Bleed-Through: The Debate [On It's Removal]

Games Other Halo
1

It was bound to happen, and I’ve noticed a lot of threads regarding this topic. I, myself have played Reach since the dawning days. I adapted to Reach settings from Halo 3, and Halo 3 from Halo 2. Each game played differently, each uniquely with it’s own flavor. Each game had it’s own feel and quality, and I enjoyed each title up to this date. This includes Reach.

However…Reach struck me odd without the inclusion of damage bleedthrough. I hated the fact that someone who did no damage to me could win in a fight just because of no bleedthrough. Let me explain. How many times have you gotten an enemy so close to no-shield that they just up and melee you to take ALL of your shields from full, while your melee that counters only takes 10% damage that theirs did and then kills you, just because there’s no bleedthrough? How many times have you shotgunned somebody nearly point-blank that it leaves them with the smallest bit of shield so your melee doesn’t kill and you are thus double-melee’d? What about DMR’ing a Sprinter who just goes in and double-melees?

Ok, now how many times have you been SAVED by no bleedthrough? I’ve been saved by it just as many times as I’ve been on the death-receiving end of it. It doesn’t mean I should like it just because it saved me. And because of that, I don’t. The times I played Vanilla Reach (during TU vs Default TS), I HATED every time that I LIVED from no bleedthrough. It was so stupid, that I would live while the other player died when he clearly did more damage to me.

It just dumbfounds me the logic that people have when it comes to numbers. Let’s assume this, again:

You start with 100 points shield, 50 points health; for a total of 150 points. Melees do 110 points of damage (yes it takes slightly more than shields).

So, with Bleedthrough DISABLED:

3 DMR shots (75 points) + Melee (110 points) = 185 Points. But since there’s no BT, only 25 points from your Melee count. So you still have to inflict 50 more points to kill, which comes to 235 points.

Now, you were fighting someone who melee’d you twice. Melee (110 points) x 2 = 220 points. He dealt out 220 points and killed you.

220 > 235? Well that makes sense, I guess. No, people, it doesn’t. Learn your freaking numbers. 235 should win. Every time. No exceptions. This created a skillgap that people (casual players) didn’t like. Well guess what, why ruin it for EVERYBODY? You pleased everyone by including TU in certain playlists, and left Default in others. This made everyone (for the most part), happy. Why would you destroy over half your fanbase by calling out to the casual players, who play maybe 1 or 2 nights a week? I play 5 nights of the week regularly (~3 hours/night) and yet people like us are the minority? I’m pretty sure the casuals who cried about this probably play about 80% less than us more frequent, hardcore players.

If 343 was listening to the players, they would’ve watched other playlists as well. Did the populations of other playlists go up when TU was introduced? Yes. Did the populations in those playlists stay up somewhat? Yes. Why? Because people were brought back by the TU. They loved it. It brought Reach back alive and gave people hope that 343 would be doing something great; something amazing. And they DID. DID: being past-tense.

The main thing that bleedthrough did was countered people who wouldn’t fire their weapons, but would just crouch around every corner waiting to double-melee somebody. This isn’t how a FPS should be played. This is a SHOOTER game, not a MELEE game. (Well, it is NOW) What is honestly so bad about bleedthrough that warranted it to be taken out? Seriously? It’s not even an adapting thing. It’s like riding a bike. You rode a bike (past Halos) for so long of your life, and then jump into a car (Reach) for a few months, but it doesn’t mean you forgot how to ride a bike, does it? No.

This is just a sad excuse for not thinking things through. Reach is destroyed again, yet it could’ve simply been executed better. How about trying 75% melee damage with BT instead first to see if people like it better? How about trying ANYTHING before just up and removing it? That’s just poor planning and thinking on 343.

So community, are there any suggestions that could’ve been done BEFORE just up and removing Bleedthrough? How many really think it could’ve stayed had a setting just been slightly changed to make it better? Honestly?

And please, read the whole post.

2

Completely agree. I seriously facepalmed when i read the March update. This game has been and will always be a joke on Default settings so I’m not really surprised. Guess I will never leave the MLG playlist now.

3

> Completely agree. I seriously facepalmed when i read the March update. This game has been and will always be a joke on Default settings so I’m not really surprised. Guess I will never leave the MLG playlist now.

