I've seen posts that claim that long sightlines on non-BTB maps are a problem. Why is this? It seems to me that it could be the nature of zooming in with a DMR- if you get shot, you are unzoomed, leading to duels where you have to press the thumbstick between each hit or try to aim without it. It doesn't discourage long range battles as much as it allows the player who gets the first shot to keep an enemy from firing back. It's awkward, but being dezoomed does not really seem to help gameplay, except when the player has a sniper. A long range duel usually involves DMRs or a DMR and a sniper; because 2 DMRs have equal firepower, and there is no need to balance out the DMR against the rest of the weapons (weapons which couldn't return fire anyway) , I am perplexed as to why sonething that is perfect for balancing the sniper was used to make zoomed DMR/BR duels so awkward, and long sightlines undesirable on 4v4 maps. Does anyone know why this is, or does anyone agree that the DMR/BR should not be descoped under fire?
It's not so much of a problem since bloom was removed/reduced. Bloom made long range battles a test of luck rather than skill..
The best thing to do is to look to the actual Halo maps for your answer. There are plenty of non BTB maps that include large areas of long range combat: Sanctuary, Isolation, SnowBound, and many more. I think when people complain about sightlines they probably just don't like something about the map, but can't put their finger on it........and then they type something about sightlines.
For some reason the multi-quote didn't work. makisupa007, perhaps that could be the case. One of the posts even said "you wouldn't see sightlines that long on a Bungie map" when clearly the poster was wrong. This was a long time ago, though, and I forgot the map's name. Erupt, I disagree that 85% makes battles less random. In fact, if anything long range battles were the least random (aside from close to melee range, even with a full ROF it is precise) because players have a smaller chance of getting lucky if they fire even a bit earlier than when their reticle is eclipsed by the target than by doing the same at medium range, especially when you go for the headshot, because the head might be a bit smaller than the minimum reticle range (but this is unlikely if you zoom in). In other words, you have to pace completely at long ranges. 85% increased the average kill time and made it less effective to fully spam (there was a DMR statistical analysis studying it), emphasis on fully spam. I think that the 85% then must refer to the time it takes for the reticle to reset, not the area or radius of the reticle after a shot is fired, because the faster shrink rate wouldn't apply to spamming (there is a relatively short time between shots at max ROF, very little time for it to reset even if the bloom is reduced) as much as it would pacing, where the pacing time is reduced by 15%, leaving the spammer with one less shot to miss, as opposed to if the area was reduced, which would cause a larger increase in accuracy for the spammer to counteract the increase in the precise ROF. Think about it: In order for the reticle on 85% "time reset (faster rate of shrink)" bloom to make the reticle 15% smaller (as in 15% of the original bloom size) than the 100% bloom reticle size, you would have to wait the entire pacing time for the 85% reticle to fully reset- then the 100% bloom reticle would be 15% the area bloom in addition to the minimum reset area, assuming that the area decreases at a constant rate; at max ROF the difference in area (and thus percent chance of a hit) would be even smaller than 15%, making it almost as unlikely that you will be accurate as with 100%. However, with 85% "area bloom" the reticle would instantly be 85% smaller, and the difference in area between the two types of 85% bloom would become zero after the pacing time, when they are both fully reset, so you could also figure that area bloom amounts that are changing at different but constant rates (lines on a graph, x axis is time and y axis is area bloom) which pass through the same point have the upper line (85% time reset fast shrink bloom because it starts out with more area bloom) as always above the lower line until the point (same reset time/area- the area bloom of 85% shrinktime bloom will always be greater than that of 85% area bloom until it resets, and therefore will be greater at the max rof time between shots, meaning that the spammer will be less accurate in shrink time bloom than area bloom.) But regardless, the fact that full spammers are punished more is irrelevant to the problem with bloom, and Erupt, your use of the word "random" will make those who support bloom think that you don't know how to pace. I've posted this in other words before, but the problem is that when two players are equally accurate, the winner of the duel is not necessarily the player who fired first (as it would almost always be without bloom), but rather the player who decided to take a greater chance and luckily lands the shot. You don't have to fire as fast as possible every shot; you can pace your first four shots and fire your last shot a bit early, possible with a 60% chance of hitting, and you would win against anyone who fired later (even if the enemy fired when there was a 70% chance) more often than not, even though that chance can be random (i.e. you can flip 7 heads and 3 tails with a fair coin). You don't even have to count shots; firing faster when your shields are down is the best bet because you have nothing to lose if you miss, and if you're opponent is one shot, he may try to fire early, which could beat you if you pace. Most people understand another problem- if you fire