You guys can keep on disagreeing on what the problems with Reach's gameplay are, I'm actually pretty happy with every iteration of it. Sure, armor lock sucks, but that's not my point anyways. My biggest problem with Reach currently is the inability to play DLC. Of course playing the Anniversary maps is easy, but The Noble pack was a fantastic add-on, and I want to play that along with some Defiant on the side. After all, I did pay for them. 343i's promise of matching us with players who have the same DLC as us sounds great in theory. Until you rewind a few months to where Bungie made that exact same promise, that is. Clearly, Bungie's promise was not kept, so I have my doubts about 343i's promise. The lack of inclusion of DLC within Reach's playlist actually stems from something else entirely, as far as I'm concerned. This is a "problem" that a huge portion of the community has been complaining about since Reach was released. The "problem" I speak of is the lack of Halo 3-style rank in Reach. This is something that's never bothered me personally, actually I'm glad it's gone. However, the playlist organization that rank allowed for made it much easier to play DLC maps in Halo 3. For example, In Halo 3 there was a team slayer and a social slayer playlist. Social slayer would appear to be redundant, except that one was ranked and one was not. So, with two such similar playlists, one was able to require DLC, while the other did not. This example applied. to lone wolves and rumble pit, as well as numerous other playlists in Halo 3. These redundant playlists allowed people without DLC to play a free-for-all playlist, a team slayer playlist, a team objective playlist, etc. Sure, they couldn't play ranked or un-ranked versions of each playlists, but they could still play almost any gametype they wanted. The people who payed for DLC, on the other hand, could play a huge variety of gametypes on the extra maps they payed for. Without these options available to players, I feel that playlists like Premium Battle are extremely important in Reach. Luckily, Reach does have one clear playlist redundancy; squad slayer. It would make sense, then for either squad slayer or team slayer to require DLC. Unfortunately, this doesn't seem to be happening. There is one other reason why DLC was better implemented in Halo 3 than it has been in Reach. This is the fact that the Heroic maps, Halo 3's first map pack, became free after some amount of time. If Reach's Noble map pack was made available for free, matchmaking would suddenly became much better in Reach. Players would have three main choices in invasion, big team battle would no longer suffer from an overflow of poorly-build community maps, as there would now be two more viable developer-created map options. Incorporating Anchor 9 into 4v4 playlists wouldn't hurt either. Matchmaking wouldn't be the only area of Reach to improve from making the Noble maps free wither. Tempest would now be a viable forge canvas, as designers would no longer have to worry about not being able to find enough testers who own the map pack. Of course this likely won't be happening for quite some time, as players will likely continue to pay money for the pack. Short of making the Noble maps free, a few playlists. Most invasion enthusiasts have likely bought the Noble maps in order to get their hands on Breakpoint, so making invasion require the first map pack wouldn't be a bad idea. Either squad or team slayer should require DLC for reasons listed above, and big team battle should likely require at least the Noble maps, as the current map offering in the playlist is simply awful. In conclusion, I'm not convinced by 343i's promise about the incorporation of DLC into matchmaking. If Reach had playlist redundancies similar to Halo 3, DLC would be able to be incorporated into many of them. Short of this, there are other solutions 343i could implement. Still, I'll keep my fingers crossed that their promise is actually legitimate.
Unless the playlists were exact redundancies, then I would rather have the system the way it is. It sucked in Halo 3 when we had 4 people ready to go for MM, one didn't have the map pack, and we were forced to play social slayer with an extra teammate who was usually horrible. Not to mention, if there were exact redundancies of every playlist, the number of people in each one would go down, making searches slower. Removing Premium Battle was a big move, so I'm guessing that 343 really did alter the matchmaking algorithm quite a bit. You're being skeptical without any sort of basis right now, other than the fact that Bungie, who is largely separate from 343, made a claim similar to this one several months ago. Compare this to all the other changes 343 has been making. If you ask me, I see a trend of increasing awesomeness, which statistically means that 343 will most likely deliver on this promise. Really though, we'll have to wait and see next week.