Exactly. There’s been no more equal settings to Halo than it had been for the past couple months. Playlists have garnered more attention and thus people have played it more. My biggest factor to even creating this thread, is that 343 only looked at the number of people who complained about BT rather than looking at the people who supported it and HOW MUCH these people played.

343, the people who don’t like BT, why don’t you take a look and see how often they even play the game compared to how often the people that SUPPORT BT play the game. Me and 3 of my friends play enough to probably account for the same man-hours that 100 casuals play/week.

4

I dont usually post on these forums, but this update has really pissed me off.
First, taking bleed through out is beyond stupid. When it was added, a few people complained that now the AR was a viable weapon up close or that they couldnt double beatdown. Alot of the veteran players ignored them because we really enjoy having gun fights in an FPS.
343i I can understand that you saw the complaining and decided to do something about it, but just REMOVING a GREAT UPDATE is WRONG! The TU brought me back to reach! If bleed through disappears Im probably leaving reach for BF3 and Halo3 until it returns.
And then taking evade away! WHAT?! Why is evade, an AA that has NEVER been rage inducing being taken out of the game when armor lock and active camo are still here!? WHAT?! WHY?! Its my favorite AA and seeing it go FOR NO REASON has really pissed me off.

Atleast tell us why your making these horrible changes >=(

5

Its not just about damage points and such. Its a shooter not dungeons & dragons. Also double melee is a straw man, try again.

Its about how CQC actually works between two players in a real-world production environment.

This entire argument has been gone over ad-infinitum.

6

> <mark>Its about how CQC actually works between two players in a real-world production environment.</mark>

Please elaborate.

7

BT w/ 90% melee damage. 75% will slow down gameplay too much.

@Fatal Factor: What.

8

> BT w/ 90% melee damage. 75% will slow down gameplay too much.

75% BT is still a 2-hit melee. 90% changes nothing.

9

> > BT w/ 90% melee damage. 75% will slow down gameplay too much.
>
> 75% BT is still a 2-hit melee. 90% changes nothing.

Actually there is a slight difference. 90% melee makes it to where you can survive from a couple AR rounds + melee if your health is in the red. at 100% literally 3 AR rounds and a melee will kill you if your health is red. 75% makes it to where even with low health, 2 melees is what it takes to kill, and would require your shields to be ~half or below for 1 melee to kill.

10

> > > BT w/ 90% melee damage. 75% will slow down gameplay too much.
> >
> > 75% BT is still a 2-hit melee. 90% changes nothing.
>
> Actually there is a slight difference. 90% melee makes it to where you can survive from a couple AR rounds + melee if your health is in the red. at 100% literally 3 AR rounds and a melee will kill you if your health is red. 75% makes it to where even with low health, 2 melees is what it takes to kill, and would require your shields to be ~half or below for 1 melee to kill.

What’s the matter with that?

11

> > > > BT w/ 90% melee damage. 75% will slow down gameplay too much.
> > >
> > > 75% BT is still a 2-hit melee. 90% changes nothing.
> >
> > Actually there is a slight difference. 90% melee makes it to where you can survive from a couple AR rounds + melee if your health is in the red. at 100% literally 3 AR rounds and a melee will kill you if your health is red. 75% makes it to where even with low health, 2 melees is what it takes to kill, and would require your shields to be ~half or below for 1 melee to kill.
>
> What’s the matter with that?

I’m confused by your post. There’s nothing wrong with what I posted. The game just plays like a Halo title the closer that 1 melee killing you at half shield is. 2 melees killing you, but the 1st leaving you with shield is also a very classic way to go. 75% just seems like the most viable and agreeable option instead of just pulling it altogether.

I don’t understand why 343 didn’t look into options to FIX Bleed-through, when the community has suggested countless times that it’s not Bleed-through that needs changed, it’s the damage the melee produces that outmatches weapons/grenades.

12

Default shields works far better then bleedthrough in every way. The debate on this issue is done and the return of no bleedthrough is a sure thing.

/thread

13

I voted for bleedthrough with 75% melee because it will nerf sprint/melee and make melee more of a finisher.

I wish there was a voting option for bleedthrough with 75% melee and 110% damage resistance. That would be even better as it would ensure the DMR was a consistent 5-shot.

Also, be sure to read this discussion about 75% melee.

