It’s not all that hard to figure out. Bleedthrough supposedly made a lot of game mechanics in the game intolerable (ar rush, random headshots, etc)
What a lot of people fail to realize is that the “inconsistency” is actually pretty consistent. Why are you complaining about the DMR killing in 4 shots if your shields are slightly down? Last time I checked, the DMR dropped shields in 4, and it should be obvious in when you have to back off. Melee bleedthrough shouldn’t be hard to figure out either. Overpowered? No, you’re not thinking about your situation. Awareness is key to being good at Halo, and the mindset of “I’m invincible” isn’t going to help you get any better.
This is what the complaints about bleedthrough boil down to. A refusal to improve their mental game, so the players demand simplification. This isn’t a good decision. The problems of old are going to come back and bite you. Pretty soon, the complaints about the Sprint Double melee are going to come back, and all of you are going to wonder why when it was obvious as to the reason.
I understand your opinion. I can agree with your logic, but I disagree with the stance you seem to have taken. You’re forgetting that melee attacks are much more difficult to avoid than you imply. If you’re in AR range, there’s a 1 in 2 chance that they will charge at you for the melee. Since you can’t back up as fast as they can walk forward, and since the melee lunge is so outrageous, it quickly turns into a CQC battle.
The reason bleedthrough/melee mechanics aren’t consistent is because melee fights are far too difficult to avoid. Sprint double-melees were never as much of a problem as AR-melee rushes.
I believe the lack of bleedthrough added consistency to CQC combat in Reach.
Thanks for your opinion. I am incredibly surprised by their decision to take out bleedthrough, but I fully support it.
It already has backfired tonight. It feels like a civil war in some threads. Also I am sure a new record of people getting banned has been broke tonight. Any ways, we are trying to argue with people who just aren’t use to the mechanic so they automatically deem it “bad”. The point is as you said, they don’t have good awareness and without good awareness you can’t play Halo, especially when it has bleedthrough. I think of bleedthrough as Legendary, the slightest mistake you make will punish you. This is why I like bleedthrough it adds a little bit of a skill gap. But that is just my opinion.
Casual Junk.
Just let this PoS game die already.
> It already has backfired tonight. It feels like a civil war in some threads. Also I am sure a new record of people getting banned has been broke tonight. Any ways, we are trying to argue with people who just aren’t use to the mechanic so they automatically deem it “bad”. The point is as you said, they don’t have good awareness and without good awareness you can’t play Halo, especially when it has bleedthrough. I think of bleedthrough as Legendary, the slightest mistake you make will punish you. This is why I like bleedthrough it adds a little bit of a skill gap. But that is just my opinion.
That’s true. In theory, I think that’s great for an FPS. But online play often has lags and delays that result in split-second decisions being difficult (sometimes random) to make. A single AR bullet or melee attack at precisely the right time is well-suited for competitive, zero-latency environments. Reach, to the dismay of some, is far more casual.
> > It already has backfired tonight. It feels like a civil war in some threads. Also I am sure a new record of people getting banned has been broke tonight. Any ways, we are trying to argue with people who just aren’t use to the mechanic so they automatically deem it “bad”. The point is as you said, they don’t have good awareness and without good awareness you can’t play Halo, especially when it has bleedthrough. I think of bleedthrough as Legendary, the slightest mistake you make will punish you. This is why I like bleedthrough it adds a little bit of a skill gap. But that is just my opinion.
>
> That’s true. In theory, I think that’s great for an FPS. But online play often has lags and delays that result in split-second decisions being difficult (sometimes random) to make. A single AR bullet or melee attack at precisely the right time is well-suited for competitive, zero-latency environments. Reach, to the dismay of some, is far more casual.
Nothing will ever be perfect. Especially when it comes to xbox live ping. But yeah you were right about Reach being more of a casual game. Also, to be fair Reaches sandbox was not designed for bleedthrough so it kind of breaks a few rules in Reach. Hopefully in Halo 4 if it has bleedthrough the sandbox will be designed good enough to actually SUSTAIN bleedthrough correctly.
> Nothing will ever be perfect. Especially when it comes to xbox live ping. But yeah you were right about Reach being more of a casual game. Also, to be fair Reaches sandbox was not designed for bleedthrough so it kind of breaks a few rules in Reach. Hopefully in Halo 4 if it has bleedthrough the sandbox will be designed good enough to actually SUSTAIN bleedthrough correctly.
I recognize networking will never be perfect. Removing bleedthrough makes it a bit more obvious about the proper time to melee. Further evidence of the causal nature of Reach, love it or hate it.
