Support NeoGAF

[Hydranockz]

I think that the vehicles performance should be severely hidered if they have taken loads of damage. If a brand new Banshee functions the exact same as one without the wings then something should change. Reduce speed of boost, greatly reduce the fire rate etc. Wasn't it in Halo 2 where you could melee the hatch of a Scorpion open allowing players to directly attack the driver? Reach needs that way of thinking imo. Start the vehicle with no apparent weak points. Once sufficient damage is taken the driver should definitely be at more of a risk.

 

[GhaleonEB]

If they were to replace the laser on the top of the hill of Valhalla, with a missile pod, or rocket launcher, one could use it in the exact same fashion to remove the enemies hog while it's not occupied, thereby controlling vehicles in the exact same fashion as the laser, the only difference is the travel time of said projectiles.

A rocket launcher does not control a map the way a laser does. A missile pod is avoidable and is not an instant long-rage death cannon. Honestly, you're making an absurd statement.

This is not a hypothetical: In reality, GAfers have made a lot of map variants, and in nearly all of them the laser is swapped for another weapon - usually the rockets, FRG or missile pod - and in every case the map plays better for it. Take default Valhalla, swap the laser for rockets, and you have a game that plays very differently than with a laser.

 

[les papillons sexuels]

A rocket launcher does not control a map the way a laser does. A missile pod is avoidable and is not an instant long-rage death cannon. Honestly, you're making an absurd statement.

This is not a hypothetical: In reality, GAfers have made a lot of map variants, and in nearly all of them the laser is swapped for another weapon - usually the rockets, FRG or missile pod - and in every case the map plays better for it. Take default Valhalla, swap the laser for rockets, and you have a game that plays very differently than with a laser.

Really, how many times have you played those variations with players who've never tried halo before? And how many times has the team which secured their warthog and destroyed the opposing teams vehicles first lost?

GAfers being the reality is far more absurd a statement.

 

[Zeouterlimits]

I think that the vehicles performance should be severely hidered if they have taken loads of damage. If a brand new Banshee functions the exact same as one without the wings then something should change. Reduce speed of boost, greatly reduce the fire rate etc. Wasn't it in Halo 2 where you could melee the hatch of a Scorpion open allowing players to directly attack the driver? Reach needs that way of thinking imo. Start the vehicle with no apparent weak points. Once sufficient damage is taken the driver should definitely be at more of a risk.

*recalls line from RvB Halo 2 introduction where they call the vehicles flaming deathtraps*
It was a joke, but ironically the point stands.

The problem with allowing the driver to get is you normally don't get ontop of the front of the Scorpion anymore. The short-range mannable turret and splash damage from the cannon means getting to the front hatch is much less likely.

As for the Banshee, it depends on the lasers status in Reach. Because the Banshee is often up high, it's one of the easiest targets to get with the laser from anywhere on the map.

 

[Syracuse022]

A rocket launcher does not control a map the way a laser does. A missile pod is avoidable and is not an instant long-rage death cannon. Honestly, you're making an absurd statement.

This is not a hypothetical: In reality, GAfers have made a lot of map variants, and in nearly all of them the laser is swapped for another weapon - usually the rockets, FRG or missile pod - and in every case the map plays better for it. Take default Valhalla, swap the laser for rockets, and you have a game that plays very differently than with a laser.

I agree 100% that Valhalla is a million times better with a rocket launcher in place of the laser, as evidenced by the design that Voc, Cocop, Jironimo and I (et al.) settled on for the official "Ascendant Justice" customs version of the map back in the day. I'm just not entirely sold on the necessity of removing the laser from the game entirely. I love swatting Hornets out of the air on Avalanche, for example.

As for people who don't like that the laser can be used against infantry - I personally prefer to see laser shots being wasted on single infantry units because this means the moron isn't saving them for use on my team's vehicles the way he should. Same goes for the douche nozzles who use missile pods against infantry. Is it frustrating to die that way? Hell yes. Do I laugh at the same time because somewhere a Warthog or Banshee is getting ready to make that fucker pay? Also yes.