14

> Default shields works far better then bleedthrough in every way. The debate on this issue is done and the return of no bleedthrough is a sure thing.
>
> /thread

This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members. This includes stat-flaming.

*Original post. Click at your own discretion.

See, it’s people like you that ruined this game. You support No Bleedthrough, but are considered part of the majority because you all complained about there being Bleedthrough in the first place.

Tell me, PLEASE gungrave45…How many games have you played in the last 14 days? I went to your Service Record. You have 25 games spanning the last 14 days. I have that in an average night. That means I play this game 14 times more than you. Why should 343 cater to people complaining who RARELY PLAY THE GAME?

^^^^This, Community, is where my argument is heading. The majority of people complaining about bleedthrough, don’t even play the game enough to warrant a change, yet 343 is doing it anyways.

15

> I’m confused by your post.

I thought you were on his side in terms of saying 75% slows down the game too much.

16

> > I’m confused by your post.
>
> I thought you were on his side in terms of saying 75% slows down the game too much.

No, 75% is perfect. With TU BT, 75% is STILL 2 melee kills. My factor is that if you’re low on HEALTH that 1 melee will kill you at less than half shield at 75%. 100% melee damage with low HEALTH means you’ll die when your shields are at like 80%. That’s too much.

17

Worst Matchmaking update on this game to date. Period.

18

> In TU, But No Bullet Bleedthrough, Only Melee

This is really the ONLY option that beats Shield Popping, unfortunately, I think that would require a new TU. And even then it lacks the feedback system of Shield-Popping.

A new TU though is something I would NOT want 343 wasting their resources on. Now is the time to build Halo 4, and get the shield system right for THAT game.

Taking the broken Bleed-Through system OUT of Reach, was a good call, considering the alternatives.

Nerfing Melee means you would no longer have a 2 melee kill. Even Halo 3 had a 2 melee kill.

Do it right, or not at all.

19

> Nerfing Melee means you would no longer have a 2 melee kill. Even Halo 3 had a 2 melee kill.
>
> Do it right, or not at all.

Halo 1 and 2 were 3 melee, and I don’t recall those receiving much complaint. H3 did.

I think the three melee is best, but reach isn’t capable of it under any settings that would feel right or result in balance.

75% no bleed is bad- two hits to drop shields, but the second hit doesn’t do ANY health damage? It might solve some issues, but that seems awkward.

75% in bleedthru- not a 3 hit, but does feel better. In order to get a good 3 hit kill you have to get weird with the damage reduction and out put… I think 1000% reduction, 300% damage, 200% melee (could be 150%) creates a pretty balanced melee/grenade/precision scenario, but the AR and repeater are even more garbage than before- and the autos in general practically require teamwork or that you finish with a melee to get the kill (maybe that’s a good thing though).

20

> > Nerfing Melee means you would no longer have a 2 melee kill. Even Halo 3 had a 2 melee kill.
> >
> > Do it right, or not at all.
>
> Halo 1 and 2 were 3 melee, and I don’t recall those receiving much complaint. H3 did.
>
> I think the three melee is best, but reach isn’t capable of it under any settings that would feel right or result in balance.
>
> 75% no bleed is bad- two hits to drop shields, but the second hit doesn’t do ANY health damage? It might solve some issues, but that seems awkward.
>
> 75% in bleedthru- not a 3 hit, but does feel better. In order to get a good 3 hit kill you have to get weird with the damage reduction and out put… I think 1000% reduction, 300% damage, 200% melee (could be 150%) creates a pretty balanced melee/grenade/precision scenario, but the AR and repeater are even more garbage than before- and the autos in general practically require teamwork or that you finish with a melee to get the kill (maybe that’s a good thing though).

2 hit melees seem to be the norm though. Halo 2 was actually a bit random, as sometimes 2 melees would kill, and sometimes 3. One of the main TU’s that it got added a melee damage modifier based on jumping. If you were falling from a jump when you melee-lunged someone, it took ALL of their shields instead of the 2/3-3/4 that it used to do. This also meant Oddballs, Flags, and Bombs were instant kills if you jump-melee’d someone. (Usually they only took all shields).

The game feels near perfect with 75% melee damage. If you add damage resistance to 110% that further reduces melee’s damage by 10% of 75%. Thus melee damage is now 67.5% which is a 3 hit melee kill. These are the settings that should’ve been tested in another Beta playlist before determining such a change to MatchMaking.