with a larger reticle, there is a chance of hitting when you otherwise would have missed. In fact, your target might as well be off center- you have just as good of a chance. They couldn't have weighted the center of a bloomed reticle as more likely because that would encourage spamming. I actually have the most extreme anti-bloom view: I don't think that it takes skill or thought to pace. If there was no chance that firing early could win a battle (someone suggested having bullets land only on the edge of the circle), players would have no problem looking at a reticle and reading when to fire. Seeing when the reticle is eclipsed isn't much more complicated than firing only on another visual indicator, like when the target is actually in the reticle in the first place, which applies to no bloom. In fact, when there is a max ROF that is not challenging to match with trigger pulling, as with anything but the covenant carbine in H3, then there is the same challenge of timing your shot as close as possible, except if you fire early, no shot is fired, and there is no visual indicator. To add a visual indicator would be as simple as making the crosshairs (but not the circular reticle) of a BR disappear until firing is possible again. I'm not sure if the DMR fires as long you pull the trigger anytime before it actually will fire (I could play ZB, pull the trigger twice as fast as possible and see if it fires twice at its normal, slower rate), but the BR I'm pretty sure did not allow you to pull the trigger early. While it is true that the ideal rate of fire increases as the target gets closer with bloom, and thus it is not possible to simply muscle memorize the pacing rate, but this itself comes with another problem: it is hard to balance the weapon that already is the best at all other ranges with close range weapons, especially the AR, but even the concussion rifle and spiker as well. The kill times of all close range weapons could all be really short and close together to fix this, making the shotgun only a camping surprise weapon, if it isn't already.
Look at that wall o' text! On topic: The reason that people complain about long sight-lines is that, if not properly implemented and planned, can result in annoying cross-mapping and that feeling of being shot at constantly no matter what you do. Used properly though, longer sight-lines with little cover in key areas can be great as a way to implement RvR by way of a power weapon/ power up. You want your maps to have a good mix of CQC, Mid, and sometimes long-range combat. Mostly mid because it provides the most exciting duels, whereas poor usage of CQC and long-range can result in players not enjoying the map. Again, it's all about striking a good balance. A map that is entirely CQC can be just as annoying and frustrating as a map with long sight lines and sparse cover.
First off, may I say: Dayum! Then, a couple of things: Except that they did, or rather the RNG is significantly offset by the bullet magnetism drawing bullets back toward the centre, meaning that any random accuracy value which sends the bullet within, say, the middle 20-30% of the reticle might as well be dead centre. Pre TU I probably would have agreed with you, but honestly I prefer 85% bloom to ZB (something I never thought I'd say), at least in terms of raw shooting skill. Kill times are pretty good with 85% bloom but I will admit that they're much closer to optimal in my view with ZB. But in terms of adding skill, I really think it does. I maintained that pacing added skill, but with 100% bloom the kill times were way too long and the randomness factor played out too often in practical terms. Both downsides are greatly reduced by 85% bloom, to a degree that I wouldn't have believed before trying it. However simple following a visual cue may be, it's still something extra to have to keep track of when firing, and in split second terms as well. Talking about reading the visual cues of the reticle doesn't really tell the whole story, to be fair, as to really be top notch you have to get it much closer to an instinctive reaction, where you sort of "check-in" with the visual reticle from time to time but aren't focusing on it entirely to judge your pace, instead working off an instinctive feel for the ideal pace. It's also contextual in range terms, adding another dynamic element to it. I know you account for this, but I disagree with your idea of what offsets it. Personally I feel that the DMR is now where it should be in comparison to CQC weapons, capable out of outdoing them if there is a noticeable skill differential between CQC user and DMR user, whereas with 100% bloom I feel that things like the Shotty and CR in particular were much closer to easy kills even against a skilled DMR user. I dislike the idea that, if you make the right contextual weapon choice, it can offset a significant skill gap. It should definitely close that gap otherwise contextual weapon choice has no merit, but pre patch Reach felt too close to a game of rock paper scissors to me, whereas with 85% bloom I feel really empowered with a DMR, but not useless with a Shotty, CR etc. Hell, I can still burn faces with the FR even at 85%, whereas at ZB this becomes a significantly different story. EDIT: I agree with you in your response to Erupt btw. With 100% bloom, just as with 85%, increased range decreased the luck factor. What made 100% bloom long range battles so frustrating is that the player could basically saunter away and you still couldn't kill them before they got to cover. The luck factor may have been reduced, but range accentuated the kill time issue enough to make up for it and still make me feel like I was wading through treacle in terms of quick battles.
