Support NeoGAF

[Woorloog]

Misplaced rage... laser is wonderful in H3, those that hate it just want to stomp kids in a vehicle with no reprisal and no thought at all to controlling a power weapon that could end their rampage.

Place one of them on the map, limit the spawn time and number of shots... and it's a weapon well done.

Valhalla had maximum of 2 lasers at time, which kinda ruined the weapon on the map (don't remember about other maps). Halo 3's damage (or somewhat less, just not as weak as Reach's), just 4 shots and strict limit of one per map (or equal to number of spawn points at most) and it isn't a problematic weapon, if vehicles are as good as in Halo.
Powerful counter to powerful vehicles.

 

[nillapuddin]

Good luck CollegeGAF, time to pretend to participate in real life

70 days to get those grades up

 

[GhaleonEB]

Misplaced rage... laser is wonderful in H3, those that hate it just want to stomp kids in a vehicle with no reprisal and no thought at all to controlling a power weapon that could end their rampage.

Halo 3 was packed to the gills with anti-vehicle weapons. It didn't need something that could destroy enemy vehicles instantly from across a map. Maps like Avalanche and Valhalla were much better when the laser was swapped out for another power weapon, such as rockets or the missile pod.

 

[Poker Face]

Good luck CollegeGAF, time to pretend to participate in real life

70 days to get those grades up

i dont go back until september 6th woop woop

 

[feel]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yh0AhrY9GjA

I was wondering why the pictures of her posing with someone being posted on Halogaf lately.

 

[Stinkles]

This is the perfect response to Kuroyume anything.

 

[wwm0nkey]

Middle pod > Laser

You could see the missles coming and had a chance to dodge them unlike with the laser where you dont see the indicator half the time and there is no chance to dodge it.

 

[m23]

Some pics of Halo stuff at Fan Expo.

The console looks so nice in person. I have some videos of gameplay, but they are crap and useless.
Just Dance 4 was on the floor....right up there with Halo 4 in terms of fun. Got video off Bane dancing lol.

 

[Striker]

The Laser was garbage, and the people who liked it were ones who enjoyed bad vehicle-infantry combat.

You like sniping guys across the map with a large blast radius? Enjoy piercing out Warthogs with Sniper-like precision? Enjoy a weapon that gives no warning or time to evade against slow moving targets? Get a Spartan Laser. It is astounding how it's returning along with the Fuel Rod but the Plasma Launcher is nixed.

 

[Woorloog]

Middle pod > Laser

You could see the missles coming and had a chance to dodge them unlike with the laser were you dont see the indicator half the time and there is no chance to dodge it.

Which is why the laser is better suited for maps without long sight lines (and conversely, the missile pod suits more open maps better).
The targeting beam should be far better visible though, especially under weak network conditions. Not quite perfect execution....

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Halo 3 was packed to the gills with anti-vehicle weapons. It didn't need something that could destroy enemy vehicles instantly from across a map. Maps like Avalanche and Valhalla were much better when the laser was swapped out for another power weapon, such as rockets or the missile pod.

I remember playing Gaf customs with the laser swapped for rockets on Valhalla, I didn't think it was a good weapon swap at all. I remember seeing people have to essentially sacrifice themselves to get close enough but get ripped apart by the chaingun/ BR crossfire before they can get a shot off. On Standoff there are ways you can surprise a hog by catching it as it takes a blind corner around a rock, but Valhalla is too open for rockets to be of any use. I dont like the Laser, but I think it was necessary considering the vehicle sandbox. Banshees where also pretty damn powerful. I think the Halo 1 vehicle infantry dynamic was a lot more interesting, and it felt as though a player could use skill to take down a vehicle but having a vehicle was an advantage.

I dont know how they can balance vehicle/ infantry gameplay going forward, I hope they dont resort to a laser type weapon again, but with H3 the vehicles where so strong it was needed. I think the biggest problem with the laser was just that it wasnt telegraphed very well that you where about to be lasered. If they got that right I think the weapon would have been less annoying.

 

[FUNKNOWN iXi]

Misplaced rage... laser is wonderful in H3, those that hate it just want to stomp kids in a vehicle with no reprisal and no thought at all to controlling a power weapon that could end their rampage.