I think that the two tweaks that sound best are: "aiming sight" enlargement - (i.e. big red beam means employ evasive maneuvers, stat) and a point of no return for the charge mechanism. Luckily, both of those tweaks could easily be canonically explained with the "lol before Halo 3 - experimental weapon with less refined technology lol" argument. I don't really think that the laser has too much ammo - I like that, similar to the way the sniper rifle plays out as a power weapon, someone wielding the laser could concievably be taken down after a few shots and allow for a swing in the opposite team's favor with the remaining charges.

 

[quilter46761]

I dunno.

It feels like bringing grenades back to this might solve some of the problems - not increasing the damage, but increasing the power of the explosion - the knockback, I guess? - so that even a newly spawned person had the ability to do something to a warthog.

And then, maybe, as ridiculous as this is, 'reality-wise', ramp the damage the pistol does to Banshees back up to the Halo 1 levels of one clip + one bullet to kill?

Then, (at least in my mind ) it seems like the problems with the laser would be minimized greatly while still preventing the vehicles from being overpowered.

 

[Kapura]

As for people who don't like that the laser can be used against infantry - I personally prefer to see laser shots being wasted on single infantry units because this means the moron isn't saving them for use on my team's vehicles the way he should. Same goes for the douche nozzles who use missile pods against infantry. Is it frustrating to die that way? Hell yes. Do I laugh at the same time because somewhere a Warthog or Banshee is getting ready to make that fucker pay? Also yes.

I think that the two tweaks that sound best are: "aiming sight" enlargement - (i.e. big red beam means employ evasive maneuvers, stat) and a point of no return for the charge mechanism. Luckily, both of those tweaks could easily be canonically explained with the "lol before Halo 3 - experimental weapon with less refined technology lol" argument. I don't really think that the laser has too much ammo - I like that, similar to the way the sniper rifle plays out as a power weapon, someone wielding the laser could concievably be taken down after a few shots and allow for a swing in the opposite team's favor with the remaining charges.

These paragraphs I agree mostly with. The only deviation is that I think a point of no return is stupid. I understand what it's supposed to prevent, but I think a better way would be adding a slight leak everythime it's charged. Maybe make the laser shot take something like 15 points of charge, but a point drains for every half-second the laser has been charging. That way people who aren't acquainted with the weapon don't accidentally their team and people who want to spam the charge still can, but the weapon becomes less effective quickly.

I'm hard against a "point of no return" in a charging sequence. It would become too frustrating too quickly for it to be worth any potential benefit.

 

[electricpirate]

I dunno.

It feels like bringing grenades back to this might solve some of the problems - not increasing the damage, but increasing the power of the explosion - the knockback, I guess? - so that even a newly spawned person had the ability to do something to a warthog.

And then, maybe, as ridiculous as this is, 'reality-wise', ramp the damage the pistol does to Banshees back up to the Halo 1 levels of one clip + one bullet to kill?

Then, (at least in my mind ) it seems like the problems with the laser would be minimized greatly while still preventing the vehicles from being overpowered.

This suggestion for the grenade physics effect is good, and I like an overheat on the chain gun.

 

[Oozer3993]

I like the "charge point of no return" idea for the laser. I'd hate to see it stricken from the game entirely because I really like the concept, but as implemented it could use some work. Personally, I don't think it's too bad on Valhalla (usually), but it can single-handedly destroy a game on Standoff. The standard Warthog is pretty well balanced in H3 in my eyes, but the chaingun could probably use a slight decrease in effectiveness against infantry. The Gauss Hog needs a big nerf though. Maybe slow the projectile down so it's possible to dodge it after it's been fired. The Gauss hog was driving me nuts today.

AeroSpace = Map Editor

You have excellent taste in avatars my good sir.

 

[EazyB]

I'm hard against a "point of no return" in a charging sequence. It would become too frustrating too quickly for it to be worth any potential benefit.

Without a point of no return and just a battery drain someone with a laser would still get kills just as easily (read: much too easily), they'd just waste a shot or two's worth of the battery doing so. A big problem with the laser is that it doesn't require any sort of skill (be it anticipating the target position or aiming). The battery would not change the mechanics of the laser at all, just effectively decrease the ammo count. Sure that'd help a bit but it's the same as just decreasing the laser's respawn time thus taking it out of the sandbox more often (which is better than nothing). With a point of no return you could still keep the laser in play more often, diversifying the sandbox, while not totally extinguishing vehicle play for one of the teams.

