Now that I consider it further, the idea is so logical that I wonder why Halo has never messed with it. I don't think any gun in any Halo game does that - they always use bloom, bullet spread, or some other mechanic instead. But a damage drop-off would achieve similar results (precision weapons aren't god-weapons at all ranges) while still satisfying competitive players (their shots land when aimed properly, and it's still possible to win battles through skill rather than random). It's so beautifully simple, and it's even vaguely realistic since bullets do lose velocity over distance and might actually do less damage - not to a person, but maybe to an energy-shielded spartan. Or at least it's a good game simulation of reality, which is that it's much harder to hit targets that are a mile away. It would also be a great all-purpose mechanic (not just for the DMR) that could be applied in a lot of nifty ways. How about a more focused, less-spread shotty with a steep damage drop-off? A precision shotty that still won't 1SK a guy twenty yards away, but no more having to melee every single close-range blast to compensate for random missed pellets - I think I'd love that.
I've read that people think that grenades are too weak, but I've seen players spam them, and in those case, you are thankful that they aren't too powerful. that would be very cheap if you could easily kill by just throwing randomly a bunch of grenades. in another hand, I think that some explosive weapons are too strong, such as the incineration cannon or the sticky detonator (I have yet to see a rocket launcher or covenant launcher in game) the railgun has a charge time, but is still extremly powerful if you find some kind of "sniping" spot. those weapons take almost no skill, just aim in the general direction of the enemy, and boom, dead.
That's just how explosive ordnance works though. And has, since the first Halo. I am more in favor of other kinds of nerfs (ammo limit, clip size, reload time, etc.) rather than changing how they actually behave when you shoot them - they should be powerful; these are power, not precision, weapons. I have to say, I haven't really had a problem with any of the big explosive weapons in H4, except the frequency with which people seem to have them and the amount of ammo in them. I think the ammo perk needs nerfing, and as I also mentioned up top, personal ordnance could be tweaked - but I wouldn't change any of the actual weapon functionality, I don't think. They work fine considering how quick kill times generally are in this game, and how dominant precision weapons can be. You can VERY often beat someone with an explosive power weapon just by keeping your distance and aiming your shots well. Actually, I feel like this might be the first Halo since CE where I am comfortable going against somebody with rockets when all I have is my default primary (DMR now, pistol back then).
Precisely, when it occurred to me I was surprised that it hadn't been done in a Halo game before. Call me cynical, but I still believe that there's a reason random mechanics are favoured, and it's the same reason that the competitive community dislike them: they level off the skill gap to an extent. Actually, I guess this doesn't need to be framed as cynicism. Ultimately, Bungie always aimed to make a fun experience, not the most competitive one possible, it's just that their view on what was fun tended heavily towards forming a very solid competitive base as well. Not to say they were without sympathy for the competitive pursuit, but to a point, and fair enough really. Part of this is allowing for less competitive or less skilled players being able to hold their own against people at the other end of the spectrum to keep it fun for lots of people. This is an advantage of the random mechanics. Sure, less competitive players will suffer from it just as much as competitive players, but they'll sure notice it less. What they'll notice is getting beaten a little less, and are probably more likely to benefit from randomness than highly skilled players are, since the latter base their actions heavily around expected results. Not massively to my liking, but I think I can see why random mechanics are a clear favourite. They don't eliminate the skill gap by any means, but they do a good job at curtailing it. I think this argument doesn't hold as much weight in Halo 4. No longer being able to pick up nades without a special perk reduces spamming MASSIVELY. Why, therefore, does Halo 4 need the weakest nades of the whole series alongside this mechanic? OK, I think "almost no skill" is a bit strong for the Railgun or Sticky Detonator. The Railgun has a charge time which requires prediction, and also a travel time which means that you have to lead slightly at range. It also isn't that strong, the radius is pretty slim. I think it's a solid skill weapon. How you could call the SD overpowered is a mystery to me, I'm afraid. And yes, the Incinerator Cannon is pretty damn strong. One could argue that such a strong weapon isn't necessary given the role that Rockets already fill, but I don't think it has a negative impact upon the game tbh. Very strong weapons which are relatively easy to use are well established in Halo, they just have to be power weapons. The skill aspect is focused on controlling them. Now in terms of random or personal ordnance, this kinda goes to pot, so I DO take issue with that aspect, but in principle I don't think strong and easy to use weapons are an inherently bad thing. EDIT: Also this: Capable, quick killing precision primaries are a big deal in offsetting strong explosives.