Place one of them on the map, limit the spawn time and number of shots... and it's a weapon well done.

My thoughts exactly. The Halo 3 Laser felt perfect, it just needed one less shot which it has now. I miss those Laser fights on Standoff/Valhalla/etc... I think one of the reasons why people hated the Laser (subconsciously at least) so much in Halo 3 is because there were no weapons to ping it long range. The BR was too inconsistent to truly pesk/kill a Laser kill from any sort of distance, but now we have the DMR so we're set.

I always think nerf only when it's needed and buff the weaker areas of the game. Glad to see this is a pretty apparent theme in Halo 4 (for the most part).

 

[GhaleonEB]

Which is why the laser is better suited for maps without long sight lines (and conversely, the missile pod suits more open maps better).
The targeting beam should be far better visible though, especially under weak network conditions. Not quite perfect execution....

I think even had the laser given a proper warning to the vehicle being targeted, it would still be insufficient. Between the scope on the laser, the large kill zone and the relative lack of maneuverability on the Warthog to evade the shot, a couple seconds warning wouldn't have let drivers make effective evasive maneuvers. The Missile Pod gave drivers a warning when it was just pointed at them, which combined with the slow missile speed and wide turning radius of the missiles, made it more fair. On maps with short sight lines or around blind corners you could just mow guys down point blank with the missile pod/rockets/power drain/etc. anyways.

It also had the bonus effect of freaking out Banshee pilots, even if you only had one shot left. I once kept a Banshee flipping on Sandtrap for two minutes straight just by pointing at it. I was bluffing. Ah, good times.

I remember playing Gaf customs with the laser swapped for rockets on Valhalla, I didn't think it was a good weapon swap at all. I remember seeing people have to essentially sacrifice themselves to get close enough but get ripped apart by the chaingun/ BR crossfire before they can get a shot off. On Standoff there are ways you can surprise a hog by catching it as it takes a blind corner around a rock, but Valhalla is too open for rockets to be of any use. I dont like the Laser, but I think it was necessary considering the vehicle sandbox. Banshees where also pretty damn powerful. I think the Halo 1 vehicle infantry dynamic was a lot more interesting, and it felt as though a player could use skill to take down a vehicle but having a vehicle was an advantage.

I think a lot of people just didn't understand the anti vehicle measures. I seldom had issues taking Warthogs down with the plasma pistols, turrets, power drains and plasma grenades on the map. And that was with little to no coordination with randoms in matchmaking.

 

[malfcn]

Playing some Reach game me the Halo itch again, and learning towards the LE. But will those maps even be playable? Because I had Defiant, and except for the first week it was out I have never seen them.

 

[Gazzawa]

I dont know how they can balance vehicle/ infantry gameplay going forward, I hope they dont resort to a laser type weapon again, but with H3 the vehicles where so strong it was needed. I think the biggest problem with the laser was just that it wasnt telegraphed very well that you where about to be lasered. If they got that right I think the weapon would have been less annoying.

what about a long range emp cannon. U dont destroy the vehicle but u emp it and "1 shot" the occupants

Spoiler

i hate all u lazer haters that gun is the tastiest jam i have ever spread on my toast

 

[Mister Negative]

The problem with the laser is that it essentially eliminated true vehicle combat, and left instead a game where one team has a vehicle AND the laser, and the other team has nothing but sorrow.

 

[Karl2177]

Striker, Ghaleon, bobs, and all anti-laser folk: How do you feel about the Railgun? Do you think it has the potential to serve as a good choice for a anti-vehicle infantry weapon?

 

[Orochinagis]

The problem with the laser is that it essentially eliminated true vehicle combat, and left instead a game where one team has a vehicle AND the laser, and the other team has nothing but sorrow.

Dat Valhalla fashblacks.

 

[Ramirez]

Misplaced rage... laser is wonderful in H3, those that hate it just want to stomp kids in a vehicle with no reprisal and no thought at all to controlling a power weapon that could end their rampage.

Place one of them on the map, limit the spawn time and number of shots... and it's a weapon well done.

Except that the team who gets the laser gets to have that vehicle rampage with no consequence, lol. The laser is a terrible weapon.

One way to make it instantly better is to remove the option of "fanning" it, once you pull the trigger, it should fire.