I've never found it to be random. The few instances I find myself facing down a sword-toting enemy, I typically try to block too early. Even when I pull them off correctly, all it really does is buy some time, but I still end up dead for the most part. Of course, I'm not often in that situation due to the aforementioned awareness. Halo: Reach is admittedly different from the other Halo games due to AA's, among other things. It's this very difference that makes me think it's better to take it or leave it as is instead of try to overhaul the game just to make it like the others. It's too different, but still good in its own way. I enjoy Reach for what it is, and if I didn't feel like it was "Halo" enough, I would be playing 3 instead. That said, this isn't about AL, and you still know better than to make such factually inaccurate statements. It's not like you. I don't feel the need to "rank" power weapons to begin with, first of all. If you want to question how useful they are, though, there are other factors to consider. For instance, rockets might crap all over the sword in terms of sheer killing power, but you'd be lucky to get more than four kills with the average drop. The sword can earn you a killing frenzy or better if you know what you're doing because it lasts longer. Even the threat of a sword tends to remain longer than the other weapons depending on their clip size. It's sufficiently powerful on maps small enough to warrant its placement. I don't expect any more or less of it. You know, you're kind of pointing out how more people might use AL because blocking is no longer an option. Of course, that was nerfed too, so it's pretty clear how they feel about defending yourself. Here you seem to be saying that blocking is too prevalent and common, but earlier your first paragraph claims blocking is too random and unreliable. This obvious contradiction leads me to believe both points are just exaggerated. Blocking doesn't occur all that often, and even when it does, it's rare that the blocker would actually be able to overcome the sword user as a direct result. A fleeting frustration over blocking is one thing, but for it to be a big enough deal to be addressed with a patch is ludicrous.
You gotta take in account that the sword block is only removed in ZB or 85% playlists to buff the sword. Where if sword block was enabled it would have lost it's "power weapon" status because DMR/Pistol having quicker more precise kill times in CQC(and all around stronger weapons) the sword doesn't stand much of a chance especially if it can be blocked. Default Reach gametypes sword block is justified as a last resort, It rarely helps but it's better then having no chance and stops people running in chopping up the whole team without risk.
It was never to buff the sword. They simply did it because sword-blocking (without a another sword) is retarded. I doubt they thought "hmm, that sword is very much underpowered, time to give it a boost." Why are we still arguing about this? It's better now, move on.
Randomness doesn't contradict frequency. People miss shots due to bloom randomly, but are still able to get kills by spamming shots frequently. Obviously 343 and a large portion of their player base felt differently, so I guess we can leave it at that. For the record, I don't find it to be a major problem that affects most games or causes me to not pick up the sword, but I do hate it every single time it happens (or every single time that I feel I timed a block perfectly and the game doesn't give it to me) and feel that the game would be better and less frustrating without it. It's just not necessary, the sword is sufficiently balanced without it. The same is true with bloom to a different extent, by the way. Good players will usually kill bad players. The slight randomness of bloom doesn't usually affect the outcome of games, except when the connection is really bad. But why introduce randomness and lessen the skill gap at all? The game is a more satisfying experience when outcomes are predictable and it's possible to master situations through skill rather than coin-flipping.