if I'm not mistaken, the incineration cannon has those nerfs, but it doesn't really matter when you are dead after the 1st shot. I might be used to timesplitters, where explosives actually required you to hit the enemy, or shoot extremly close to him in order to kill him, it still required less precision than precision weapon, but you had to anticipate movements.
Or Quake. <3 Rocket Launcher. It's certainly a valid game design principle, but just not what Halo has ever really been about. Precision weapons are a fundamental part of the game, but strong weapons that focus on pickup control are as well, and have been since CE which had hella powerful Rockets too.
I love the drop-off idea. love it. I too feel comfortable going up against someone with rockets with just a DMR.. and I actually get the kill often enough.. Which also reminds me of noobs aiming rockets at someone's body instead of the ground under them..
Sorry, but the DMR needs nerfing, both in ROF and damage. I'm getting tired of people shooting at me with that thing from the otherside of the map, to the point that I absolutely hate that weapon. People use that weapon all the time, regardless of distance. It gets to the point sometimes where I don't want to play the game anymore. I would go so far as to say that the DMR should NEVER have been introduced in the first place. As for the AR buff I suggested, I stand by that opinion. But as I said previously, limit the buff to the damage, not the range. Most freakingly definitely nerf the Boltshot.
that might be it, there seem to be a lot of people running around with sticky detonators. getting just one or two cheap kills with the incineration cannon in a match is ok.
There's a lot to break apart here. First of all, the ROF and damage nerfs you're proposing would have nothing to do with what you claim to be the real problem with the weapon, which is long-range cross-mapping. That little problem is caused by extreme accuracy at distance. If it took another shot to kill you or the ROF was slower, it wouldn't stop people from shooting you at those ranges; it would just take them an extra second to kill, and make the DMR less competitive in the short to mid-ranges with the other precision weapons. The specific nerf Pegasi already proposed (damage drop-off as distance increases) makes a lot more sense to address your exact complaint against the weapon. ROF and/or overall damage could ALSO be nerfed of course, but I don't see the point in that. The DMR doesn't kill much faster than any other precision weapon at mid-range, even if you land all your shots, which is tricky because the weapon is less forgiving than, say, the BR. Also, at short to short-mid-range it certainly won't kill faster than an AR - if the DMR user is lucky he'll squeak out a win or trade, but the forgiving reticule on the AR combined with fairly tight bullet spread and high damage will usually win out. A significant change to the DMR's basic ability to kill causes a ripple effect where you have to change a lot of other weapons to re-balance the whole sandbox. So I suggest: tackle the real problem (accuracy at distance) and don't just make the obvious change that fixes one issue (sort of) while creating a new problem that's even bigger. Also, I shouldn't get on my soapbox again but I can't seem to help myself. People complaining about the DMR's accuracy and small kill times at great distances have short memories, or just haven't played all the Halo titles. The DMR did not introduce this dilemma to Halo. The magnum in CE was a potential 3SK at any distance (damage-wise), was pinpoint accurate with no bullet spread that I am aware of, and required only a superfluous amount of shot-leading on a moving target. The BR in H2 and H3 both was a similar weapon with a small amount of additional bullet spread; the main reason people remember it being more forgiving over great distances was less about the game coding than the unintended random effect of network lag. It was simply harder to land shots on people all the way across Standoff when games were frequently laggy and the weapons weren't hitscan (even though the bullets traveled at near-hitscan speeds). H2's netcode, and/or the XBox Live network structure, were worse, to the point that a good third of the games I played, I couldn't even land BR shots on a mid-sized map like Midship. Besides the networks being made more robust, shot registration mechanics were changed for Reach specifically to account for this problem. Yes, in H2 and H3, if you played mostly on Live and not LAN/local, you could often get away with running around in the open like a fool because far-away people simply couldn't shoot you consistently - but that wasn't because the game was supposed to work that way. Or at least it was like an 80/20 split between the lag and the game design. I have distinct, repeated memories of getting cross-map butt-****ed in both H2 and H3 - sometimes on Live, more often on LAN. The DMR and the improved approach to shot registration amped that effect up a little in Reach and now in H4, but if you played 2 or 3 locally ever, or played CE at all, you have already experienced a Halo where the main precision weapon is a long-range monster. So I feel like 343 should be looking at a creative new suggestion like Pegasi's, and not generally nerfing the weapon (for reasons already explained), or re-introducing problematic controls like random bloom or bullet spread, which to me just make the game more frustrating overall - even if they make BTB more tolerable in some specific ways.
