Hey guys, don’t post here often but I’m back because I’m excited for Halo 4!!
Big question though, which may not seem important right now, but will probably come up later.
Anyone else notice that after the sprinting animation is done, the reticule has a delay when showing up?
If there has been a thread on this already I apologize, I could not find it. My question would be then, can you fire before the reticule is up, thus firing without a reticule for about half a second? Or is that there intentionally to tell you when you can fire?
Personally, after noticing this and playing Reach’s current version of sprint, this seems very disorienting. The delay is just slightly too long. It may not seem like a big deal to others but I’m sure I’m not the only one seeing this.
Of course maybe 343 is intending to patch this day one. Or maybe this is a gameplay element. Just seems odd that the weapon will “settle” after running before the reticule ever shows up… Can anyone shed some light on this? Otherwise Halo 4 looks great!! Can’t wait for Nov 6th!
I’m pretty sure that delay is caused from actually going from the running animation into a combat ready stance with the gun out. It seems intended and I agree since the Spartans are actually overriding their safety protocols that it would take a second to adjust from running as fast as a car to going into a stable shooting stance. In Reach whenever someone would go from sprint animation straight into shooting I’d always wonder why that first shot is so accurate if you are firing from your chest.
> <mark>I’ve used firearms, real firearms, for 20 years.</mark>
>
> It’s a reticle.
First off, cool story.
Second off-
“A reticle (or reticule) is a net of fine lines or fibers in the eyepiece of a sighting device, such as a telescope, a telescopic sight, a microscope, or the screen of an oscilloscope.” Straight off of good ol’ wikipedia.
> > <mark>I’ve used firearms, real firearms, for 20 years.</mark>
> >
> > It’s a reticle.
>
> First off, cool story.
>
> Second off-
> “A reticle (or reticule) is a net of fine lines or fibers in the eyepiece of a sighting device, such as a telescope, a telescopic sight, a microscope, or the screen of an oscilloscope.” Straight off of good ol’ wikipedia.
LOLOLOLOLOLOL.
Seriously though, what was that guy even trying to prove?
First, never use Wikipedia as a source. But since we’ve already lowered ourselves to that level, maybe next read more than just the first sentence of your article.
From your article:
"but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights "
Thanks.
On topic: it’s there for balance. The benefit is increased movement speed, the cost is a delay between full sprint and offense .
> Lololololol. Seriously though it’s reticle.
>
> First, never use Wikipedia as a source. But since we’ve already lowered ourselves to that level, maybe next read more than just the first sentence of your article.
>
> From your article:
>
> "but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights "
>
> Thanks.
>
> On topic: it’s there for balance. The benefit is increased movement speed, the cost is a delay between full sprint and offense .
If you’re going to try and correct someone, at least do it the right way.
“The term graticule is the synonymous term from French, coming from the Latin craticula for gridiron. Both may be used to describe any set of lines used for optical measurement, but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights and such, while graticule is more widely used for the covers of oscilloscopes and similar roles.” The article wasn’t referring to the regional difference between ‘reticle’ and ‘reticule’
> > <mark>I’ve used firearms, real firearms, for 20 years.</mark>
> >
> > It’s a reticle.
>
> First off, cool story.
>
> Second off-
> “A reticle (or reticule) is a net of fine lines or fibers in the eyepiece of a sighting device, such as a telescope, a telescopic sight, a microscope, or the screen of an oscilloscope.” Straight off of good ol’ wikipedia.
> > Lololololol. Seriously though it’s reticle.
> >
> > First, never use Wikipedia as a source. But since we’ve already lowered ourselves to that level, maybe next read more than just the first sentence of your article.
> >
> > From your article:
> >
> > "but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights "
> >
> > Thanks.
> >
> > On topic: it’s there for balance. The benefit is increased movement speed, the cost is a delay between full sprint and offense .
>
> If you’re going to try and correct someone, at least do it the right way.
>
> “The term graticule is the synonymous term from French, coming from the Latin craticula for gridiron. Both may be used to describe any set of lines used for optical measurement, but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights and such, while graticule is more widely used for the covers of oscilloscopes and similar roles.” The article wasn’t referring to the regional difference between ‘reticle’ and ‘reticule’
>
> Thanks.
Not impressed with this thread. It got derailed so easily, and by a d0uche no less.
But yeah, aside from the canonical reason, ballancing is important. IT may be more necessary now than in reach because nothing is sacrificed for sprint unlike other AAs.
edit: sorry to bypass filters, but it’s better than the alternative in this case. Yoink is more or less synomynous with -Yoink- or -Yoink- or -Yoink-, and it’d be rude to leave that impression. Change it back if you want, or delete it as flame, though my opinion stands: That he derailed the entire thread because of a spelling error was very innapropriate.
> Lololololol. Seriously though it’s reticle.
>
> First, <mark>never use Wikipedia as a source</mark>. But since we’ve already lowered ourselves to that level, maybe next read more than just the first sentence of your article.
>
> From your article:
>
> "but in modern use the term reticle is most commonly used for gunsights "
>
> Thanks.
>
> On topic: it’s there for balance. The benefit is increased movement speed, the cost is a delay between full sprint and offense .
Why? It’s more dependable than Encyclopedia Britannica, and more updated so. It’s not like my grandma could go into a WWII article, change everything and save it. No, you have to be a respected Wikiepedia contributor to even change something in an article.
OP: I did see that, but maybe 343i did it for balancing/canon reasons. Who knows…