• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Halo |OT4| Trust's a Tough Thing to Come by These Days

Computron

Member
Problem with those saying the laser is "perfect". If there was any network issues the red marker would not show up for you so one second you were there and then next you are dust without any previous warning. Now if that is fixed in Halo 4 that would be great.


Don't most slightly skilled players try to obscure their beam while it's charging anyway?
 

GhaleonEB

Member
I always thought the laser was fine, I had never heard anyone complain about it until I started posting here.

No one should be complaining about getting lasered while in a vehicle. Your team shouldn't be in vehicles if you don't have laser control.

I heard complains about the laser in the Beta (Valhalla hill) and pretty much every day of Halo 3's run. All justified, IMO; Valhalla would have played much better with the rockets (and did, in customs), and Avalanche in particular benefited from its removal. I had a custom version of Avalanche with the laser swapped for the missile pod, and it played much better, and more fair.
 

Computron

Member
I heard complains about the laser in the Beta (Valhalla hill) and pretty much every day of Halo 3's run. All justified, IMO; Valhalla would have played much better with the rockets (and did, in customs), and Avalanche in particular benefited from its removal. I had a custom version of Avalanche with the laser swapped for the missile pod, and it played much better, and more fair.

Do you think the lazer is good on any map, needs some tweaking or just needs to be removed?


I think it could be interesting if they made it charge like a reverse hammer of dawn. It would require open sky for the duration of the charge, so that the player could not hide, and you would see a lazer coming down from the sky to charge up the wielder before they could fire.
 

Toddler

Member
Do you think the lazer is good on any map, needs some tweaking or just needs to be removed?


I think it could be interesting if they made it charge like a reverse hammer of dawn. It would require open sky for the duration of the charge, so that the player could not hide, and you would see a lazer coming down from the sky to charge up the wielder before they could fire.

Target Locator in MP?
 
The problem with that is you describe a problem with netcode, not the weapon.

You have to take into account how the weapon is going to perform in a real environment though, and the fact was that the warning/aiming light didn't appear a lot of the, especially in something like BTB, where in my experience it rarely showed up and your vehicle would just explode out of nowhere.

No, balancing bad game mechanics (massively overpowered vehicles) by introducing more bad game mechanics (a one hit triple kill cross map point and shoot death gun) is not a good solution, this same argument has been had about countless other things.

This.
 

Fracas

#fuckonami
Anyone fancy coming online and testing an Objective map? Need like...7 people. :/

I don't know if you already have a group or something, but I'll more than likely be on tonight, if you're still wanting to play then. I can probably get 2-3 more people then as well.
 
That hill on Vahalla was such a dominating position that you could have not had a power weapon even there and the emphasis on fighting for position of that hill probably wouldn't change much.
 

Falagard

Member
They should remove the laser and put in heat seeking guided rockets like Halo 2, with the exception that you have to keep the reticle on the target vehicle for it to track to the target, with the target vehicle getting a lock on warning when it is being tracked.

Unreal Tournament 2004 had that for a rocket launcher and it rocked.

a) It has the benefit of not being and instant kill weapon, it gives the vehicle a chance to try to get under cover to dodge the rocket
b) It's not a fire and forget weapon, you usually need to be in the open and keep your target in the reticle for it to work
 
That hill on Vahalla was such a dominating position that you could have not had a power weapon even there and the emphasis on fighting for position of that hill probably wouldn't change much.

I disagree. It would have still been important, but no power weapon would have reduced the importance drastically.
 

Striker

Member
I always thought the laser was fine, I had never heard anyone complain about it until I started posting here.

No one should be complaining about getting lasered while in a vehicle. Your team shouldn't be in vehicles if you don't have laser control.
1. You have people who like AR rush beatdowns, Orbital, Regens, Armor Lock, etc. I'm not going to be surprised one bit that people defend a weapon that is capable of getting a triple kill across the map by a single shot.

2. So in this instance, see Valhalla and Standoff. One team gains control of the Laser, and your plan is to not use vehicles. So now what? You're boned, because you're going to get Banshee'd, you're going to get run down by the Warthog, and you're going to get splattered - you're toast. That's how those maps went most of the time, and the account of that is the Laser -- how everything else was built around it (over-powered vehicles). Made gameplay very repetitive and greatly annoying to play in the long run.

I don't feel he is missing the point at all but is nailing it pretty well. Striker's example sucks to have happen, but I think that can be attributed more to the fact that the Falcon is a slower moving air vehicle, the laser is a huge threat for it.

Doesn't the Reach laser have less shots?
My point wasn't that the Falcon had less mobility than any other vehicle sans a tank, but it's the idea of not being able to pull out of a situation, without introducing any BS mechanics, because the other team shot at you.

It's like comparing it to the Rockets in Pit. Makes no sense. If you're in a one on one confrontation with somebody using Rockets, you can still kill them despite them firing, because you're able to out-maneuver and time the jumps. There's no feasible defense in comparison in getting shot at with a Laser.

Warthog gunners in Halo 3 are surprisingly useful. Puts the Reach ones to shame.
Would like to think Reach's chaingun is probably the most well rounded in the series, sans any over-heating. 2's was pretty weak and 3's was without question too strong.
 