 

[Mister Negative]

Striker, Ghaleon, bobs, and all anti-laser folk: How do you feel about the Railgun? Do you think it has the potential to serve as a good choice for a anti-vehicle infantry weapon?

From what we saw in the video, a single shot from the railgun directly to the hood of the Hog doesn't really do much to it besides slow it down.

So...maybe. The Railgun seems to me like it'll be anti-infantry all the way, and if it happens to cross over into anti-vehicle territory by virtue of the fact that it can one-shot the driver or turreter, then so be it.

I don't think it'll be taking out any Scorpions.

 

[Woorloog]

My thoughts exactly. The Halo 3 Laser felt perfect, it just needed one less shot which it has now. I miss those Laser fights on Standoff/Valhalla/etc... I think one of the reasons why people hated the Laser (subconsciously at least) so much in Halo 3 is because there were no weapons to ping it long range. The BR was too inconsistent to truly pesk/kill a Laser kill from any sort of distance, but now we have the DMR so we're set.

I always think nerf only when it's needed and buff the weaker areas of the game. Glad to see this is a pretty apparent theme in Halo 4 (for the most part).

Not sure about pinging it mattered, i use the laser almost always with the scope. Of course quite many people do "flinch" when shot.

Nerfing tends to be far easier often, as i've understood it, easier to control its effects.

I think even had the laser given a proper warning to the vehicle being targeted, it would still be insufficient. Between the scope on the laser, the large kill zone and the relative lack of maneuverability on the Warthog to evade the shot, a couple seconds warning wouldn't have let drivers make effective evasive maneuvers. The Missile Pod gave drivers a warning when it was just pointed at them, which combined with the slow missile speed and wide turning radius of the missiles, made it more fair. On maps with short sight lines or around blind corners you could just mow guys down point blank with the missile pod/rockets/power drain/etc. anyways.

I'd probably modify, err, nerf the laser more than just remove one shot. I'd also remove the scope (to me it felt pretty useless anyway, unless shooting infantry), add slightly more charge-up time... and give a warning sound to players being targeted (would be relatively easy to conceal by aiming elsewhere but would still help detecting the laser).
These in addition to keeping laser in maps with shorter line of sights, urban maps for example (and obviously i'd avoid other anti-vehicle weapons and gadgets in short LOS maps, except maybe the plasma pistol).

EDIT eh, found a hole in my suggestion to keep the weapon only in short LOS maps, those have far more hiding and ambush spots. Hmm...

I do think the laser worked more or less fine in Halo 3 BTB, the maps and the weapon just needed tweaks. At least i had a lot of fun in Halo 3's BTB so i think it was succesful overall.

Oh and i gotta note a weapon my friend suggested for Halo, a rocket launcher with extremly fast unguided rocket with very low splash damage, mostly useful against vehicles but unlike laser it wouldn't be instantly hitting.
Obviously just a concept, personally i don't think it is needed really though if Laser-like weapon is needed, it could fit the bill.

Also, Fuel Rod Gun should have been replaced by the Plasma Launcher (for Halo 4).

 

[Orochinagis]

Striker, Ghaleon, bobs, and all anti-laser folk: How do you feel about the Railgun? Do you think it has the potential to serve as a good choice for a anti-vehicle infantry weapon?

It forces you to stay at close as possible to stop the vehicle for what we seen in the video, the player tried to destroy the hog but failed because it was too far and shoot lost power or was charged enough but still it did a huge damage to the hog. I will still use the laser over the railgun everytime for counter vehicles unless 343 decided to hide the damm weapon or make it useless like Bungie did in Reach.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

I think even had the laser given a proper warning to the vehicle being targeted, it would still be insufficient. Between the scope on the laser, the large kill zone and the relative lack of maneuverability on the Warthog to evade the shot, a couple seconds warning wouldn't have let drivers make effective evasive maneuvers. The Missile Pod gave drivers a warning when it was just pointed at them, which combined with the slow missile speed and wide turning radius of the missiles, made it more fair. On maps with short sight lines or around blind corners you could just mow guys down point blank with the missile pod/rockets/power drain/etc. anyways.

It also had the bonus effect of freaking out Banshee pilots, even if you only had one shot left. I once kept a Banshee flipping on Sandtrap for two minutes straight just by pointing at it. I was bluffing. Ah, good times.

