Here’s a question. This thread revived an old thought of mine. I am undecided as to the answer.
Should melee be universally a 2-hit kill except when doing an assassination? This gives the player a choice: no assassination, but run the slightly risk of the guy behind able to counter you after the first hit from behind, or yes assassination and run the risk of someone else getting you during the animation.
Part of me thinks it would add something to the game. Part of me disagrees.
I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
> I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
Which is still a tradeoff, as you now have expended a grenade.
I think beatdowns should be one hit kills, if ya don’t pay attention that’s kind how it ends up being.
another issues it can be a problem for those who don’t want to do an assassination. They should be able to just do a normal beatodwn if they want without issue
> > I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
>
> Which is still a tradeoff, as you now have expended a grenade.
Regardless, I think being able to sneak behind a person should be rewarded with a swift blow to the head. Plus, breaking a guy’s spine OR smashing his skull (depending on how you think of it) makes more sense as a lethal hit.
> > > I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
> >
> > Which is still a tradeoff, as you now have expended a grenade.
>
> Regardless, I think being able to sneak behind a person should be rewarded with a swift blow to the head. Plus, breaking a guy’s spine OR smashing his skull (depending on how you think of it) makes more sense as a lethal hit.
I feel the real reward comes form the options you: you can just knock em out “ala beat down” or stab into their spine and snap their neck ala assassinations
> > > I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
> >
> > Which is still a tradeoff, as you now have expended a grenade.
>
> Regardless, I think being able to sneak behind a person should be rewarded with a swift blow to the head. Plus, breaking a guy’s spine OR smashing his skull (depending on how you think of it) makes more sense as a lethal hit.
Understand entirely. More playing devil’s advocate to keep the discussion going. Because I still can’t decide which would be better overall for gameplay.
> > > > I think a Beatdown should still be in-place. Otherwise, you might as-well just grenade him if you don’t feel like going through the Assassination animation.
> > >
> > > Which is still a tradeoff, as you now have expended a grenade.
> >
> > Regardless, I think being able to sneak behind a person should be rewarded with a swift blow to the head. Plus, breaking a guy’s spine OR smashing his skull (depending on how you think of it) makes more sense as a lethal hit.
>
> Understand entirely. More playing devil’s advocate to keep the discussion going. Because I still can’t decide which would be better overall for gameplay.
I still think the melee system is ok but I did hear some folks get mad over accidentally doing an assassination on someone suggested holding down the button a little longer
I see what you’re going for. A conscious choice between expanding time for a semi-guaranteed (you could get killed during the time it takes) assassination 1-hit-kill, or taking a somewhat faster route and going for a double beatdown.
Now in all reality they take about the same amount of time, and honestly I really would rather not be forced to sit through an animation and end up losing my kill because neither I nor my opponent had any control over the situation. It’d be an unavoidable dead stop in gameplay if you wanted the one hit kill.
Plus there’s the problem for people (like me) who do all ninja gameplays and just trick ninjas in general, because nothing throws a monkey-wrench in my beatdown overkill of the unwittingly unobservant enemy team quite like being forced into an assassination.
No I can’t say I’d support assassinations as the only way for the one hit melee kill. I think it’s more of a flashy kill to be used when the area is secure than anything else.
We need the beatdown to keep the pace up. Assassinations are fine for casual play and generally just fine as a separate thing, but the animation slows things down The beatdown allows you to quickly take down your foe and keep moving.
Assassinations are meant as a taunt and should remain so. It says ‘look, I can take the time to play out this fancy animation’, and for multiplayer that is all I need it for.
Its just one of those situation where gameplay trumps any immersion concerns.
> Here’s a question. This thread revived an old thought of mine. I am undecided as to the answer.
>
> Should melee be universally a 2-hit kill except when doing an assassination? This gives the player a choice: no assassination, but run the slightly risk of the guy behind able to counter you after the first hit from behind, or yes assassination and run the risk of someone else getting you during the animation.
>
> Part of me thinks it would add something to the game. Part of me disagrees.
This was a thought I had when they were showing them before Reach’s launch.
The reason, I think, they went with it being a 1-hit kill regardless is because they wanted the assassination to be considered “rubbing it in”… “I didn’t have to do this, but I am doing it to show you that I GOT YOU!”.
I’m impartial, just like you. I don’t know which way I would prefer.
I’m still undecided which is better, but in spite of Silent’s well-written post, I think I’m leaning toward 2-hit OR assassination as being better. But not by much. And I doubt it matters anyway . . . 343 has much more critical things to think about. This was more of a just-for-funs thread rather than a suggestion one.
After 10+ years I find the 2-hit melee boring. Watching players do the same old weapon-butt has grown stale. I’d be okay with a little bit of spice, especially if it engages the players more and provides some spiffy character animations. Same caveats as above apply, though: it can’t radically alter gameplay, so the duration of the engagement needs to be relatively unchanged.
1-hit Beatdowns vs Assassinations… I feel they can live side by side. The on/off assassination toggle option is one way to go. I’d also be okay with a more pressure-sensitive and/or different button trigger: the quickest of taps for a beatdown or a long hold/different button for assassinations.
> After 10+ years I find the 2-hit melee boring. Watching players do the same old weapon-butt has grown stale. I’d be okay with a little bit of spice, especially if it engages the players more and provides some spiffy character animations.
I was wondering something similar. The weapon-butt makes sense in extremely close quarters, but melee has an associated lunge range. It would be cool if there were different sets of animations for the ranges and whether his shields were low enough for the melee to kill. Like if you were at the edge of melee range and his shields were low enough for a kill, instead of lunge-butt, you grabbed that BR barrel with both hands and tried to put his head into the left field bleachers.
Melees in the middle of jumps also provide some good starting material for neat animations (ones that do not affect gameplay - the animation must not exceed the melee reset time).
The occasional kick to the nuts to drop shields wouldn’t be bad, either.
Backwash made a game of Slayer Swords “Man-Cannon Party”.
During the time that was all I was “good” at.