AAs and Why they aren't a bad thing

At release, Reach’s AAs were generally well regarded. It was only after people began to use some excessively due to them being overpowered (i.e. armor lock) that the complaints started pouring in.

The thing is; they were a good idea, poorly executed. Who’s to say that they wont be fixed in Halo 4?

Let’s take the Assassin’s Creed multiplayer as an example:
Brotherhood’s multiplayer was VERY unbalanced because of the abilities. They had a tendancy to be overpowered and overused, just like Reach’s.
Revelations’, on the other hand, had a GREAT multiplayer, because almost all of the flaws from the previous game have been fixed; abilities got balanced, gameplay was smoothened.

Of course, that was a completely different company, but this is 343i that’s making H4! These are the guys who “fixed” Reach! Why can’t we believe that they’ll take the fan feedback, and actually do something with it? Where do you think that they got the idea to remove armor lock?

I’ll leave it at that, feel free to state your own opinion, contradict me, support me, or flame this thread because your pathetic self can’t find anything better to do.

Peace out.

https://forums.halo.xbox.com/yaf_postsm1045906_3-rules-ALL-Halo-4-additions-need-to-follow.aspx#post1045906

Thats why will suck in halo 4, and how to fix them.

Good post, spiniestchain. Pretty much second it.

They kept Jetpack in Reach.

Personally, I’d rather see someone with Armor Lock.

I don’t trust their judgement.

I’d like to see no armor abilities at all.

> https://forums.halo.xbox.com/yaf_postsm1045906_3-rules-ALL-Halo-4-additions-need-to-follow.aspx#post1045906
>
> Thats why will suck in halo 4, and how to fix them.

This summarises everything, those rules are spot on.

AAs were not initially well regarded in Reach - they were viewed as awful mutations to Halo that simply left the individual player underpowered and made the game a ‘trump my powerup’ instead of a pure Arena style FPS.

This slowed the game down while AAs also dimished the skill gap of Halo:

  • Aren’t in the right position? Sprint there!
  • Can’t gain back map control? Jetpack over everyone and abuse the map!
  • Should have died? Armor Lock!

In no way were AAs beneficial to Reach or Halo at all for that matter.

Take them out or H4 will flop just like Reach did.

> AAs were not initially well regarded in Reach - they were viewed as awful mutations to Halo that simply left the individual player underpowered and made the game a ‘trump my powerup’ instead of a pure Arena style FPS.
>
> This slowed the game down while AAs also dimished the skill gap of Halo:
>
> - Aren’t in the right position? Sprint there!
> - Can’t gain back map control? Jetpack over everyone and abuse the map!
> - Should have died? Armor Lock!
>
> In no way were AAs beneficial to Reach or Halo at all for that matter.
>
> Take them out or H4 will flop just like Reach did.

Nearly no one complained about them as a concept in the beta. For the first few weeks after release, many didn’t know the pros and cons of each AA. Everything was very new, and people experimented. Soon after, they also discovered ways to abuse them. Even I can admit they were implemented poorly in Reach, but that’s because it was a new gimmick. It’s not a new gimmick anymore, so they know how to implement it so it WORKS, as opposed to Reach.

> https://forums.halo.xbox.com/yaf_postsm1045906_3-rules-ALL-Halo-4-additions-need-to-follow.aspx#post1045906
>
> Thats why will suck in halo 4, and how to fix them.

Those are very interesting points you got there, can’t say I disagree, though some of it is blown way out of proportion. Balance is never ENTIRELY present, but that seems to be exactly what you’re aiming at.

> AAs were not initially well regarded in Reach - they were viewed as awful mutations to Halo that simply left the individual player underpowered and made the game a ‘trump my powerup’ instead of a pure Arena style FPS.
>
> This slowed the game down while AAs also dimished the skill gap of Halo:
>
> - Aren’t in the right position? Sprint there!
> - Can’t gain back map control? Jetpack over everyone and abuse the map!
> - Should have died? Armor Lock!
>
> In no way were AAs beneficial to Reach or Halo at all for that matter.
>
> Take them out or H4 will flop just like Reach did.

7 millions is surely flop… is it?

> > AAs were not initially well regarded in Reach - they were viewed as awful mutations to Halo that simply left the individual player underpowered and made the game a ‘trump my powerup’ instead of a pure Arena style FPS.
> >
> > This slowed the game down while AAs also dimished the skill gap of Halo:
> >
> > - Aren’t in the right position? Sprint there!
> > - Can’t gain back map control? Jetpack over everyone and abuse the map!
> > - Should have died? Armor Lock!
> >
> > In no way were AAs beneficial to Reach or Halo at all for that matter.
> >
> > Take them out or H4 will flop just like Reach did.
>
> 7 millions is surely flop… is it?

