The Incineration Cannon just functions differently. It packs much more power at the cost of possibly killing yourself, not just harming. It takes more skill and carefulness and when you have that, you are rewarded with the extra damage it causes. The Fuel Rod Cannon should need 4 in a clip and it would be balanced. It has less damage than a rocket launcher and can't really harm vehicles but is better to supress enemies and kill inviduals instead of multikills.
I disagree. The difficulty of Rockets comes from travel time, and closer range kills with pretty much anything are easier since the player is bigger on your screen so you have more to aim at, moreso with Rockets since the travel time mechanic is almost negated. Predicting someone's movement and accounting for it in aim (and getting the jump also helps, which requires positioning and awareness) is harder than pointing at someone at close range and almost being guaranteed a kill, potential damage to yourself or not. The self damage mechanic is near binary. They're either far enough away to do damage without hurting yourself, and you do, or they're not, and you take that hit. There's very little skill curve in using them at close range, relative to longer range. Also, if the possibility of suicide is what makes it more skilful, an increased possibility of suicide should make it more skilful. Wait, why do you have no objection to Camo? You walk in to it (no demand in relative terms, by your logic) and gain a massive advantage (being invisible). How is that fine when OS isn't? And you're alright with OS as long as there's a burn mechanic, because it puts more skill on gaining it? I thought the whole issue you had was stuff should specifically take skill to use, not just gain? How does making it more skilful to control address your issue when your entire problem is supposedly with how difficult stuff is to use? So one reload would help, even though it's still easy to use? It seems like you've gone from "things should be difficult to use, not just obtain" to "the balance of these things isn't quite right." That's a pretty big chance in stance there, dude. One objects to the entire existence of powerful things that don't require too much precision, the other is merely suggesting balance tweaks. OK, I was reading too much in to your Halo 4 mentions in the OP. I suspected that this might be the case, just checking. Fair enough. My point with loadouts was basically addressing the root of your AA issue. Just like with Powerups really showing a problem with Personal Ordnance, the problem isn't with something that's easy to use, it's with how you gain it for doing nothing. If AAs are a problem because each specific one (except the awful ones) gives specific advantages, then my issue is with the fact that you get it by doing nothing more than picking a Loadout. That's why I'd like to see AAs on map, because then they'd fall in line with Powerups and Rockets etc.
The pistol was around in Halo CE and it's generally not in competitive settings anymore (or at least the majority of them). Not sure what you're going for here. I'm discussing on a competitive basis. If you disagree on another basis, I'm absolutely fine with that. I'm not going to turn this into a casual versus competitive thread. Although I'm not sure why mechanic changes would make the game dry.. could you elaborate? Come on. Everyone picked Sprint in Reach. I remember the figure being ~90%. There's no real play in that - it's just giving everyone sprint. My point was that Rockets were better than Incineration Cannon, not that both were amazing or anything. I haven't used Rockets much since H4's release (mostly because I've been playing largely custom 1v1/2v2s), so I can't really judge how binary the damage is without playing some more H4. Have no idea how it's changed.. Camo? There's a lot of skill required in using it - flanks while hidden for beatdowns, deciding when to shoot, finding the pseudo-invisible player, etc. As for OS, I mentioned the whole flag capping / objective usage requiring skill (setting up times so your flag carrier / other objective person can pick up OS) after the OP. One reload would help. There's nothing wrong with the concept of Instant Respawn, Sprint, or Rockets, the issue is the way they're implemented in Halos. My objection is to the implementation of things (because the implementation requires little precision) and the way we can fix this is to alter the implementation (balance tweaks). I disagree (or at least I disagree with how I'm interpreting you). Things need to require some skill to use. AAs tend to have some skill involved either on the use or the receiving side (thruster jumping, figuring out what's a hologram, listening for regen sound cues / fields). This isn't true with every AA (lolJetpack/Autosentry), obviously. I do agree that one issue is that you can get them from loadouts, but that's not the whole issue. Autosentry wouldn't be competitive even if you placed them on the map. Things like Thruster might, although there's a whole other question of "will anyone go off their path to pick up a thruster pack or is it something we're putting along a high-traffic path?"
It's still undeniably an advantage, one that you'll benefit from on some level even if you're not good with it. One that is gained by nothing more than walking in to it. Seeing the psudeo-invisible player is about the skill of the person fighting against the camo, not the person using it, so that's not relevant. Ultimately, it's just as much of an advantage as OS or Damage Boost. One gives you a movement and positioning advantage, another gives you a resistance advantage, and the third gives you a damage advantage. The fact that you object to one but not another, and only half to the third, is very much splitting hairs. Damage Boost has a visibility element, and just like OS you become a target. Hell, I'd much rather have Camo than Damage Boost, simply because I think it gives the most usable advantage. I'm afraid I really can't see your point in saying that one requires and appropriate amount of skill to use and the other doesn't. Your whole argument about "something for nothing" (I know I'm paraphrasing) is kinda falling apart here, because one by one you're accepting that everything takes some skill to use, just objecting to specifics of balance. Your premise seems all but undermined. So it's not "something for nothing" that you object to, but how much you get given for "nothing"? Wait wait wait. Now you're saying that AAs are, by and large, OK? How did we get there from this:
I don't personally care who requires the skill as long as it's there. If there's some kind of skill involved with receiving a Damage Boost other than make shots, that'd be better. I've realized some things have more relative skill than others, instead of speaking in absolute terms. Balance and the mechanics themselves are intertwined. One rocket shot is a bit more skillful because you can't try again if you miss. Obviously you need to have something off spawn, so it's impossible to have nothing (rather than something) for nothing (if that makes sense) all of the time. So I guess the premise I should be arguing is that there's too much for nothing, yes. Realization of relative. My realization was that a few AAs have some marginal skill beyond the baseline. Doesn't mean they're good relative to others, or for that matter, worth enough to use. Tell me a Regen Field, as it is, needs more skill than a Railgun. Perhaps I should have italicized "some" for clarity. You've already corrected a couple of my wayward points (absolute vs relative), and I actually agree with you.