First off, I agree with all of the above!

I think a lot of people just didn't understand the anti vehicle measures. I seldom had issues taking Warthogs down with the plasma pistols, turrets, power drains and plasma grenades on the map. And that was with little to no coordination with randoms in matchmaking.

Turrets left you slow and exposed, even if you took out the vehicle, you where literally sacrificing yourself to the other players who would BR you. The Missile Pod was also REALLY easy to avoid, especially in a Banshee.

Plasma Pistols and Power Drains where probably my go to tools to take on vehicles, but I never felt as though I could consistently PP a vehicle. Again this required throwing yourself at the Hog, which is hardly going to be a smart move considering you will leave yourself pretty vulnerable even if you do hit it.

Plasma Nades annoyed me, in Halo 1 a plasma nade (or well placed Frag) would flip the hog, in Halo 3 most of the time they literally do nothing.

Again I don't know the solution, because I hate how Reach nerfed the vehicle Sandbox but the H3 vehicle sandbox felt too strong to me. Maybe vehicles should be strong? Then how do you keep Infantry combat relevant? I need to look back at the H1 and H2 sandbox, I liked the way it worked in those games.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Here's an idea for the laser if it has to stay going forward: it has to lock-on to a target before it charges up and needs to stay locked to it for it to fully charge and fire.

 

[Woorloog]

Here's an idea for the laser if it has to stay going forward: it has to lock-on to a target before it charges up and needs to stay locked to it for it to fully charge and fire.

So, kinda hybrid beetween the missile launcher and the Spartan Laser's current iteration.

Thought something akin to this as well.

I could never do anything with the Laser on High Ground, something about that map made it hard for me.

Same here, if i had the Laser, there were no vehicles around or i just kept missing with it on that map.

 

[CyReN]

I could never do anything with the Laser on High Ground, something about that map made it hard for me.

 

[Orochinagis]

Here's an idea for the laser if it has to stay going forward: it has to lock-on to a target before it charges up and needs to stay locked to it for it to fully charge and fire.

A Javelin?

 

[Mister Negative]

I could never do anything with the Laser on High Ground, something about that map made it hard for me.

It really had no true reason to exist on High Ground.

In fact, High Ground's weapon selection and placement was all kinds of weird in retrospect.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

The problem with the laser is that it essentially eliminated true vehicle combat, and left instead a game where one team has a vehicle AND the laser, and the other team has nothing but sorrow.

Yeah, this I agree with. That was basically the way to win maps that had the Laser in H3, and simplified the game down a lot.

I think the problem is though, vehicles are supposed to be able to run through infantry, but when the vehicles are too powerful, infantry needs something to defend against vehicles. How do you balance the sandbox without one side feeling too powerful, when by design one side should be more powerful?

Striker, Ghaleon, bobs, and all anti-laser folk: How do you feel about the Railgun? Do you think it has the potential to serve as a good choice for a anti-vehicle infantry weapon?

I dont think I know enough about it, but it seems pretty similar to the Laser right? Only with a smaller chargeup and its not a one shot kill? I quite like it if that's the case, if you get hit by it once, you know to be careful, but how do you stop the scenario where one team controls it AND the vehicles?

 

[CyReN]

It really had no true reason to exist on High Ground.

In fact, High Ground's weapon selection and placement was all kinds of weird in retrospect.

I liked the sniper and rockets, but yea the laser seemed off.

----

i lol'd.

 

[m23]

Although I loved the Laser in Halo 3, there are some things I guess to make it better. Yeah making it more apparent that you are being targeted is one thing and making it less shots which I think is being done is great.

In Halo 3 the vehicles were just too powerful, on standoff especially, the Warthog would be unbeatable had it not been for the laser. I didn't get enough time with the vehicles to tell how they compared with 3 and Reach though so its hard to tell.

 

[Ramirez]

Wait, is that a contest to have a drink with a bunch of MLG pros?

lol

 

[ViewtifulJC]

I'm strictly in the "Fuck Halo 3's Laser" camp. Seeing that return, DMR starts with the 3x scope, and the shitty Halo: Reach vehicle health, I got some bad vibes from Halo 4's BTB.