Yes, it'd be frustrating in the sense that you couldn't nab easy kills with it, but with the potential of sniping a warthog from across the map in one brilliant red beam of death you shouldn't be able to do that easily. Players that learned how to anticipate the vehicle's route and time it so they're in the open when it goes off with reap the rewards of their efforts. Players who see a hog and immediately start charging it up may be left with a unstoppable death ray and nothing to point it at. Hopefully this would lead to them scrambling to find a new target and accidentally blasting their teammate away but it could also lead to so clutch, last second kills.

 

[Kapura]

Without a point of no return and just a battery drain someone with a laser would still get kills just as easily (read: much too easily), they'd just waste a shot or two's worth of the battery doing so. A big problem with the laser is that it doesn't require any sort of skill (be it anticipating the target position or aiming). The battery would not change the mechanics of the laser at all, just effectively decrease the ammo count. Sure that'd help a bit but it's the same as just decreasing the laser's respawn time thus taking it out of the sandbox more often (which is better than nothing). With a point of no return you could still keep the laser in play more often, diversifying the sandbox, while not totally extinguishing vehicle play for one of the teams.

Yes, it'd be frustrating in the sense that you couldn't nab easy kills with it, but with the potential of sniping a warthog from across the map in one brilliant red beam of death you shouldn't be able to do that easily. Players that learned how to anticipate the vehicle's route and time it so they're in the open when it goes off with reap the rewards of their efforts. Players who see a hog and immediately start charging it up may be left with a unstoppable death ray and nothing to point it at. Hopefully this would lead to them scrambling to find a new target and accidentally blasting their teammate away but it could also lead to so clutch, last second kills.

Wasting a shot or two of battery is a big deal on a weapon that only has a maximum of five shots to begin with. I think it's functionally identical to an auto-fire sequence at a point, but it's much easier to communicate to the player, and therefore would leave them less frustrated.

Besides the frustration from having to ride a lower edge, and when you do charge it's more like a point and pray, the point of no return would result in a *lot* of wasted shots. Be it if you're aiming at a warthog that the people then bail from, or looking to snipe a banshee that gets podded, there are situations beyond your control that would prevent the average player from using the weapon even halfway decently. The end result, I think, would be people just camping with the laser waiting for a sure-fire kill. This still leaves the threat of the spartan laser on the map, which is a HUGE deterrent now not to hop in the jeep. This wouldn't eliminate the base problem, which is, as I see it, the threat rather than the weapon itself. It would reduce it and give greater ability to hog for somebody ballsy enough, but there would still be the looming threat.

A charge leak would get the item out earlier if played poorly, but it would give similar freedoms concerning the reduced shadow of the laser for a skilled enough driver. But mostly it would be less frustrating.

 

[Ramirez]

I dunno.

It feels like bringing grenades back to this might solve some of the problems - not increasing the damage, but increasing the power of the explosion - the knockback, I guess? - so that even a newly spawned person had the ability to do something to a warthog.

And then, maybe, as ridiculous as this is, 'reality-wise', ramp the damage the pistol does to Banshees back up to the Halo 1 levels of one clip + one bullet to kill?

Then, (at least in my mind ) it seems like the problems with the laser would be minimized greatly while still preventing the vehicles from being overpowered.

That song...:lol

 

[Falagard]

looks like bungie might start leveraging out their engine, debugging tools etc to other developers.

More likely that Bungie is thinking of licensing their engine to one particular developer: the team at Microsoft doing Halo 4. For lots of money

 

[Iknos]

I just play 4P splitscreen Halo 3 with buddies. Laser does get annoying sometimes. In our case if the laser had less ammo it wouldn't be a problem. So the attacker has to pick his shots carefully and not go laser happy sniping people and vehicles.

The only weapon balance problem we have is the sword and turret gun. The sword isn't a problem with more than 4P it's only a problem in these 2 vs. 2 matches on small maps.

The turret gun can snipe and mow down people close range. The only way to kill the guy is to be very close range. Melee range. We made a rule that we can't detach the turret gun because of this.

It could be different online but on LAN it's easy to snipe with it when you do burst fire.

 

[user_nat]

Bungie would have to make their engine multiplat if they wanted to sell it to anybody other then MS (as mentioned above).