But surely that's totally contrary to your argument. Requiring skill to fight against it rather than to use it makes the problem even worse, because it's even more of a reward given to the player who gets it by placing more demand on the player having to fight against it. OK, fair enough on those points. I guess my point was just that arguing balance issues isn't nearly as definitive as objecting to certain implementations outright. I think we've passed in to the realms of simply saying that 343/devs in general would do well to balance with a more fundamentally competitive mindset. That doesn't mean designing with MLG in mind, but simply trying to maintain a good balance between demand on player and reward gained. I'll still defend control as an element of skill, as well as use, to the death, though .
First point - Let me clarify. Skill in fighting a player with Rockets - it's a 1sk. You're seen and you're pretty much dead, even if you turn the corner, because of splash, because movement speeds are just not high enough. Skill in fighting a player with Camo - You see him or you don't. If you see him, you can hit first, and you have a good chance of winning because you pulled off the first shot. If you don't, he does. Even if you see the other guy a second or so before with Rockets and you don't have a sniper or some such, you're a goner. It's not that way with Camo. Now I'm starting to think Hologram might work if they were more lifelike and weapons had a very unforgiving magazine (holo, other guy uses his sole rocket, come out while he's reloading or have more even ground). But it's not like that in Halo, so oh well. As for control requiring skill, I think that goes for everything of worth, so it's largely a baseline and can be ignored in relative terms (unless it's something like OS where you can just grab it without control and survive) Agreed. Part of the original post was to point out flaws in the competitive mindset, which I suppose I did poorly
How could you not be sure what I'm going for? I haven't really read through all these comments, but your main point is that you want one hit weapons like the rocket launcher taken out of competitive settings, correct? And I'm saying they've been using it ever since Halo came to be, so why take it out now? Obviously they've found some reason(s) by now for keeping it in competitive settings. The pistol argument is irrelephant. Rockets were designed to be powerful and served their intended purpose of being a power weapon. The pistol, however, didnt serve it's purpose as a less useful, secondary weapon. It was too overpowered for its intended purpose and was therefore taken out from some competitive settings. I'm not sure what you're going for here.
Getting rid of one hit kills isn't what I want (Snipe, Railgun, Grenade Launcher are all skilled one-hits), but unskilled one hits can cause problems.
I'm using "dry" as in lacking interest or stimulation. (like lacking moisture) And let me answer your question with another question. If the rocket launcher is a free boost, then what do you suggest to change about it? Making it harder to get? (which has nothing to do with your initial argument) Or do you suggest taking it out of the game or harder to use? By eliminating "free boosts" like this the game becomes dry by means of nothing but BR/DMR battles and no change of pace, gameplay, nothing. Just straight rifle battles all day long, the same situation and no risk/reward at all. If you place a "reward" (rocket launcher) for players that requires some sort of amount of risk, it makes the game interesting as it gives the player more options. The more options you give a player, the more interesting the gameplay and replay value is. If you just stick to dry BR/DMR battles with no other options, the gameplay is dry and boring as the same thing happens over and over. However, the reward should be equaled to that of the risk. Simply having a rocket launcher in personal ordinance doesn't achieve this well. But, placing a rocket launcher in a neutral location on the map that requires good team work to grab it without dying does. You can't just say "press button for rocket launcher" is a free boost. It's so much more complex than that and you're only talking about the cover of the book, not the entire contents behind it. Edit: Also sprint is very natural for FPS and natural for combat scenario's period. It's not giving the player a free boost. If you take it away, it's handicapping the player. Sprint follows under your movement argument b/c in real life scenario, you would do the same. Combat rolls and dives are a little different though and would require experience doing them as people are very unlikely to do them in a real life scenario (do note I've served 2 tours in Iraq and earned my Combat Infantrysmen's Badge). Being able to press a button to do a combat roll is a free boost because it would be something hard to achieve in real world scenario and being able to pull it off flawlessly time and time again by pressing one button is not right. Sprinting however is very natural and should always be implemented but I think it should have some acceleration time added into it (like a second) and on top of that if you take a grenade blast or something similiar you should be knocked off your feet for about 1-2 seconds to add in some risks.