So you say that you rarely come up against a Sword toting enemy, and that your awareness aids you well in avoiding those you see around the place, yet you still say the Sword desperately needs a counter because it's so OP combined with Sprint and obtrusive in game? Sorry, that doesn't add up. I was drawing the parallel because they are, like you first raised as a point, the only two really comparable straight up defensive aspects of Reach. Also, you've yet to point out this 'factual inaccuracy' that you keep being so snide about. If you mean about the timing being a skill, obviously it is of some demand on the player, my point is that it's so far from difficult and, at the same time, has significant reward. Again, buying time can be the difference between living and dying, especially since pure 1 on 1s that start and end as such aren't as common as your narrow descriptive examples are accounting for. If all it does is buy time, then what's the point anyway? Funny, because I was quoting you talking about "the more dangerous power weapons of Reach." As for the how long it lasts, I agree that's a big factor (as an aside, I wish Bungie had given the option to reduce charge like spare clips, Dubs Countdown has a Shotty with no spare, but a fully charged Sword, way out of whack), but how often does one person use a whole Sword? Not only is a Sword useful in much more specific and limited circumstances than Rockets, but you're also a lot more vulnerable when using it for the most part. If you can focus solely on catching stragglers alone then sure, you're not as vulnerable, but that's a low yield tactic by all accounts. Sword block increases the vulnerability of all situations, even those when your victim is alone, and decreases the power of the weapon. Swords changed hands enough as it was in H3 (though I agree H2 was broken), blocking only increases this. Nerfed, but not made redundant by any means, especially for the purposes of a quick block, so as a quick CQC counter it's still pretty much as useful. As I pointed out above, you're hardly free from some apparent contradiction, but let me attempt to explain myself: My point with regard to blocking is that I rarely get host, I have to play off host and, as such, blocking is next to useless to me. I've tried meleeing so that the animation is ending as we clash, doesn't work, timing it such that I'm starting the animation as we clash (counter intuitive but worth a try), and the obvious one of roughly mid way through. That works with the closest to 'consistency' that I can claim, but consistency is a poor description of my experiences, and those of plenty of others as well. I'm not saying there's an RNG involved, but as Overdoziz stated, mechanics should seek to minimise connection advantage, this one emphasises it. I'd prefer if you didn't tell me what my own in game experiences are, as well as the outcomes. You're still failing to account for what me and others have said in here, that blocks result in a well executed rush getting nothing, and me dying, a noticeable amount, because of the outside influences that are oh so common in many encounters. When you see a Sword guy rushing a team mate, what do you do? Turn tail and run, leaving them to their theoretical 1 on 1? Or do you put in some AR damage, maybe a nade, or possibly even go in for a melee whilst they're unable to attack you as well. Factor in the block that the victim of the Sword can use, and I'm sure the logic is clear. Clearly, hence large portions of the community calling for the block to be removed, 343 seeing fit to do so, and (again) you being the only specific example I can bring to mind of someone actually defending it. Utterly ludicrous indeed.
You're exaggerating that randomness point again. It isn't truly random or it would occur more frequently and without any action on the part of players. It's even less random than bloom because it's still up to the player to pull it off. It reminds me of the point Peg made about uncertainty; I don't see how you can be ok with the level of uncertainty brought about by bleedthrough, but not ok with the considerably lesser amount brought on by a sword block. Having said that, I should stress that it really isn't a random element at all. If there is a problem with the execution window or something to that effect, it can be addressed, but complete removal is pretty extreme. If I get shot in the arm, I'd rather get the bullet removed instead of having my arm cut off. As for having it patched, it goes back to a point you yourself made. There are too many variables throughout the playlists to worry about already, why add something as trivial as sword blocking to the mix? I suppose I'll get to yours later, Peg.
