So we'll be evolving from swift, decisive fist fights to 5 minute slap-fests?
Saying I'm happy with Reach's melee system would probably be a slight understatement, but I do feel 3 melee's + bleedthrough enabled would keep melee in check while still retaining it as a viable combat option.
So, with the next MM update on the horizon and fast approaching, it's not an inpertinent time to again ask the question:
What is the point of retaining vanilla Reach in the wake of bleedthrough's removal from the TU?
The differences are rather slight between the two modes now. 85% bloom is a huge improvement, much more intuitive, free flowing and is proven to reduce the effectiveness of spamming. What else?
- Armour lock, which 343 have publicly trashed (for good reason), is no longer the game breaker it was pre-TU. The TU armour lock should've be implemented as a global fix regardless of it being in vanilla or TU. The TU fixes it anyway.
- Camo. Can anyone honestly tell the difference between the vanilla and TU versions? I can't.
-Sword blocking. A feature which a very, very small portion of the playerbase would lament in its removal. A latency lottery which adds very little to the game.
That's it.
At this point in Reach's cycle, it feels silly to have so many different base game traits sprawled across MM. Cut vanilla, implement the TU globally and be done with it.
Failing that, please make Squad DLC TU enabled. Vanilla's had its shot and while it remains that way, I'll never play it. Make it TU and I'll make it my go-to playlist for MM, as will many others.
So, with the next MM update on the horizon and fast approaching, it's not an inpertinent time to again ask the question:
What is the point of retaining vanilla Reach in the wake of bleedthrough's removal from the TU?
The differences are rather slight between the two modes now. 85% bloom is a huge improvement, much more intuitive, free flowing and is proven to reduce the effectiveness of spamming. What else?
- Armour lock, which 343 have publicly trashed (for good reason), is no longer the game breaker it was pre-TU. The TU armour lock should've be implemented as a global fix regardless of it being in vanilla or TU. The TU fixes it anyway.
- Camo. Can anyone honestly tell the difference between the vanilla and TU versions? I can't.
-Sword blocking. A feature which a very, very small portion of the playerbase would lament in its removal. A latency lottery which adds very little to the game.
That's it.
At this point in Reach's cycle, it feels silly to have so many different base game traits sprawled across MM. Cut vanilla, implement the TU globally and be done with it.
Failing that, please make Squad DLC TU enabled. Vanilla's had its shot and while it remains that way, I'll never play it. Make it TU and I'll make it my go-to playlist for MM, as will many others.
It is obviously nowhere near as good the the HaloGAF 'tage, but it was still really fun to collect clips, and figure out what to do with them, and then edit it all into something I think is pretty neat. Although if I hadn't found that music, I probably would've given up on this altogether.
1st bold: Which is a terrible reason to not do it. 343 are shrinking away from a tough decision on this one, a decision which needs to be made for the good of the game and the playerbase. I feel like the only reason they made that promise in the first place is because it wasn't 'their' game so they felt they didn't have the authority to irrevocably change the settings globally. How many other games retain the pre-patched game after going through the effort of a title update?
2nd bold: Me too brother, the bloom is the biggest stumbling block. 100% bloom on the DMR is so bad I can't believe I played it like that for so long.
So, with the next MM update on the horizon and fast approaching, it's not an inpertinent time to again ask the question:
What is the point of retaining vanilla Reach in the wake of bleedthrough's removal from the TU?
The differences are rather slight between the two modes now. 85% bloom is a huge improvement, much more intuitive, free flowing and is proven to reduce the effectiveness of spamming. What else?
- Armour lock, which 343 have publicly trashed (for good reason), is no longer the game breaker it was pre-TU. The TU armour lock should've be implemented as a global fix regardless of it being in vanilla or TU. The TU fixes it anyway.
- Camo. Can anyone honestly tell the difference between the vanilla and TU versions? I can't.
-Sword blocking. A feature which a very, very small portion of the playerbase would lament in its removal. A latency lottery which adds very little to the game.
That's it.
At this point in Reach's cycle, it feels silly to have so many different base game traits sprawled across MM. Cut vanilla, implement the TU globally and be done with it.
Failing that, please make Squad DLC TU enabled. Vanilla's had its shot and while it remains that way, I'll never play it. Make it TU and I'll make it my go-to playlist for MM, as will many others.
If the TU was global, Super Slayer would become Team Slayer and that would free up a spot for a 5v5 playlist with a focus on core, developer made maps. No Armour Lock. First to 75 kills. Imagine that!