Could be interesting.

 

[EazyB]

More likely that Bungie is thinking of licensing their engine to one particular developer: the team at Microsoft doing Halo 4. For lots of money

Hadn't thought of that but it makes a lot of sense. I'd kinda of be disappointed if that were the case though because then 343 and Halo 4 would pretty much be the Treyarch to IW, the 2K Marin to Irrational Games. I'm growing pretty tired of the Halo "universe" so one of the only things I was really looking forward to with 343's outing was a totally new engine and thus feel to the game. They're supposed to have some real tech wizards over there too, IIRC, so I wanted to know what they'd be able to do regardless if they were stuck making the same enemies we've seen for 10 years.

The turret gun can snipe and mow down people close range. The only way to kill the guy is to be very close range. Melee range. We made a rule that we can't detach the turret gun because of this.

Turret wielders are slow and it shouldn't be too hard to nade+BR them. The BR on lan actually works too.

 

[Iknos]

Turret wielders are slow and it shouldn't be too hard to nade+BR them. The BR on lan actually works too.

We've tried a lot of things and the best solution we've found was using a sniper against them.

Fighting a guy with a turret is like fighting a sniper...if you see each other at around the same time the turret guy will mow down the nade+BR guy before the time the nade lands. It only takes a few shots of the turret to kill someone at long ranges.

Our rule is that you can't take a turret off its legs because its when the turret guy sets himself up at the end of hallways or long distances like a sniper when it gets too powerful. This way he doesn't have to turn around to aim...which like you say is pretty damn slow.

The turret placements on the Pit/Sandtrap/Valhalla are all pretty good because the opposition can flank them just as long as the turrets stay on their legs.

Once its off the guy can set up in those sniper like places.

Not saying it should be changed radically. Just needs a bit more spray at long distances even if someone burst fires.

Turrets shouldn't be long range weapons is all I'm saying.

 

[Slightly Live]

Hadn't thought of that but it makes a lot of sense. I'd kinda of be disappointed if that were the case though because then 343 and Halo 4 would pretty much be the Treyarch to IW, the 2K Marin to Irrational Games. I'm growing pretty tired of the Halo "universe" so one of the only things I was really looking forward to with 343's outing was a totally new engine and thus feel to the game. They're supposed to have some real tech wizards over there too, IIRC, so I wanted to know what they'd be able to do regardless if they were stuck making the same enemies we've seen for 10 years.

I think the Aerospace stuff isn't an engine framework, I think it's something much more difficult to setup and implement correctly and something Bungie excels at beyond any other developer.

Bungie.net

Not the specific website, but the stat tracking tools, the information and data capturing, processing and displaying of that information, content sharing, user generated rankings, files et al.

Developing an entire new engine from scratch appears to be par for the course for some of the great talent that Microsoft already seems to have hired for their Halo team, if this is really a backend plugin tool then they wouldn't have to worry about building and developing that entire framework from scratch, they could have it ready almost instantly when the engine is finished and need only worry about adding newer features.

Any Halo game to come out in future needs at least the same level of Bungie.net-esque material if not more and Bungie has spent the better part of a decade building and developing it, something even Microsoft couldn't emulate in a fraction of that time.

Well, that's my best guess.

 

[Falt]

Nice read... Jamie Griesemer on balancing Halo from GDC.

http://www.edge-online.com/features/gdc-how-to-balance-halo

*takes cover*

 

[The Librarian]

We've tried a lot of things and the best solution we've found was using a sniper against them.

Fighting a guy with a turret is like fighting a sniper...if you see each other at around the same time the turret guy will mow down the nade+BR guy before the time the nade lands. It only takes a few shots of the turret to kill someone at long ranges.

I never had much of a problem fighting people with turrets. I just bring out one of my stickies (I almost always have a pair of stickies) and stick 'em. I approach them as I would a warthog, which means I'll probably die a couple of times before I kill 'em.:lol

OT: The new GAF skin is pretty sweet.

 

[electricpirate]

Marty's new love being interviewed about Halo Reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBi9CFmJbqk

 

[NJ Shlice]

OT: The new GAF skin is pretty sweet.

It is, but it broke the webapp :-(

 

[bobs...onGaf]

We've tried a lot of things and the best solution we've found was using a sniper against them.