Ah, thanks- multiple crossing long range sightlines without enough cover is undesirable. But just the right amount, such as on guardian and countdown, make gameplay more interesting. My favorite 4v4 map is Boardwalk because it divides long sightlines well, but it can be challenging with 5sk ZB. Even BTB maps need to ensure that you can avoid crossfire as long as your teammates aren't bulldozed- take trident. On hemmorhage there are only so many places that infantry have cover and a good, high view, so that means only a couple of places to be aware of. Ah, thanks- multiple crossing long range sightlines without enough cover is undesirable. But just the right amount, such as on guardian and countdown, make gameplay more interesting. My favorite 4v4 map is Boardwalk because it divides long sightlines well, but it can be challenging with 5sk ZB. Even BTB maps need to ensure that you can avoid crossfire as long as your teammates aren't bulldozed- take trident. On hemmorhage there are only so many places that infantry have cover and a good, high view, so that means only a couple of places to be aware of. Edited by merge: To the bullet magnetism: bummer. Even if the visual cue of bloom adds a component of skill, surely you cannot argue against its main flaw, especially when two players are equally accurate down to when they are both one-shot. I think everyone likes 85% simply because it's better than 100%, and so they can be satisfied without being convinced that it is the lesser of two evils. If there was an alarm that went off every time that a player won a DMR duel because his risky rate of fire trumped the opponent's first shot advantage, I have a feeling that more people, including you, would be against it, but there isn't, and so you can't always tell. I also would bet that if the current ZB playlist had a weakened 6sk DMR, more players would play it, because it would be much closer to what they were used to, it would be balanced with other weapons, and they wouldn't be killed for stepping a foot from a doorway, and then accelerating slowly to get back. As for the right balance between CQC and the DMR, I agree, but I don't think it applies to the shotgun. Anything over a two shot kill is very risky, and its range is so short that you can't chase anyone with it. To me, you either have to have evade or camp, in which case no other weapon stands a chance. This wasn't the first time I've heard someone talk about the shotgun as a typical CQC weapon, though- I've seen on this site "the DMR is balanced over the BR, in H3 I could beat a shotgun with a BR, but not a DMR". Does this make sense to anyone? I'm glad that you guys answered the title question, but I'm surprised that no one wanted to weigh in on the idea of removing descoping under fire for the BR/DMR.
It's a tough call. I maintain that, even with the randomness inherent in a system that uses an RNG, it's minimal enough so as to be offset by the dynamic skill that pacing adds. However, on the flip side I can totally see that the sheer increase in demands of speed offered by ZB bring the skill up in a different way, to the point where it's more than a simple case of quantifying which is harder. I see your point about the contrast with 100% making 85% seem better than it might if we were given it from the beginning, but isn't that somewhat hurt by the fact that I can play ZB and experience that, which should in turn make me aware how bad 85% bloom feels? I used to be able to pick out instances in which 100% bloom screwed me over through nothing more than randomness, whereas with 85% I feel confident in my victory or defeat in a battle the vast, vast majority of the time. I'm pretty sure the Shotty has a longer range than it did in H3, certainly longer than H2, which I always reasoned was to account for Sprint etc. and also to make the Shotty retain a use in the face of no melee bleed. Furthermore, in terms of basic movement without AAs, the lower movement speeds mean that, say, backing off from a Shotty to get out of range is slower than in any previous game. Honestly, the more powerful Shotty was one of the first things that struck me when playing Reach. That's a very interesting point actually. I guess the logic behind de-scoping is, in a weird way, the opposite of the (very real) issue you point out: if someone is entrenched and using the scope of the DMR to put damage on people, being able to snap them out of it by just hitting a single shot reduces the degree to which they can sit there untouched. It's a complex issue, as on the one hand it can be argued to perpetuate being shots up, on the other it can be said to equal out such an advantage by giving the person a chance to de-scope their opponent, then scope in and turn the tables. Also, from a more basic player experience perspective it would be quite confusing to have certain weapons react differently to others in terms of de-scoping. Having the Sniper scope unaffected by being shot would, I think you'll agree, but awful.
Long lines of sight are bad because anywhere in that LOS will be hard to move through when pushing toward an area and gameplay often becomes standoffish. And the longer the LOS, the more narrow it has to be to make it less dangerous, and narrow, tunnel-like LOS are broken. But overall, shorter LOS allow people to move easier.