Just because it's not AS random as bloom spread doesn't mean it's not still random, at least to the player. If I only played on LAN I would probably object a lot less to sword block, but as it stands playing on Live, I can't tell 75% of the time if a sword block from me or from the person I'm attacking will be successful. That may as well be random. Addressed at me, or him? I didn't mention my feelings about bleedthrough because I don't have strong ones. Bleedthrough doesn't introduce actual uncertainty though, it just gives the player fewer visual indicators of what is going on. It's still possible to count shots and if you know enough about how much damage they do, to know when you or your opponent is actually one-shot; it's just a lot harder. Having played Halos 1-3, I suppose I can live with that. Generally though, I find that I kind of agree with Overdoziz on this point - I like the clear visual indicator of when a person is one shot. The melee/herp-a-derping issue could have been fixed with a melee damage nerf. So maybe I'm not all that in favor of bleedthrough. I've just never given it a great deal of thought, because it's not something that affects me directly very often. Well, the problem is that the execution window is necessarily quite small. This goes back to an issue Halo has always had with near-simultaneous actions. Remember players complaining in Halo 3 about meleeing their opponent seemingly at the same time or before the other person meleed, only to end up dead while their opponent took no damage at all? And recall that they patched that by increasing the window to allow for latency, so that more of these scenarios ended with both players dead/hurt? They did the same thing in Reach, I believe, for different actions - I've frequently noticed that I can kill an opponent with a shot a micro-second after I die, and he can do the same to me, because the game allows a window to account for possible latency. It can be frustrating ("I SHOT THAT GUY FIRST AND HE DIED, AND THEN HE KILLED ME??? WTF????" - also, "I GOT A BULLTRUE ON THE SWORD GUY BUT ENDED UP DEAD?!?? WTF?!?!?"), but it's better than the alternative, which is a game where better connection to host wins every time. Two areas where they decidedly did not do this: simultaneous grav hammer swings (which, as mentioned, is why I don't play grifball any more - it pisses me off), and sword blocking. They could fix the grifball thing, but they simply can't do it for sword blocking because the only logical "fix" is to widen the window. That way the results would look more natural to both players, but sword blocks would succeed like half the time they were attempted, which nobody wants. The current system might work fine on a local game, but it sucks in matchmaking because of that tiny window and the fact that depending on connection, neither you nor your opponent might actually know where the window really is. That's what makes it random. It's not about timing, because you don't KNOW the timing. It's about guesswork and luck. Beyond that, I would still make the case that the sword block - even when working perfectly, as in a splitscreen or LAN game - is just not competitively desirable. The sword is nerfed enough, IMO, but if they wanted to nerf it more there are better ways to do it. My personal preference would be to remove it unilaterally. I don't think it's useful in any gametype or playlist, and it's actively detrimental in infection. If you're saying that I shouldn't be in favor of them patching it partially or making it a game setting, I am definitely not. Kill it, kill it with fire.
If you want to nitpick, it's because either myself or my team has possession of the power weapons, or at the very least we neutralize the enemy weapons. What's more, I've never said that it desperately needs a counter, only that it doesn't hurt to leave something as minor as blocking in place. You stated that blocking requires no skill when it actually does, and you stated that you are rewarded for it when you are in fact punished. I'm accounting for general gameplay with the sword, while you are the one citing specific examples of your sword use, as you do later in this very post. Blocking doesn't even occur frequently enough to warrant the attention, but it still feels good to the general public when they manage to do it, even if they don't always survive. Compared to previous titles, not compared to one another within the game. I don't buy that, I think you just have to use the sword differently than you did in the past games, and that throws a lot of people off. You aren't an unstoppable monster that can rush people head-on and come away with multi-kills anymore. If you're more calculated with the sword, people that can block well aren't going to cause your death. As it stands, I would say the sword changes hands less than the shotgun or the hammer, even if it does more than in 3 (which I won't assume that it does or doesn't). Then it seems pretty obvious that the issue is with the window and/or the connection, not the entire mechanic itself. You're not going to get rid of host advantage, so taking it out on blocking while the host goes on a rampage with a shotty or dmr seems like a waste of time. You paint the picture of some bumbling fool that only charges in recklessly with the sword. I know that isn't you, so I find it hard to believe you are honestly falling victim so frequently to a mechanic that you yourself claim to rarely pull off. Either way, your personal encounters or no more or less valid than mine, so it's irrelevant. As I said before, some people are still using the sword as if it were H2. I don't feel the need to patch something just so they can find more success with that approach. There is a vocal minority with nearly every gaming community, and 343's policy of pandering to them doesn't surprise me. Having people that agree with you doesn't justify the logic itself, however. I don't agree with bleedthrough, but I'm not really talking about that. Just making general observations about the aspect of uncertainty in the game, really. On one hand, people seem to be fine with some uncertain things as Peg mentions, but on the other, people like yourself want uncertainty removed for the sake of competition. If that's all you want, just use MLG settings and be done with it. I don't see the point of trying to make something just more competitive instead of completely competitive. You either play with without any uncertainty or you play with those elements. Both are valid, but a half-assed combo of the two is not. I should also note that your comment about kill exchanging is right, and it's actually part of the reason I think a weak defense against the sword is ok. You can't even bulltrue a guy without dying yourself anymore, so it's slightly tougher to survive even when you have a hard counter like a shotgun.