Fighting a guy with a turret is like fighting a sniper...if you see each other at around the same time the turret guy will mow down the nade+BR guy before the time the nade lands. It only takes a few shots of the turret to kill someone at long ranges.

Our rule is that you can't take a turret off its legs because its when the turret guy sets himself up at the end of hallways or long distances like a sniper when it gets too powerful. This way he doesn't have to turn around to aim...which like you say is pretty damn slow.

The turret placements on the Pit/Sandtrap/Valhalla are all pretty good because the opposition can flank them just as long as the turrets stay on their legs.

Once its off the guy can set up in those sniper like places.

Not saying it should be changed radically. Just needs a bit more spray at long distances even if someone burst fires.

Turrets shouldn't be long range weapons is all I'm saying.

You just have to out manouvre it - theyre slow as hell so if you can get behind a wall its pretty likely you can pop off shots and then hide quicker than it can kill you.

On the whole Laser debate, I personally dont think that the GAF customs where the rockets replace the laser are representative simply because on the few customs I played, both teams had access to hundreds of vehicles so it balanced itself out. I guess this isnt the case with all the customs played but typically the rockets didnt seem that effective against vehicles in the ones I played.

 

[Miggytronz]

i really miss the homing rocket. Those were the days in CTF.

 

[LunaticPuma]

i really miss the homing rocket. Those were the days in CTF.

The homing rocket can stay dead. It was even easier to take out hogs with homing rockets than with the laser.

 

[Sai]

It was even easier to take out hogs with homing rockets than with the laser.

I think we had one or two people in this thread saying otherwise.

I agree with you though.

 

[Wizman23]

Can't believe we haven't had an Alpha leak yet. I'm pretty sure Halo 3 already leaked at this stage in developement 3 years ago. I remember the Zanzibar leak and also another leak of someone showing off Epitaph saying how much it sucked. Hopefully one of the Alpha testers partys a little too hard today for St. Pats and decides to the record button.

 

[The Lamonster]

Can't believe we haven't had an Alpha leak yet. I'm pretty sure Halo 3 already leaked at this stage in developement 3 years ago. I remember the Zanzibar leak and also another leak of someone showing off Epitaph saying how much it sucked.

hahaha "Epi-tah"

 

[electricpirate]

Can't believe we haven't had an Alpha leak yet. I'm pretty sure Halo 3 already leaked at this stage in developement 3 years ago. I remember the Zanzibar leak and also another leak of someone showing off Epitaph saying how much it sucked. Hopefully one of the Alpha testers partys a little too hard today for St. Pats and decides to the record button.

I thought those both came from the internal beta leak, which will probably hit in early April I'd imagine.

 

[Tashi]

Marty's new love being interviewed about Halo Reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBi9CFmJbqk

I guess she's doing a multiplayer Spartan's voice?? She mentioned doing a lot of death noises.

 

[Miggytronz]

Marty's new love being interviewed about Halo Reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBi9CFmJbqk

so hot

 

[vhfive]

it sucks
and the new logo looks really stupid

 

[LunaticPuma]

it sucks
and the new logo looks really stupid

I don't mind the logo, but the fonts are pretty poor. I also don't care for the gray to white fade. Overall, I'd say it's a downgrade.

 

[godhandiscen]

Marty's new love being interviewed about Halo Reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBi9CFmJbqk

Her body is unreal.


What is the ETA on the podcast?

 

[bobs...onGaf]

it sucks
and the new logo looks really stupid

I dont exactly hate it, but it doesnt seem to display properly in my browser, I also get errors when trying to subscribe to threads. I must say I preferred the simpler look of the old theme.

I cant believe Epitaph was leaked and the leakers said it sucked :lol - I would love to watch that video if someone has a link - they where right.

 

[feel]

Marty's new love being interviewed about Halo Reach.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IBi9CFmJbqk

she's great.

it sucks
and the new logo looks really stupid

This.

 

[CrazedArabMan]

bringing grenades back to this

Video brings back memories. Come Bungie or 343, Halo 1 remake is a must...

