multiplayer yet). Interestingly I've never really minded that there was always a dominant utility weapon in past Halo games, which is something a lot of people complained about in a similar fashion (that it ruined the meta-game). I don't know how to feel about that. But I do know that I think 343 wanted Halo 4 to be a rich and diverse experience, which it won't be if everyone starts using the same things. That's a complete misrepresentation of my opinions. I am recommending one specific nerf for one specific AA which would make it only about a quarter less useful. I felt the same about armor lock (which they did) and jetpack (which they didn't do at the time, but have done since) in Reach. That's hardly "nerfing the hell out of everything." I also would suggest a buff for thruster, and DID suggest a buff for hologram which happily it got. What I want is more balance. What's the point of loadouts if there are clearly superior loadouts? I do think there's some merit to that idea, yes. I choose pro-vision exclusively because it's so beneficial that the potential benefits of other AAs are outweighed by it. If it was less beneficial and/or harder to use, I'd see the others as more viable choices; I might take camo for example, which is (as you say) more than situationally beneficial, but right now pro-vision is so overwhelmingly better IMO that I would never choose camo at all. And like I have mentioned, I'm already in favor of buffing at least one other AA (thruster) to improve its viability; I may end up feeling the same about others after I've had more experience with them. I also can't deny that my feelings about it are informed by my feelings about enhanced radar. To players of a certain skill level, knowing other players' whereabouts at almost all times is too great of an advantage. If you give them that as an option, they'll never take anything else. -- Love that video, by the way. Halo physics have always been one of the big things that set the game apart from more boring shooters.
I have to agree with Nutty here. Pro-vision is far to useful not to use 90% of the time. Except btb obviously, which I use camo in. All other AA's just don't seem as useful. I like the idea ofa static picture, that would be an appropriate nerf.
I'm confused as to why the shipped forge variants aren't in matchmaking. At the very least Relay could work perfectly for a lot of gametypes. Settler seemed like a complete mess but Erosion's variant seemed like it would've been a solid choice for Big Team.
This exactly. Why not add more variety? I do believe someone quoted 343 as saying that they would like to rely less on Forge maps. I can't seem to find that statement, though. I know it was there...
On an unrelated note, my friend pointed out to me that while you cannot scope in before you charge a Railgun, you can use the binoculars (which have a good set of crosshairs for distance IMO) after beginning the charge for easier Railgun sniping. I'm not sure if this is old news or not, but I found out a couple of days back and it has made for some lulz-worthy cross-map shots.