Financially, it wasn’t a flop.

However, if Reach really sold 7 million copies… why is only 1% of the people who bought the game actually playing it on a nightly basis at any given time?

Reach is lucky to pull 100k people most days. So where the heck are the other 6.9 million people?

Saying “Reach sold a lot so it was successful” actually hurts your cause more than it helps. If Reach actually was more successful, WAY more people would be playing since it sold so many copies.

Logic. Reach flopped as a game, but was successful financially. Old news, but nice try.

Halo Reach AA’s= Fail Game
Halo 4 AA’s= ?
Put two and two together.

> they were a good idea, poorly executed.

They weren’t good ideas. At all.

Invincibility at the tap of a button is not a good idea. Being able to regain map control by flying up at the tap of a button is not a good idea. Being able to become invisible at the tap of a button is not a good idea.

Armor abilities are awful and should have never made their way into Halo 4.

> > > AAs were not initially well regarded in Reach - they were viewed as awful mutations to Halo that simply left the individual player underpowered and made the game a ‘trump my powerup’ instead of a pure Arena style FPS.
> > >
> > > This slowed the game down while AAs also dimished the skill gap of Halo:
> > >
> > > - Aren’t in the right position? Sprint there!
> > > - Can’t gain back map control? Jetpack over everyone and abuse the map!
> > > - Should have died? Armor Lock!
> > >
> > > In no way were AAs beneficial to Reach or Halo at all for that matter.
> > >
> > > Take them out or H4 will flop just like Reach did.
> >
> > 7 millions is surely flop… is it?
>
> Financially, it wasn’t a flop.
>
> However, if Reach really sold 7 million copies… why is only 1% of the people who bought the game actually playing it on a nightly basis at any given time?
>
> Reach is lucky to pull 100k people most days. So where the heck are the other 6.9 million people?
>
> Saying “Reach sold a lot so it was successful” actually hurts your cause more than it helps. If Reach actually was more successful, WAY more people would be playing since it sold so many copies.
>
> Logic. Reach flopped as a game, but was successful financially. Old news, but nice try.

Your logic is flawed, however.

The game was a huge success because of the massive sales numbers, and the ridiculous amount of time spent online by millions of players.

But, saying that because not every one of those sales = online player means it was not successful just isn’t true.

If it was, that also means all the Halo games have been massive failures. Halo 2 and Halo 3 never came close to matching sales counts with their populations.

Actually, I’d say no console game’s population has ever come close to matching sales numbers. So by your own logic, all console games are failures.

Halo 3 and Halo 2 had more people online consistently and had less games sold.

They were more successful as games. Reach was more successful financially - that’s not the debate.

If Reach sold SO many more games, why did Halo 2 and 3 have SUCH bigger populations? Because they were better games.

You failed to argue any of my points - you just tried to use “it sold well it was successful” - which isn’t the debate.

Try again.

> Halo 3 and Halo 2 had more people online consistently and had less games sold.
>
> They were more successful as games. Reach was more successful financially - that’s not the debate.
>
> If Reach sold SO many more games, why did Halo 2 and 3 have SUCH bigger populations? Because they were better games.
>
> You failed to argue any of my points - you just tried to use “it sold well it was successful” - which isn’t the debate.
>
> Try again.

Your entire point was, and I quote, “Reach is lucky to pull 100k people most days. So where the heck are the other 6.9 million people?”.

That is flawed logic. No game ever comes close in terms of population to sales numbers.

Higher population also doesn’t equate to higher quality. That’s yet another case of flawed logic.

And please don’t try to use Halo 2/3’s numbers… There are far too many variables to just say, “Well, this game had more players! Means it was better!”. The entire socioeconomic structure of the gaming industry has gone through a complete overhaul in this past 5 years.

So, according to your own logic, since the Pokemon games sold more, they’re objectively better games than any of the Halo series? Since The Sims has sold more, they’re objectively better than any of the Halo series?

That is another case of flawed logic.

I’m sorry you can’t comprehend simple points of logic - or even find them to debate on them for that matter.

The point is flying over your head.

> I’m sorry you can’t comprehend simple points of logic - or even find them to debate on them for that matter.
>
> The point is flying over your head.

I have already pointed out your main point in your logic… More sales = Better game, or More popular = Better game.

There is literally no way to not see that’s exactly what you’re saying.

And I have refuted that point with sound logic.

I’m sorry if I’ve upset you, but I just had to point out the fallacious nature of your posts.

Can someone please tell me how Armor Lock is overpowered? I keep hearing of such accusations yet personally I’ve never encountered a case where I thought it was overpowered or overused. (And this is coming from someone who uses sprint 95% of the time.)

Armor Abilities give the game just that next level of unpredictablity. And that equals more fun. But that’s me.