Spoiler

with 4 player co-op and live support

 

[Major Williams]

Can't believe we haven't had an Alpha leak yet. I'm pretty sure Halo 3 already leaked at this stage in developement 3 years ago. I remember the Zanzibar leak and also another leak of someone showing off Epitaph saying how much it sucked. Hopefully one of the Alpha testers partys a little too hard today for St. Pats and decides to the record button.

Honestly Minus the Tom morello thing it has been nice without leaks. Getting fed the Reach news direct from the Bungie pipeline is kind of fun and new.

 

[Nutter]

I think we had one or two people in this thread saying otherwise.

I agree with you though.

One allows you to kill infantry along with vehicles at far away distances, vs. the other which only locked on to vehicles and even then you could evade.

 

[Syracuse022]

Epitiah

lulz

"gay pistol"
"gay sword points up like a dick"

 

[NJ Shlice]

http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=18095

New OXM article about Reach's scope. Nothing new, but it says the Active Camo in multiplayer also acts as a radar jammer.

I don't know how I feel about that. If let's everyone know you're coming. In MW2, when you're radar goes fuzzy you just stare at the door.

Unless it's going to be a suttle few dots that could legitimately confuse someone.

 

[Nutter]

http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=18095

New OXM article about Reach's scope. Nothing new, but it says the Active Camo in multiplayer also acts as a radar jammer.

I don't know how I feel about that. If let's everyone know you're coming. In MW2, when you're radar goes fuzzy you just stare at the door.

Unless it's going to be a suttle few dots that could legitimately confuse someone.

It only jams the radar for the person "using" active camo. Or at least that is what I understand of it right now.

 

[op_ivy]

http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=18095

New OXM article about Reach's scope. Nothing new, but it says the Active Camo in multiplayer also acts as a radar jammer.

I don't know how I feel about that. If let's everyone know you're coming. In MW2, when you're radar goes fuzzy you just stare at the door.

Unless it's going to be a suttle few dots that could legitimately confuse someone.

well, i think its a balance issue. active camo could be a HUGE advantage to players that know how to creep and stay hidden.

now, with the radar jammer included, at least you have a heads up that someone may be stalking you. it will certainly bring with it a sense of paranoia that i think will be great.

It only jams the radar for the person "using" active camo. Or at least that is what I understand of it right now.

that could also work to "nerf" camo a bit.

 

[Merguson]

http://www.oxm.co.uk/article.php?id=18095

New OXM article about Reach's scope. Nothing new, but it says the Active Camo in multiplayer also acts as a radar jammer.

I don't know how I feel about that. If let's everyone know you're coming. In MW2, when you're radar goes fuzzy you just stare at the door.

Unless it's going to be a suttle few dots that could legitimately confuse someone.

I'm pretty sure when you active that ability, the radar jammer will affect the person who activated the ability.

Regardless, I think it's good to have some sort of pros and cons for all abilities.

A good use for the camo is to enter an existing firefight and gain an advantage over someone. The downside is that if you use it at the wrong moment, people will be alerted to a camouflaged guy.

 

[LunaticPuma]

One allows you to kill infantry along with vehicles at far away distances, vs. the other which only locked on to vehicles and even then you could evade.

Last I checked, you could kill infantry with rockets from far away too. Yes, the laser is more precise, but it's no different than a sniper rifle. Lock-on rockets would bend and follow a hog while a laser requires LOS.

 

[EazyB]

I didn't see this posted:

http://www.edge-online.com/features/gdc-how-to-balance-halo?page=0,0

Good read on the Bungie panel at GDC about game balancing.

Finally got around to reading this. Fun read but there's a lot of cooky shit in there, may be some poor summarizing on Edge's part but I'd love to have listened to the whole thing.

Indeed, Griesemer said, "Control over flow is the essential design skill," explaining that half Bungie's designers majored in philosophy. "It's not a science – you don’t need a theory, or a control group," he said, advising designers to play the game they're creating in their heads, making mouth noises and detaching themselves from the technical issues of framerate and bugs their game is undergoing in order to get connected with their design.

I understand the bit about game design not being a hard science but what does philosophy have to do with it?

Spoiler

When does a philosophy degree help in any circumstance?

But not too connected. "Pro players say that the Halo makers are shit at their own game - it’s true. I’m not that good on purpose," Griesemer said. Playing well at his own game makes him feel good, but he mustn’t confuse that with feeling good because the game's well balanced.