 

[Risen]

Except that the team who gets the laser gets to have that vehicle rampage with no consequence, lol. The laser is a terrible weapon.

One way to make it instantly better is to remove the option of "fanning" it, once you pull the trigger, it should fire.

Then you were outplayed and do not deserve to be saved from that fate. You might as well be arguing that it's not fair for people to have all the power weapons in an MLG game on The Pit. If they do... it's YOUR fault, not the weapons and has nothing to do with it's balance.

People seriously gripe about no warning from a power weapon? And call it bad... they call it bad because it killed easily. The only support for it being poor is entirely centered around not being able to run mostly unchecked in a vehicle. And if not that, then the argument is that there were other weapons that also killed and were better because they were more elegant in that they gave more notice, or were slower moving... all of which boils down to they were better because they were less effective. Which is only to say that in the end, people enjoy the easy kills a vehicle provide, but they don't enjoy getting killed easily.

Get out...

Complain that there were too many, or it had too many shots, or that it was poorly placed... those are good arguments. Arguing that it is too powerful in the hands of infantry against vehicles is a terrible position in terms of game play balance. How many multi-kills were there in hogs on a map with a laser? (looking at you Standoff)?

In the end... if you are going to include very powerful vehicles in a game with infantry, there MUST be a powerful counter... you balance it by frequency of spawn, number of shots, and location.

Then the game plays like Halo... a level field (in terms of map and objects on map), with availability of that "imperfect balance" which is attained by skillful individual/team play, combined with control of weapons on the map.

 

[heckfu]

I liked the sniper and rockets, but yea the laser seemed off.

----

i lol'd.

Oh man that sucks, that's the same time I'm going to be washing my beard

 

[Woorloog]

Although I loved the Laser in Halo 3, there are some things I guess to make it better. Yeah making it more apparent that you are being targeted is one thing and making it less shots which I think is being done is great.

In Halo 3 the vehicles were just too powerful, on standoff especially, the Warthog would be unbeatable had it not been for the laser. I didn't get enough time with the vehicles to tell how they compared with 3 and Reach though so its hard to tell.

The Warthog in Standoff was extremly powerful but it depended heavily on map control. The Laser was the obvious way of course, but the map did have Rockets, camo (good combo to stop a 'Hog) and Power Drain... Don't remember if the map had the Plasma Pistol but i think it could have used it. EDIT didn't the map have Choppers and Brute Shots as well?
Now Sandbox Heavies on the other hand...

I'm strictly in the "Fuck Halo 3's Laser" camp. Seeing that return, DMR starts with the 3x scope, and the shitty Halo: Reach vehicle health, I got some bad vibes from Halo 4's BTB.

What? What?
Why no Halo 3 health system?

 

[PNut]

I'm liking the new vehicle physics this time compared to reach which was a tad to over-the-top.

Love to hear that. Did you drive the warthog or mongoose?

Hopefully we'll get some good vehicle oriented btb maps this time.

 

[Havok]

"It's needed in a game with vehicles that are so strong" folks: Having stupidly powerful vehicles like Halo 3's warthog (whose turret could mow someone down in a blink of an eye once it spun up) shouldn't be a foot in the door for a weapon that immediately promoted complete turtling because of how effective it was against every single element and player on the map. Yeah, it was kinda messed up, but there are a bunch of new introductions to the series that don't make anyone feel cheated out of a life. First full minute of Sandtrap was practically a vehicle ban, both sides had a Laser that could immediately shut down anything coming their way.

Interesting... because the only "turtling" I remember in BTB games was when a team didn't HAVE the laser and the other team was stomping around the map in a combination of vehicles.

That's my point. People love to compare the Laser to the Sniper when they defend it. So let's take that analogy. When the other team controls sniper, there are still recourse for your team to regain control. You flank, or more pertinent to the argument at hand in a BTB scenario, you rush him with vehicles, which he isn't effective against. The Laser is a sniper that is effective against everything. There is no recourse. The cat and mouse give-and-take that makes this series different gets eliminated often in the very first skirmish of the match. The most effective strategy against it is to huddle back into your base on Valhalla and wait for the other team to stupidly rush you. If they don't, that's the game. I know where you're coming from, but putting something in the middle of the map doesn't make it a well-designed weapon.