I'm with you. Short of hideous network lag (which I bring on myself by playing so often with a guy from the Netherlands who always STEALS MAH HOST), I mostly feel very comfortable (in TU games) knowing when I should win or lose battles based on how my shots land, and when/if I choose to pace a bit. It is far superior to vanilla Reach in terms of reduced randomness, while also still keeping just a bit of pacing and not having the unforgiving, "don't go in the open unless you want to die" aspect of zero bloom. Personally I find de-scoping very annoying, and I'd love to see a different system put in place - maybe just vibrate the scope when you get shot so that in that particular instant, it's hard to be accurate? This doesn't happen to me that much because the longer I play Halo, the less I scope with any weapon - but when I do get locked into one of those frustrating cycles of "scope in/get de-scoped/scope in again/get de-scoped/die/throw down controller," it's infuriating. The worst part of it is that it's often unconscious - I don't engage in this kind of dipshittery when someone de-scopes me across a map in BTB usually, but then there's usually more time and space to consider my options and know exactly what's going on. Where it gets frustrating is when you're scoping and getting de-scoped on mid-sized maps like Asylum; that first second where you don't quite realize what's happening yet is what gets you killed. I would be OK with de-scoping from 10x zoom only, I think. But if that proves to be confusing, kill it altogether.
This is all conditional. There is times when long los is bad, and times when long los is good. First thing you have to consider is how wide that particular los is. If you are firing at someone from a far distance, they should have the ability to move behind cover before you finish the kill (depending on their reaction time) Second thing you have to consider is the elevation difference of the los, from beginning to end. A flat los that is long is bad (in most cases). Third thing: Are you able to walk from one end of the los to the other without turning? This is the best way to detect a bad los. If there is a wall, or a drop, or the los is angled compare to the layout of the map, then that los is most likely a good one. Ex: One end of Zealot to the other (red landing, blue landing), because you would have to follow the curve, or drop down and go to the lift to get back up. Another Ex. Second floor of sniper tower, to the elbow on The Cage, because you would have to follow the paths of the map to get to the other position. But an example of a horrible los: the bottom floor of Sniper tower to the Sniper spawn on The Cage, because you can walk straight to the other position without turning, it has barely any elevation difference, and skimpy cover (not to mention the spawns). So what I'm saying is long, wide, flat, direct los=bad los.
I think that your third point relates to what Remember Isao posted; if there is a way of getting from A to B before getting killed by direct fire, such as a curved or covered path, it doesn't matter if there is a long line of sight between them- standoffs won't occur- that is, players will close the distance so that kills can be finished. This is probably one reason why roughly circular designs are popular (zealot, guardian, lockout). I don't see how an elevation difference would make a long sightline better, though.
Elevation makes a difference because the person who is higher needs to adjust their self to see the lower person. You need to be on the edge of the platform to see below it, depending on the severity of the verticality. Do you feeel me?
5 character minimum requirement [br][/br]Edited by merge: Are you saying that because the higher player needs to be in a small area, a slope is a better long sight line? Wouldn't the barrier that actually cuts off the los and thus define it as a long los limit the area that the player can see down the long sightline as well? If an incline was the same length as a flat los, would the incline be better? I don't think so. The incline is a los blocker for the flat los behind it, though, and to make the positions equal in terms of optional cover, you would need a piece of cover at the bottom.
Bloom is a skill mechanic because you're forced to adjust to it on the fly, during battle, depending on distance (which is always changing). You can't just memorize a particular pace because the pace changes. It's like the difference between being a jump shooter who can hit a shot from anywhere in the half court, and being a good free throw shooter; both require skill, but only one requires flexibility and adaptability - the other is a comparatively simple, rote, mechanical act that only takes practicing the same thing over and over to master. If someone can run away from you faster, having a little extra range on your weapon might help you kill them before they get far.
When I say long lines of sight, I mean lines of sight that are too long. For example, for a map in the coliseum, there shouldn't be a line of sight that extends from wall to wall. 30x30 is extremely long for small, arena-like maps. I guess I didn't make myself clear, but I'm not that stupid. Apparently the maps in my sig are octagon variants.
In theory that's how it was supposed to work, but in actuality bloom is broken because of the variable of luck when spamming. You try to use the DMR the way Bungie intended, and get killed by someone who was rapidly squeezing the trigger, because of the randomness of the bullet direction. You may not feel that it happens that often, but with no bloom, there is no luck variable, and DMR fights are much more intense because of the fast kill times.