That's where we started. You clearly argued in favor of it being in the game, not merely in favor of NOT taking it out. Punished how? Not dying from a power weapon is always a reward compared to the obvious alternative, even if it takes some/all of your shield or whatever... How is that not a problem that needs addressing though? We know the issue is with the connection, that's been stated repeatedly. But the game is frequently patched or designed to compensate for problems that only manifest over Live. This is another of those. (In part - we're only talking about the randomness issue here, not the entire case against sword block.) Why? You're getting into some area of philosophy now that is only comprehensible to you. I would say anybody who plays any type of Halo is ALREADY playing a "half-assed combination of the two," to some extent. There are minor elements of uncertainty even in MLG which can't be removed - connection is one of the biggest ones. And there are elements of skill even in a fiesta game on a custom map with kill balls flying off of man cannons into the field of play. Anyway, I don't want to use MLG settings because I don't like a lot of things about MLG play. My preferred, ideal playing experience is a modified version of vanilla Reach. But I do dislike randomness/uncertainty in most forms. I do like trying to win games. Nothing wrong with that. I believe the majority of Halo players feel the same. You don't have to be an MLG tryhard type to want your shots to land where you aimed them, or to know that if you successfully perform actions X, Y and Z and your opponent ends up in front of you at the end of that sequence, you will live and they will die. You don't have to be into MLG to think that bloom is bad - that it is irritating how one time you can kill a guy in 5 shots and the next time, shooting at the same guy at the same distance and pace, it takes twice as many (or he kills you instead). Halo =/= poker. I stopped playing poker because it frustrated me how often randomness would trump skill. Halo is supposedly a game of skill and not chance, so why do we want elements of chance in it that can easily be eliminated with no harm to the game? Makes no sense to me.
I definitely got the impression that you consider the block necessary, otherwise why are you defending it so much? It being minor is a (THE) point of contention, but that goes without saying so I don't think it's that useful a point here. You're right, 'not a skill' was a very poor choice of phrase, in retrospect I can definitely admit that. However, I stand by my point that demand on player vs. reward is way out of whack. As for being punished, sorry but how is NOT dying when someone lunges you a punishment? Yes, you're still no shields, but the alternative is dying, so in relative terms it's a reward. I think a point bears raising here, one which I'll address by grouping the above with a later bit of your post: How often the block happens is an over simplification, and I definitely should have been clearer than that earlier on. What matters is how often it does happen when it could have happened. You're right in that I'm not a "CHHHAAAARGE!" kinda guy with the Sword, I tend to play like quite the ***** when I pick it up, crouching and moving very little other than to avoid being seen (which I'm good at cause I ***** motion trackers, just ask Ladnil). If you catch someone unaware, ie. from the side or behind without time to turn, the potential for a block isn't there so it's a moot point. What I'm talking about is how often someone blocks, even players who can't hit a player standing still 4 feet in front of them, when they're within range of facing you before the lunge is completed. You could argue that you shouldn't rush, but again this is a penalty not applied to any other power weapon in the game, especially hard considering that face on is still a form of CQC, if not the most strategic one, the ONLY purpose the Sword has. I don't even mind dying if I rush, it's being denied the kill and dying which is, ironically, the killer. Why should such a specific purpose weapon be denied the single kill kamikaze that pretty much any 'easy' (I use that somewhat unfair term for want of a better one at this moment) weapons, ie. Shotty, Rockets etc. has? Fair enough. However, I still consider it less powerful than it was in H3 (H2 is a given, **** was insane) Again, fair enough, and for the most part I use it in exactly that way. My objection to this, as kind of an aside, is that it is just another way to slow down the game and, as someone who employs it to pretty good effect, doesn't require a very deep sense of strategy, just patience. And when I get a Shotty, I don't lose it that often, when I do it's pretty much always because I was stupid with it. But is the Shotty considered OP and overly obtrusive? Hardly. If you're good with it, you're rewarded consistently. I for one see Swords change hands much more than a Shotty, and the Hammer is a little more complex: The range is very limited, and as a result people generally use it in a stupid way considering what it does. Honestly I think it may be a little underpowered, though I should probably mull that one over a little more. I also think another factor is that the Hammer is mostly used on more open maps, not