CE Pistol had decent spread if you held the trigger (aka. being a dumbass) and, I believe, a tiny amount if you feathered. But that doesn't undermine your point.
I really like this whole idea for precision weapons, but as you know, mention of the shotty in this subject would peak my interest. The shotgun has always been one of my favorite weapons since CE. But its mechanics always bothered me. The spread has always been a little to severe. Practically unrealistic. The drop-off mechanic would make so much more sense in this application. Its effective range should also be extended IMO. Same goes for the scattershot. Both cqc weapons could use a little buff.
Increasing the range of the shotgun alone won't fix the issues that I feel break it for competitive play, specifically, that it's used specifically to camp. Think a bit: If I walk around in an area with mainly mid-short range sightlines with a shotgun out, and an opponent has a DMR out, I'm done for. Backpedaling + me sprinting to catch up + being slowed, etc => I'm dead. So the only very effective use of the shotgun is for close quarters camping / corner camping. So, in addition to increasing the shotgun's range, I would improve the consistency of the bounce feature of the scattershot (now use it to COUNTER corner camping), increase its range, and make it less powerful at closer range. The shotgun/scattershot needs to change its role from promoting camping to punishing camping and sprint-double-pummeling in order to be effective for competitive play. This is in addition to the consistency fixes you guys have brought up earlier. With all this theorizing going on, I think Forgehub could develop an competitive FPS of its own, Peg
Start by saying I like the AR in Halo 4, It's good short-medium range and DMR can still beat it with a perfect 5 shot at medium range. Couple more things I hate about Halo 4 that directly effect AR. Bleed though melee is back, Goodbye skilled melee battles, Hello random melee battles, (Even if ARing then meleeing is a "Noob" tactic doesn't mean it should be randomized, The more skill gaps the better right?) Health indicators. No health packs so wont work same same as reach but still having the indicator there to know how much health you have is undeniably useful. With no shields there is no way of knowing if it takes 10~ AR/PP/anything shots or just 1 to kill you(or knowing when the health recharges or how fast it charges or if it refreshing when shields come back, without looking it up somewhere on internet after someones done tests) (Indirectly making headshots better and more reliable then the AR which has to destroy the health.)
Double melee is still a thing in halo 4 everyone has a upgraded sprint+AA's(specially Hardlightshield, Sprint+melee+shield block there melee+melee=dead) ,I'm primarily a CQC and vehicle player(vehicle boarding, PP, punching driver, etc) so I'm in more situations to melee then most. Also the bleed though melee makes it annoying and random to kill someone with melee. Specially with AR since the bloom You never know how many bullets have hit exactly so your like "This is about the amount of bullets needed to hit before the melee kills" then its like 50/50 if it actually was so you either got the kill or died because of the bleed though. If no bleed though you shoot till there visual shields are popped then melee and there dead. No randomness no guessing. You punch to early or late it was your fault and a bad play.
It's not actually "random" though, is it? Being hard to judge doesn't make it random. I don't want to get in to the whole melee bleed vs. no bleed thing again. I prefer bleed, but I see the arguments for no bleed as well. Still, tossing around words like "random" isn't correct or helpful. There are plenty of good arguments for no bleed, why use a bad one?