I'll edit the response to the rest of your post below here:

Here is where we completely agree. And this goes to my overall point. Place one laser on that map, in a spot equidistant from both teams, and have that laser spawn on long timers with limited shots and you get the following:

Balanced initial rush
Combat over a power weapon
Winner of that rush has an advantage and can utilize vehicles
Limited shots mean the other team is not dominated based on that initial rush
Longer respawns mean vehicles have a longer period of time for combat from both

The game play profits...

Unless of course people want to spend an entire game rampaging in a vehicle from start to finish with little thought to being killed.

This can be achieved without a weapon that is zero fun to go up against. On the bolded: People were always incredibly mindful of the location of homing rockets, always ready to try and make an evasive maneuver that was super difficult to pull off. They are still mindful of who has the Plasma Launcher -- I've had plenty of "oh shit" moments when we realize that this Warthog run is not gonna end well. The difference is simply that some leeway can be had on the part of the underdogs where the laser control is practically a binary state of being capable of making a meaningful comeback or not. Regardless of how long you're thinking the laser's spawn time is, it's not gonna be much longer than that of the vehicles it is a hard, unforgiving counter to. It's never going to have few enough shots to make that long respawn time meaningful given the way that Halo respawn times have always worked, where you drop the weapon and boom, there's one to replace it. That just propagates the effect of the initial rush throughout the match. Comebacks against a well-played initial Valhalla rush were fairly rare, in my experience, just because it was a massive barrier to go up against a laser/vehicle controlling team.

 

[GhaleonEB]

Turrets left you slow and exposed, even if you took out the vehicle, you where literally sacrificing yourself to the other players who would BR you. The Missile Pod was also REALLY easy to avoid, especially in a Banshee.

Plasma Pistols and Power Drains where probably my go to tools to take on vehicles, but I never felt as though I could consistently PP a vehicle. Again this required throwing yourself at the Hog, which is hardly going to be a smart move considering you will leave yourself pretty vulnerable even if you do hit it.

Plasma Nades annoyed me, in Halo 1 a plasma nade (or well placed Frag) would flip the hog, in Halo 3 most of the time they literally do nothing.

Again I don't know the solution, because I hate how Reach nerfed the vehicle Sandbox but the H3 vehicle sandbox felt too strong to me. Maybe vehicles should be strong? Then how do you keep Infantry combat relevant? I need to look back at the H1 and H2 sandbox, I liked the way it worked in those games.

To clarify, I did often have to sacrifice myself to take a Warthog down. I always felt it was a fair trade off, but you are correct that it was hard to take them down safely. My most reliable method involved ambushing them as they drove past (or straight at me) with a PP and plant a plasma grenade on the hood. I'd either get mowed down or splattered, but given how dangerous Warthogs can be, I considered it a fair trade off. If I had some coordinated help with folks on my team, that would have been avoidable. So I think you make fair points about the danger involved in taking them down. I just considered it worth it given that a Warthog is so much more powerful/dangerous than a lone player on foot.

Striker, Ghaleon, bobs, and all anti-laser folk: How do you feel about the Railgun? Do you think it has the potential to serve as a good choice for a anti-vehicle infantry weapon?

The Railgun has the following disadvantages compared to the laser:

1) It's not an instant kill; from the videos I've seen, the shot is more akin to the Brute Shot when it tags vehicles. It does some damage and knocks them around, but won't guarantee a kill.

2) Has no scope. This is pretty huge, as it really limits the ability to pin vehicles down from across a map.

3) Has a bit of travel time. It's an appropriately fast moving projectile, but from the clips I've seen, if you want to tag a moving vehicle at any decent range, you'll need to lead it a bit.

4) The targeting reticule is smaller, and thus you have to aim better. The laser had a really big, thick blast and a rocket-sized reticule, so it was very easy to paint targets and get a kill. The railrun looks like it will take a bit more skill to use.

When the railgun was announced, I hoped it was a replacement for the laser, as it seemed to address all of the balance issues that weapon presented. Alas.

What? What?
Why no Halo 3 health system?

So there can be a perk to boost vehicle health if you are driving one.

 

[Risen]

"It's needed in a game with vehicles that are so strong" folks: Having stupidly powerful vehicles like Halo 3's warthog (whose turret could mow someone down in a blink of an eye once it spun up) shouldn't be a foot in the door for a weapon that immediately promoted complete turtling because of how effective it was against every single element and player on the map.