Alright, none of this makes sense. Sure being good at the game could lead to liking the overall gameplay mechanics better but you'd think someone who makes a living balancing games would be able to get over this general feeling of euphoria and weed out what works well and what doesn't. Not only that but putting in the time to get good at the game leads to a better understanding of how each element of the game meshes. You can get away with balancing a game at higher level skill levels than your own to a degree but at some point you need to know first hand how these elements feel in the hands of an experienced user. Halo 3 feels like they balanced it for Bungie-level first hand and pulled some BS philosophical extrapolation for how it works out at higher levels (hello AR starts).

He spends hours happily driving the Warthog around because it's already well balanced and an intrinsic part of the game, but he mustn't spend time 'imprinting' himself on elements of the game which don't work so well, learning to accept their rough edges when he should be considering cutting or overhauling them.

Da fuck? So at what point does he decide a certain element doesn't work and promptly avoids it? Seems to me you'd want to spend more time focusing on becoming knowledgeable on how a given part of the game that may not be perfectly balanced fits in so you could learn how/where/when it doesn't perform its prescribed role. Get a good feeling for those "rough edges" in order to figure out how to go about smoothing them out.

And that's another thing about deciding the role of a weapon/vehicle in pre-production and basing whether it's balanced or not on how closely it fit this theoretical role; don't agree with it at all. I think a better way of approaching it would be to make assign these theoretical roles in pre-production, toss the elements in the game, and see how the elements balance together regardless of how closely they fulfill their intended role. Who knows if those elements would be as balanced together if they all fulfilled these roles and who knows if they'd be as fun or interesting? So the sniper plays a bigger role in CQC than intended? So what? The important question to ask is if that really breaks the balance and not how closely it matches up to the role. Maybe in the end a weapon doesn't fit the role but creates an entirely new one; at that point look to see if that role really does need to be fulfilled and if so slot something else in there.

Of course there's plenty of things I agree with, the bits about the flaws in rock/paper/scissors design and the importance of sensing a flow in particular, but for a game that's so well balanced there's a lot in that article that doesn't sound right. Though it does explain why certain elements of the game fall about at high levels of play and Bungie's game design philosophy that allows it turn out that way. Again that could be on Edge and watching the session for myself could've made things a lot clearer but I only have what I have to go with.

 

[Devin Olsen]

I'm pretty sure when you active that ability, the radar jammer will affect the person who activated the ability.

Regardless, I think it's good to have some sort of pros and cons for all abilities.

A good use for the camo is to enter an existing firefight and gain an advantage over someone. The downside is that if you use it at the wrong moment, people will be alerted to a camouflaged guy.

30 Seconds into the MP Trailer you can see a camo guy with a jammed radar.

Should give you an idea of exactly what happens with the camo perk.

 

[GhaleonEB]

I'm pretty sure when you active that ability, the radar jammer will affect the person who activated the ability.

Regardless, I think it's good to have some sort of pros and cons for all abilities.

A good use for the camo is to enter an existing firefight and gain an advantage over someone. The downside is that if you use it at the wrong moment, people will be alerted to a camouflaged guy.

A possible simple explanation for the differing reports on who the jammer affects: it affects both the user and those around him. The camo interferes with the user's radar, so while having the cloading advantage, they're also flying blind a bit. And while opponent's radars are jammed to mask movement, they also get a heads up that someone is cloaked.

It would be a double edged sword, while still coming out as a net advantage used correctly.

 

[NJ Shlice]

In multiplayer, the camo will also deaden sounds (good for snipers) and cause red dots to appear on nearby players' radars. Though they'll have a hard time tracking you, they'll also know you're around...

It's a balance issue.

It appears that the abilities recharge rather quickly. I'm interested to see how they are balancing the other abilities as well

 

[Nutter]

Last I checked, you could kill infantry with rockets from far away too. Yes, the laser is more precise, but it's no different than a sniper rifle. Lock-on rockets would bend and follow a hog while a laser requires LOS.

Are you serious? oh wait you are... So getting a rocket kill across the map happens so often in your games that can not see the difference between the two? A Rocket has distance it has to travel and then actually hit the target it was intended for. The laser on the other hand is instant, what part of that do you not get?