That's why I said one hit kill weapons like the rockets. And I was referring to the Halo CE pistol bit when I said I wasn't sure what you were going for.
ah, thanks for the info. yeah, I don't know any thruster jumps but I'd like to learn some being as that's the only AA I use.
When given the choice most players would choose evade over sprint ,Sprint is just the most generalized AA meaning its essentially the default when people choose other AA's they lost out on the advantage of sprint to gain other advantages. Giving choice and tactical options and counter play according to maps and other players. In Halo 4, Everyone has sprint as default no choice no options no skill no planning just "Press button to sprint" If this is your ultimate goal, it seems noble but not thought though enough. Rocket launchers are unskilled to use (compared to other weapons and how powerful they are) Agreed. But In all previous Halos this was balanced by having a neutral rocket spawns/Long respawn times/Map unsuited for rockets. -Neutral rockets mean the Skill involved with rockets is, Rushing an initial fight for it (Which involves team choosing how many to rush with comparing its value over other rushed objects etc etc) then if you win by sending more people to rush then rockets are your "Skill less reward" for completing that strategic rush, If you win by killing equal or more enemy's at that rushed rockets are your "Skill less reward" for been able to win a tough fight. -Long respawns stop it been dominate weapon during the game just a boost while its spawned/Picked up for people with good map control and preparation can be rewarded with. -Maps know how many rockets will spawn during one game and can adjust the map accordingly to how powerful you want the rockets to be.(open fields increasing travel time making it harder,Wide corridors and Slanted awkward floors/walls to make harder to get splash damage off) Halo 4 personal ordinance removes all that, Gives you "You got 5 kills here is a potential rocket launcher" ("potential" is important part because at least if it was "get 5 kills get rockets" you would know when to expect rockets but not since its random makes it a unpredictable "something for nothing")
"Natural" is a completely arbitrary term when applied to sprint in balance terms. How is it "natural" for FPS games to have sprint, because other popular ones do? That's not a sound argument by any stretch of the imagination. Your assertion that it's the default, and that taking it away handicaps the player, is again completely arbitrary. When you talk about a "real life scenario," I assume you're invoking realism in your support of sprint, and I shouldn't have to explain how ridiculous that is in a game like Halo. Even then, the point of this thread is discussing balance, not realism. Making something realistic doesn't inherently make it more balanced, especially when you pick and choose realism elements like Halo does. It doesn't even inherently make it more fun, subjective as this is, I'm sure we can all agree that having pain feedback from being shot would not enhance the game experience at all.
This is all very true, but the exact same thing can be said about power weapons in general, some of which take much more skill than Rockets. For instance, I could make your arguments about the Sniper Rifle.
I guess you don't pay attention to detail much. -I said nothing about other games having sprint so how is something I never said a "sound argument?" -I stated in real life terms it is very natural to sprint in combat scenario so it feels very natural to do that in a game that is design to replicate a combat scenario. You're very rude and I almost don't even want to respond to your ignorant post as you think no one should even consider sprint and anyone who does should be belittled and talked down to. Halo mixes realism and arena style. So yes, I'm allowed to compare sprint to the realism and the natural'ness of it in a firefight as a spartan isn't just going to walk everywhere even when he's under heavy fire. "Yeah, emm hemmm, I'm just going to take my time here, yeap." I don't agree with you what so ever and think you're argument is very poor compared to everyone else.
You need to remember, Halo is a game, it isn't real. It was never designed to follow any form of realism, there are loooads of elements of Halo that are completely unrealistic. It is how it is (first person, playing as a human, guns) because it is recognisable, it is something we can relate to. And it can be played competitively. Now, what you are saying here is that you want the game to include sprint because it follows realistic conventions (getting out to gunfire as fast as possible). But as a result of this realism, it has the potential to heavily impede on competitive gameplay. Why would you want a game to be realistic as opposed to competitive (hense, in a sense, more fun)? You could just as easily look at any other game, point out something that isn't realistic, and complain. But if this something was changed to be realistic, it could potentially be completely game breaking. A game doesn't have to be realistic, but a game has to be fun. That's what it boils down to and I know which I would rather have.
I rather have sprint and hated the idea that you couldn't have it until they added it into Reach. I don't think it should be in there to be realistic, to me, it just feels more natural and more competitive. If you're argument is that it shouldn't be in there for more fun, then sure. I have more fun with sprint being in the game though. I doubt they will remove it and everyone I know of that I play with personally (non FH) love sprint.
Oh okay, I thought that was the reason you wanted it in. I agree, I like sprint. I know it sounded like I didn't want sprint in the game but I just wanted to make a point
How is being able to sprint "more competitive" exactly? In my opinion, and many others, it is NOT more competitive. Here's why. Player's use sprint to RUN AWAY. This slows down gameplay. When a player is obviously out classed by a better player or team he just turns his back and RUNS. No, not everyone does, but it is an option. Also, being able to sprint (took this from Overkill) promotes a passive play style. When you sprint you are given an advantage to other players who are WIELDING THEIR WEAPONS. If I get someone down absolute, and they choose to run, I can't chase them and use my weapon at the same time. Sprinting is not more competitive, it is less competitive. I'm so sick of people running away from a fight.