Interesting... because the only "turtling" I remember in BTB games was when a team didn't HAVE the laser and the other team was stomping around the map in a combination of vehicles.

First full minute of Sandtrap was practically a vehicle ban, both sides had a Laser that could immediately shut down anything coming their way.

Here is where we completely agree. And this goes to my overall point. Place one laser on that map, in a spot equidistant from both teams, and have that laser spawn on long timers with limited shots and you get the following:

Balanced initial rush
Combat over a power weapon
Winner of that rush has an advantage and can utilize vehicles
Limited shots mean the other team is not dominated based on that initial rush
Longer respawns mean vehicles have a longer period of time for combat from both teams without being constantly destroyed by a powerful weapon

The game play profits...

Unless of course people want to spend an entire game rampaging in a vehicle from start to finish with little thought to being killed.

 

[bobs...onGaf]

Then you were outplayed and do not deserve to be saved from that fate. You might as well be arguing that it's not fair for people to have all the power weapons in an MLG game on The Pit. If they do... it's YOUR fault, not the weapons and has nothing to do with it's balance.

People seriously gripe about no warning from a power weapon? And call it bad... they call it bad because it killed easily. The only support for it being poor is entirely centered around not being able to run mostly unchecked in a vehicle. And if not that, then the argument is that there were other weapons that also killed and were better because they were more elegant in that they gave more notice, or were slower moving... all of which boils down to they were better because they were less effective. Which is only to say that in the end, people enjoy the easy kills a vehicle provide, but they don't enjoy getting killed easily.

Get out...

Complain that there were too many, or it had too many shots, or that it was poorly placed... those are good arguments. Arguing that it is too powerful in the hands of infantry against vehicles is a terrible position in terms of game play balance. How many multi-kills were there in hogs on a map with a laser? (looking at you Standoff)?

In the end... if you are going to include very powerful vehicles in a game with infantry, there MUST be a powerful counter... you balance it by frequency of spawn, number of shots, and location.

Then the game plays like Halo... a level field (in terms of map and objects on map), with availability of that "imperfect balance" which is attained by skillful individual/team play, combined with control of weapons on the map.

It was a LOT easier to get laser dominance and vehicle dominance than it would be to get full power weapon dominance in MLG. On Standoff for example, in Team Slayer we would just take the hog, drive it over Laser Spawn to protect it, our guy would run in grab it, and within 15 seconds we had full control. Of course they had a hog, but with out laser it was easy to take them out. If the other team had a opening gambit, then things might get messier, but most of the time, the team that grabbed the laser within the opening of the match had full dominance for the full match.

Other maps where less compact, but the problem remained. On Valhalla, once you grab laser at the start of the match, you can pull in the hog and have laser and sniper controlling the middle. It required no skill or effort outside of the first battle. Thats not too mention in MLG the team that has full control, only has it while ammo lasts, vehicles dont run out, and by the time the lasers gone, its likely the other team is getting spawn killed so hard your team will grab the next one anyway.

I agree with the rest of your post though though, the laser was needed because the vehicles where too strong. With a better balance vehicle sandbox a laser should not be needed. In Halo 3 the laser didnt balance vehicle combat, as much as just delete it for the team that didnt control the thing lol.

 

[Tawpgun]

Laser debate?

There is no debate, its a dumb weapon.

Its a second sniper rifle.
Kills vehicles with no warning.
Any range.
EZ mode.

I love spontaneously combusting in vehicles.

Lock on rockets were perfect.

 

[Steelyuhas]

Misplaced rage... laser is wonderful in H3, those that hate it just want to stomp kids in a vehicle with no reprisal and no thought at all to controlling a power weapon that could end their rampage.

Place one of them on the map, limit the spawn time and number of shots... and it's a weapon well done.

Nope, those who hate it want vehicle vs anti-vehicle combat to actually be interesting and both sides have some control on the outcome. Laser is rock-paper-scissors balance.

 

[Latvian Hitman]

The problem with the laser is that it essentially eliminated true vehicle combat, and left instead a game where one team has a vehicle AND the laser, and the other team has nothing but sorrow.