1. You have people who like AR rush beatdowns, Orbital, Regens, Armor Lock, etc. I'm not going to be surprised one bit that people defend a weapon that is capable of getting a triple kill across the map by a single shot.

2. So in this instance, see Valhalla and Standoff. One team gains control of the Laser, and your plan is to not use vehicles. So now what? You're boned, because you're going to get Banshee'd, you're going to get run down by the Warthog, and you're going to get splattered - you're toast. That's how those maps went most of the time, and the account of that is the Laser -- how everything else was built around it (over-powered vehicles). Made gameplay very repetitive and greatly annoying to play in the long run.


My point wasn't that the Falcon had less mobility than any other vehicle sans a tank, but it's the idea of not being able to pull out of a situation, without introducing any BS mechanics, because the other team shot at you.

It's like comparing it to the Rockets in Pit. Makes no sense. If you're in a one on one confrontation with somebody using Rockets, you can still kill them despite them firing, because you're able to out-maneuver and time the jumps. There's no feasible defense in comparison in getting shot at with a Laser.

Would like to think Reach's chaingun is probably the most well rounded in the series, sans any over-heating. 2's was pretty weak and 3's was without question too strong.

Yeah this was my experience. team slayer games where the worst for this on standoff getting hog and laser in the map = instant win. I don't think the initial weapon rush should affect the game that much. I preferred standoff when hogs and laser was out of play.

Standoff was an easy win, but gameplay wise was very repetitive unless both teams where good enough to stalemate over hogs and laser takin them out of the game.
 

senador

Banned
Just found Battlefield friends. Shit is hilarious.

That hill on Vahalla was such a dominating position that you could have not had a power weapon even there and the emphasis on fighting for position of that hill probably wouldn't change much.

I disagree. It would have still been important, but no power weapon would have reduced the importance drastically.

I dunno, hard to say now, especially since its been engrained in everyone's minds. Maybe, maybe not. I think the laser did have a lot to do with it though.

My point wasn't that the Falcon had less mobility than any other vehicle sans a tank, but it's the idea of not being able to pull out of a situation, without introducing any BS mechanics, because the other team shot at you.

It's like comparing it to the Rockets in Pit. Makes no sense. If you're in a one on one confrontation with somebody using Rockets, you can still kill them despite them firing, because you're able to out-maneuver and time the jumps. There's no feasible defense in comparison in getting shot at with a Laser.

I know you weren't saying that, but I feel that the Falcon's maneuverability has a lot to do with your example.
 

Sai-kun

Banned
My favorite part of the laser on Valhalla was using it to laser folks out of the sky when they'd inevitably try to come back after we'd taken the hill. It wasn't hard to do but it looked really cool. B)
 
Warthog gunners in Halo 3 are surprisingly useful. Puts the Reach ones to shame.
They're pretty useful in about every vehicle.
xORfb.jpg

I dunno, hard to say now, especially since its been engrained in everyone's minds. Maybe, maybe not. I think the laser did have a lot to do with it though.
I remember more from GAF customs, with the rockets in the center, more people used more of the map.
 

ElRenoRaven

Member
I heard complains about the laser in the Beta (Valhalla hill) and pretty much every day of Halo 3's run. All justified, IMO; Valhalla would have played much better with the rockets (and did, in customs), and Avalanche in particular benefited from its removal. I had a custom version of Avalanche with the laser swapped for the missile pod, and it played much better, and more fair.

Yup. The laser was the worst addition to Halo weapon wise. I hate it even worse then the insane auto lock on rockets we had in Halo 2. That's one reason I've always edited it out and replaced it just like you did in Halo 3. The game plays so much better without it. Vehicles are also the one area I feel The first 2 games got it right. 1 if you like the indestructible vehicles and 2 if you liked the destructible vehicles. After those 2 it felt like the vehicles started a slide downward quality wise with 3's being barely useful and Reach's being totally useless except the broken Banshee.
 
Yup. The laser was the worst addition to Halo weapon wise. I hate it even worse then the insane auto lock on rockets we had in Halo 2. That's one reason I've always edited it out and replaced it just like you did in Halo 3. The game plays so much better without it. Vehicles are also the one area I feel The first 2 games got it right. 1 if you like the indestructible vehicles and 2 if you liked the destructible vehicles. After those 2 it felt like the vehicles started a slide downward quality wise with 3's being barely useful and Reach's being totally useless except the broken Banshee.


The vehicles in Halo 3 raped more than any of the other games.

Also, I've gotten way too used to the slow speed of Reach. Just played some ranked H3 and it's like a billion times faster.
 

feel

Member
The vehicles in Halo 3 raped more than any of the other games.

Also, I've gotten way too used to the slow speed of Reach. Just played some ranked H3 and it's like a billion times faster.
Halogaf, I got this:

So what you're saying is that you're ok with rape?
 
Halogaf, I got this:

So what you're saying is that you're ok with rape?

It's not being used in a literal sense. I mean we're talking about a video game where you you're killing people the entire time. Nobody ever has a problem when you say "killed," "merked," "murdered," or any other synonyms of killed.
 

Ken

Member
It's not being used in a literal sense. I mean we're talking about a video game where you you're killing people the entire time. Nobody ever has a problem when you say "killed," "merked," "murdered," or any other synonyms of killed.

So why not just use the word "killed" instead? It's more accurate and less controversial.
 
Top Bottom