quite sure of the logic there, but how often do you see someone use it successfully on Powerhouse other than in the two main buildings or at it's spawn? Basically, the Hammer is a complicated beast, and I agree it probably changes hands more than the Sword unless you get it in to a 'God-spot' like Office on Powerhouse, but that's because it is, by and large, just less useful. The splash damage trade off with a shorter range is pretty much negligible tbh, so yeah I have my own issues with its balance too, I think Shotty is a better point of comparison since it doesn't suffer the nerf that Sword has but isn't OP despite that. Again, mechanics that serve to counter act connection advantage are desirable in this sense, ones which accentuate it are not, blocking is one of the latter. One could argue the same about Bungie's decision to 'pander' in employing these very mechanics in Reach, that's the opposite of a helpful point. You haven't even come close to substantiated it being a 'vocal minority' thing. As for numbers justifying it over logic, I agree, and I should have been clearer in saying that this wasn't the point of that statement. I was simply making the point that I'm far from alone in this view, and so addressing something that a large number of people objected to (and I don't agree with 'vocal minority,' for if it is true then those who should be lamenting the loss of the block are being pretty damn quiet in their majority considering they've just been screwed over) isn't as ridiculous as you make out. In a sense, my point was that, right now, YOU seem (in my experience, which I'm more than ready to be corrected on) to be the vocal minority.
You know, a lot of features in games like these are superfluous. I wouldn't consider them "necessary" and the games can often function without them. That isn't enough reason to scrap something, though. It's hard to say whether blocking is necessary, but I wouldn't make a leap in the opposite direction and say that it needs to go. I suppose it's just how you choose to look at it then. There can obviously be varying degrees of punishment, and while the damage from a block is preferable to instant death, I'd hardly consider that a reward. You don't directly benefit, you just suffer less. This sort of translates to how I feel about the sword in relation to the other CQC weapons, so I'll point that out there. On paper, the sword seems to have a better kill range than the shotty or hammer. You close the gap more quickly with a sword than the other two. In the previous games, a confrontation with the sword would play out with the victim back-pedaling while the sword user tries to get close enough to pull off the lunge, and even if they did, the sword holder might be killed mid-lunge anyway. In Reach, it seems like the sword holder is in your face more often, usually because of armor abilities, and the lunge itself is harder to avoid or survive than it used to be. Shotty and hammer both have to "walk" the lunging distance still, and there are less kill exchanges with those encounters. In light of these subtle adjustments that appear to favor the sword, it shouldn't be surprising that a minor addition like a block would be used specifically for the sword. Whether it can be modified or improved from there is one thing, but I don't find the mechanic itself to be completely uncalled for as some make it out to be. Now sure, shotty can directly beat a sword once you factor in player reaction time and latency, but the sword technically has the advantage over the other two weapons in range and gap-closing power. Something else worth noting is that the shotty has its own built-in uncertainty in the form of shot spread. I can kill a person instantly with one shot, but another shot from the same distance may not kill another person. It seems like something we take for granted though because spread it just the nature of the weapon in almost any video game. The hammer is more complicated, as you said, and it almost feels like a middle-of-the-road in terms of CQC weapons, so it's harder to address. I do think it's important to look at how they relate to each other though, especially since you don't want to make any of the weapons redundant. I like that they accomplish similar things while maintaining a unique feel. When you think about it, the entire player base of Reach is the minority relative to the whole Halo community. As I just mentioned, I think Bungie made a reasonable decision to add a sword block in light of the gameplay changes, so to use "pander" in the same sentence as Bungie seems out of left field. I've played countless games with countless communities that ask for changes, good and bad. I shouldn't have to tell you that the content people are never the ones that go online to provide feedback, even when it comes to completely different things like reviewing products. Even games without multiplayer have naysayers that choose to hate a game for less than valid reasons. The cries of some forum-dwellers raise no flags for me one way or the other; I judge such changes on a case by case basis. Nut, I think you're still grossly overstating the "random" factor in the game. However, I think my reply to Peg shares a lot of the same talking points, so if there is something specific I didn't address, just ask.