Yep- Standoff, especially. Control laser, control both hogs, destroy noobs.

 

[DesertFox]

I feel like Reachs plasma launcher should have replaced the laser. The PL is much more satisfying to get kills with since it's not so OP. the lock on/ charge up combined with the slow travel speed of the projectiles made you hafta plan ahead to use it unlike the laser which I've hated since its inception... But that's just my opinion. I hope they bring the PL back in 4 - then cut the laser in 5

 

[bobs...onGaf]

"It's needed in a game with vehicles that are so strong" folks: Having stupidly powerful vehicles like Halo 3's warthog (whose turret could mow someone down in a blink of an eye once it spun up) shouldn't be a foot in the door for a weapon that immediately promoted complete turtling because of how effective it was against every single element and player on the map. Yeah, it was kinda messed up, but there are a bunch of new introductions to the series that don't make anyone feel cheated out of a life. First full minute of Sandtrap was practically a vehicle ban, both sides had a Laser that could immediately shut down anything coming their way.
That's my point. People love to compare the Laser to the Sniper when they defend it. So let's take that analogy. When the other team controls sniper, there are still recourse for your team to regain control. You flank, or more pertinent to the argument at hand, you rush him with vehicles, which he isn't effective against. The Laser is a sniper that is effective against everything. There is no recourse. The cat and mouse give-and-take that makes this series different gets eliminated often in the very first skirmish of the match. The most effective strategy against it is to huddle back into your base on Valhalla and wait for the other team to stupidly rush you. If they don't, that's the game. I know where you're coming from, but putting something in the middle of the map doesn't make it a well-designed weapon.

The Sniper is a lot harder to use than the Laser, and so it could be argued the sniper is more vulnerable to flanking and being attacked regardless.

The team that controls the laser is by default now in control of the vehicles. Its a lot harder to get to the laser guy when people are running circles around your base with vehicles. Almost every BTB game (and I have done this a lot whilst playing with Gaf) quite quickly boils down to literally spawn trapped the other team to the point they have to quit. If they leave they're base they are going to get attacked by a vehicle and if they get in a vehicle they are going to get lasered. Huddling in your base isnt going to help you much, because if they snipe one of you, he will get spawn killed for the rest of the game.

Infantry should be able take out vehicles with more versatile tools such as grenades, the vehicle sandbox is so strong hard counters like the laser are needed, which in turn negates the vehicle combat and simplfiies it into: Whoever controls the laser controls the vehicles.

That said I dont want vehicles to be flimsy like Reach vehicles again, im just glad I dont have the job of balancing that stuff.

 

[Redford]

If they reskinned the Plasma Launcher as a UNSC missile-pod like weapon I bet more people would have picked it up. That and un-nerfing it..

 

[nillapuddin]

i dont go back until september 6th woop woop

phew, just found out my final for my first class is due Nov 5th.

Thank goodness.

it woulda been a shame to have to skip the final

 

[Woorloog]

If they reskinned the Plasma Launcher as a UNSC missile-pod like weapon I bet more people would have picked it up. That and un-nerfing it..

Lock-on micro-missile launcher?
Cool.

It does seem people skip using the Covie weapons at times just because they're not human weapons... shouldn't be a design consideration though, since only stupid or bad people do that.

I feel people didn't use the Plasma Launcher because it was difficult to use... and it wasn't that common either. Of Reach's default, non-user-forged vehicle maps, Hemorrhage had it... any others? Can't remember.

Grenades should definitely go back to serving anti-vehicle capabilities. Whenever I landed a good grenade, be it frag or sticky, on a Warthog in CE I knew they were fucked; vehicles would barely react to a grenade popping off on them in the games after that. BTB used to be the most fun I'd have in Halo, but a number of things have served to cripple that in every sequel.

So 'nades should have more "force", if not damage? Hmm... Pretty sure the 'nades could flip vehicles in Halo 3 but they were inconsistent for sure. Not good.

 

[Rickenslacker]

Grenades should definitely go back to serving anti-vehicle capabilities. Whenever I landed a good grenade, be it frag or sticky, on a Warthog in CE I knew they were fucked; vehicles would barely react to a grenade popping off on them in the games after that. BTB used to be the most fun I'd have in Halo, but a number of things have served to cripple that in every sequel.