Assassinations have always been a one hit kill because you're taking a player by surprise and manage to get in close to your opponent. You're saying that if you attack someone head on, it should only take one extra hit? That's far more crappy given the play it encourages and that non-power weapons in Reach take anywhere from 5-8 shots to kill someone. Spartan punches in Reach are near power weapon strength, which is kind of ridiculous to me. But mostly (and excluding trying to be realistic), beat downs should not be viable strat to kill other players, alone. They should be something used primarily in tandem with bleedthrough.
People shouldn't be running around just trying to melee each other to death. Requiring 2 hits to kill someone only encourages that kind of behavior. With bleedthrough, and at least 3 hits to kill someone, melee will never be useless. I think 3 minimum, 4 max is best. But 3 is probably ideal.
More than 2 hits to kill and you end up in a stupid slap fight exchanging multiple blows taking to much time to get the kill.
First hit pops shields second hit kills thats how melee should always work.
I dont even know where people got the 3-5 melee idea from it was never present in a halo game was it?
Halo 3 and Reach are both 2 hits to kill and im pretty sure Halo 2 was.
People shouldn't be running around just trying to melee each other to death. Requiring 2 hits to kill someone only encourages that kind of behavior. With bleedthrough, and at least 3 hits to kill someone, melee will never be useless. I think 3 minimum, 4 max is best. But 3 is probably ideal.
People shouldn't be running around just trying to melee each other to death. Requiring 2 hits to kill someone only encourages that kind of behavior. With bleedthrough, and at least 3 hits to kill someone, melee will never be useless. I think 3 minimum, 4 max is best. But 3 is probably ideal.
How many did it take in CE. While I love the faster movement speed of the Anniv. playlists I feel oddly hobbled by how many hits it takes to kill someone... I think 3 hits makes the most sense to me.
How many did it take in CE. While I love the faster movement speed of the Anniv. playlists I feel oddly hobbled by how many hits it takes to kill someone... I think 3 hits makes the most sense to me.
That's around the time you start to use your gun in a first person shooter. Moonman's got it right, 3 hits to kill with bleedthrough enabled. That way you get close to a guy put, say, three shots into him then melee for the kill. You should not be relinquishing the gun completely when up close with your opponent.
When you're using such a powerful melee, close quarters combat will 99% of the time come down to who hits the melee first. And in Halo 3 and Halo: Reach's case, it'll often be a trade of kills because of the newfound Fair gameplay. Sneaking around corners and smacking a nearby enemy also becomes extremely easier, and adds in more cheesy, unnecessary gunplay. AR rush melee? Aided by the two-punch death machine. Why do people want a melee that is more powerful than everything within striking distance than everything sans Shotgun-Sword? Encourage players to fire their guns and kill enemies that way, rather than pump up their melee strength and make everything become Plasma Punchout.
Halo 3 and Reach are both 2 hits to kill and im pretty sure Halo 2 was.
2 used momentum based melee, which created a fun diversion in the middle of the combat. Running and jumping onto players and hitting them in the head caused them to drop shields. Landing a perfect Brute Shot melee while jumping was an instant kill. Rockets were also a power strength in close quarters for melee. Most others were generally in the same area.
Melee since 2, however, has been nothing but two hit kill, no matter the weapon (sans of course the Sword and Hammer).
That's around the time you start to use your gun in a first person shooter. Moonman's got it right, 3 hits to kill with bleedthrough enabled. That way you get close to a guy put, say, three shots into him then melee for the kill. You should not be relinquishing the gun completely when up close with your opponent.
I Disagree that 3 hits to kill will ever be the right way, its never been like in the past halo games as far as i know and im pretty confident its not going to be like that in Halo 4.
I dont care enough to argue my point on this.
Eh, here we go i suppose. Why encourage players to use guns above melee' The golden tripod places equal strenght in Guns, Melee and grenades and thats how it is in all the past halo's melee in reach is not some god tool and it isnt in Halo 3 either. Why would you want to limit that. Having a competent melee means that im not screwed when i go round a corner face to face to a guy, Aiming that close isnt a viable solution Id rather drop 2 quick melee's in and move on rather than both back up shoot each other a bit and then melee.
Regardless melee worked okay in both Halo 3 and Reach i very much doubt its going to change anytime soon.
More than 2 hits to kill and you end up in a stupid slap fight exchanging multiple blows taking to much time to get the kill.
First hit pops shields second hit kills thats how melee should always work.
I dont even know where people got the 3-5 melee idea from it was never present in a halo game was it?
Halo 3 and Reach are both 2 hits to kill and im pretty sure Halo 2 was.
3 hits to kill is extreme, thats a total exchange of 5-6 blows. Thats really slowing down the pace of the gameplay.