So your saying there intention was to spend there time and effort to remove the sword block over other arguably more important issues because the sword block was to "retarded"(presumably meaning random and or unrealistic) and doing so without contemplating of how it would effect gameplay? Here is my previous post in fact form: -Sword block removed buffs the sword:Fact -Sword block is only in 85%/no bloom playlists:Fact -85%/no bloom playlist buff normal precision weapons:Fact -In TU playlists sword has a lesser chance to kill the average DMR/Pistol wielder(with or without sword block):Fact -If sword block was included it would have been even less useful:Fact So all those gameplay facts that keep the sword up to par was just an unintended side effect? Well lucky for them because with sword block in the 85%/no bloom playlist the sword would of been incredibly under powered... I don't think you addressed the playlists in which sword block was removed and not removed so I would like to see your opinion on my theory that: Sword block needed to be removed in TU playlists to be useful against 85%/No bloom Precision weapons, In default playlists sword block is completely justified as a last resort(not always reliable but better then when you see a sword just crouching looking at the ground and accepting fate). (also in default playlists it may be "random" in the sense it may not happen much but that percentage effects gameplay in a positive way if you have 100% chance to one shot everyone your more likely to charge a group of people and more likely to succeed, But if there's a 10% someone might block/stun you then your probably not going to charge a group of people and your probably not going to get a killtactular)
The sword is powerful enough even with the sword-block mechanic. If people didn't complain about it so much because it's so clearly a broken mechanic I very much doubt they would've changed it.
It's really all of the regular playlists and gametypes that I'm referring to. I know most of these changes are limited to certain playlists, but that's a different point entirely. I think it's fair to consider blocking a last resort, and since killing a charging sword user and/or earning a bulltrue without dying yourself is not as plausible as it once was, the occasional block seems like a fair trade. Even Peg would disagree with you about the power of the sword, and I think the mechanic is far from broken, certainly not worth abolishing completely.
But that's my point entirely, discussing if the sword block should be kept or removed has to be split into two discussions. A definitive "Sword block should be removed from reach" is just as wrong as saying "Sword block should be included in all of Reach" But if your just discussing Sword block removal in Default playlists(100% bloom) only then isn't it a pointless discussion since sword block isn't removed in any 100% bloom gametypes.
As Nut said earlier, you can give people the options, but making each playlist so different from one another can be a bit much. You risk segregating the community, too. That wouldn't be so bad if the community is large enough, but Reach is a bit small for a Halo title. Of course, you also segregate the community when you force changes across the board, so there's no winning.
That may be true but that point is just against the whole idea of the TU playlist, The differences between TU and default aren't just bloom or no bloom they have to do a bunch of changes to keep it balanced. So there going to be different. As for sword block no ones saying sword block should be in the TU so that's fine, So the issue is that sword block is in default playlists which I think is balanced as a unreliable last resort killtacular preventer. If only point against it is it's to random or unreliable? If it was to reliable it would make the sword to underpowered. If sword block was removed then the sword would be OP in default playlists, Without having 0% bloom precision weapons to combat it.