While I understand what you're saying, it I think it's more rare to find yourself abruptly in melee range of another person where neither player has taken any damage. Hypothetically, assuming it did take 3 melee hits to kill someone, and I ran into someone on the fly, I'd probably melee once, back off and try and finish the kill with weapon fire. And I'd only use a second melee if my opponent somehow managed to stay within melee proximity after dishing out some gunfire.
I just worry about the use of sprint being abused in CQC. And who knows, there will probably be some perk that increases your melee output slightly. If trying to melee people to death becomes a slap fast like you say, people will be less encouraged to rely on that type of play style.
I'm far more concerned by how much 5-6 shot weapon kills slow down the game versus melee combat, though. You know what? I think I can deal with a 2 hit melee kill assuming we have bleedthrough in Halo4. And melee is the least of my worries right now. I hope I didn't sound too unruly. I'm not upset about what happens with melee in Halo4 either way. But I'd prefer 3 hits over 2.
If the TU was global, Super Slayer would become Team Slayer and that would free up a spot for a 5v5 playlist with a focus on core, developer made maps. No Armour Lock. First to 75 kills. Imagine that!
I think Halo 3 was perfect for the number of melee's. One to pop the shield and then either bounce back and finish them with a 'nade or BR or go in for another quick melee. The AR in that game was actually useful too because of bleed through and the good melee system.
I think Halo 3 was perfect for the number of melee's. One to pop the shield and then either bounce back and finish them with a 'nade or BR or go in for another quick melee. The AR in that game was actually useful too because of bleed through and the good melee system.
I think I can deal with a 2 hit melee kill assuming we have bleedthrough in Halo4. And melee is the least of my worries right now. I hope I didn't sound too unruly. I'm not upset about what happens with melee in Halo4 either way. But I'd prefer 3 hits over 2.
Halo 3's AR did [about] six bullets and melee to kill somebody. You need 16 all together to kill without a melee. Shows how uber powerful it made that sickening combo.
Then see two AR users rush together, smack and kill each other. Melee system was awful pre and post patch.
I doubt it will be needed by any of you guys but ill throw up Lots of links closer to the time, I collect various back up links and such just for the occasion to be sure i dont miss anything figure i might aswell post them here aswell so you guys can get in on the action.
I dont trust this XBL stream stuff. Gametrailers and IGN will offer much better quality HD streams.
Melee in 2 was only a 2hko if you were jumping on the first melee, 3 otherwise. And melee was not nearly as much of a problem then in 90% of situations, disregarding button combos and power weapons.
-If each part of that golden tripod should be equal in strength, then every player should not be walking around with the equivalent of a power weapon that nearly aims for them with the lunge and requires almost no actual engagement to use effectively.
-Melee in 3 and Reach did not work okay. Did you miss the pages and pages bitching about the AR Rush and Sprint double beatdowns? Both are a result of an overpowered melee attack. Both turn CQC into a simultaneous beatdown three ring circus. I am amazed that people are willing to accept those two awful mechanics that emerged from the melee's new strength.
I doubt it will be needed by any of you guys but ill throw up Lots of links closer to the time, I collect various back up links and such just for the occasion to be sure i dont miss anything figure i might aswell post them here aswell so you guys can get in on the action.
I dont trust this XBL stream stuff. Gametrailers and IGN will offer much better quality HD streams.
I was hoping they'd actually try to release more maps, period. Seems MS is just happy with the 3 packs and done level of content. No Firefight also means no FF maps to round out packs.
Heck, I'm making that sound better by going by packs. By map count, this is even less output than Reach. At least they told us before the game came out, I guess.
You're complaining about the quantity of total DLC... 6 months before the game's release? WTF?
Dude, I know you're a glass half empty kind of person, but this is ridiculous. (There's not even a 'well, my reading of the LE contents is that this is the only DLC they're going to release, down the road - if I'm right, then I'm disappointed'. You're so positive that your interpretation of a rather vague hint is the only reasonable one that you're ALREADY DISAPPOINTED BY WHAT YOU DON'T HAVE. Do you think you'll apologize when the fourth pack comes out? I really doubt it. )
Phatom Pistols with more speed? Hmm, sounds interesting. Gotta try it someday
We tried a mode with insta-gib plasma pistols and maximum speed in Halo 3, that was damn fun.
just tried in on an unpatched version of halo 2. without jumping, just standing next to it took 6 melees. jumping and hitting the head of the other player then just normal melee took 4 hits.
Anniversary is 4 melees to kill. Punching someone without shield and him not dying is terrible though. It should be 2 punches to get rid of the shields and 1 to kill someone without shields.