You bring up an interesting point, though. Sandbox issues. I guess the most obvious change would be movement speed, although map layout may also be an issue.
> Casual Junk.
>
> Just let this PoS game die already.
If you hate Reach so much why do you care?
> > Nothing will ever be perfect. Especially when it comes to xbox live ping. But yeah you were right about Reach being more of a casual game. Also, to be fair Reaches sandbox was not designed for bleedthrough so it kind of breaks a few rules in Reach. Hopefully in Halo 4 if it has bleedthrough the sandbox will be designed good enough to actually SUSTAIN bleedthrough correctly.
>
> I recognize networking will never be perfect. Removing bleedthrough makes it a bit more obvious about the proper time to melee. Further evidence of the causal nature of Reach, love it or hate it.
>
> You bring up an interesting point, though. Sandbox issues. I guess the most obvious change would be movement speed, although map layout may also be an issue.
This is why a Halo 4 beta would be useful however I don’t think their is going to be one. Oh well, only time will tell. As for the obvious to melee thing, that is the only good thing that comes with no bleedthrough. But than again its just my opinion on things. I am glad to actually finally have a good debate about something instead of blatantly yelling stupid and pointless things. Ah, actually debating with a smart person who knows what they are talking about. It feels so good to do this. : )
> I understand your opinion. I would agree with your logic, but you’re forgetting that melee attacks are much more difficult to avoid than you imply. If you’re in AR range, there’s a 1 in 2 chance that they will charge at you for the melee. Since you can’t back up as fast as they can walk forward, and since the melee lunge is so outrageous, it quickly turns into a CQC battle.
>
> The reason bleedthrough/melee mechanics aren’t consistent is because melee fights are far too difficult to avoid. Sprint double-melees were never as much of a problem as AR-melee rushes.
>
> I believe the lack of bleedthrough added consistency to CQC combat in Reach.
>
> Thanks for your opinion. I am incredibly surprised by their decision to take out bleedthrough, but I fully support it.
If by consistency you mean every single battle ends in a double melee trade than yes. Default Reach promotes meleeing over shooting in CQC, while bleedthrough promotes shooting then meleeing.
3 DMR shots + melee shouldn’t deal as much damage as one melee but in default Reach’s system it does.
> This is why a Halo 4 beta would be useful however I don’t think their is going to be one. Oh well, only time will tell. As for the obvious to melee thing, that is the only good thing that comes with no bleedthrough. But than again its just my opinion on things. I am glad to actually finally have a good debate about something instead of blatantly yelling stupid and pointless things. Ah, actually debating with a smart person who knows what they are talking about. It feels so good to do this. : )
Agreed. My flamesuit has gotten itchy after wearing it for so long.
OP: I do think that bleedthrough modified more than just CQC combat. Headshots became inconsistent due to how the bleedthrough was implemented. Due to the various sources of damage, it seemed that headshots would sometimes penetrate on low shields, but not always.
> Casual Junk.
>
> Just let this PoS game die already.
> If by consistency you mean every single battle ends in a double melee trade than yes. Default Reach promotes meleeing over shooting in CQC, while bleedthrough promotes shooting then meleeing.
>
> 3 DMR shots + melee shouldn’t deal as much damage as one melee but in default Reach’s system it does.
My own experience has shown that bleedthrough actually results in more mutual pummels. Since it only takes a few AR rounds to make somebody one-hit-kill with a melee, people throw melee attacks far earlier than they would without bleedthrough.
At least without bleedthrough, a smart combatant could time their own melee attacks to survive and kill their opponent. Now their only hope is to avoid melee battles altogether. Something which I’ve already said is far too difficult.
> > This is why a Halo 4 beta would be useful however I don’t think their is going to be one. Oh well, only time will tell. As for the obvious to melee thing, that is the only good thing that comes with no bleedthrough. But than again its just my opinion on things. I am glad to actually finally have a good debate about something instead of blatantly yelling stupid and pointless things. Ah, actually debating with a smart person who knows what they are talking about. It feels so good to do this. : )
>
> Agreed. My flamesuit has gotten itchy after wearing it for so long.
>
> OP: I do think that bleedthrough modified more than just CQC combat. Headshots became inconsistent due to how the bleedthrough was implemented. Due to the various sources of damage, it seemed that headshots would sometimes penetrate on low shields, but not always.
I think the cause of the head shots having different results is due to the health pack glitch. Sometimes when you pick a health pack up it will appear to bring back some health but in reality it doesn’t. This is the only thing I can think of to cause the inconsistencies in head shots you are speaking of. One thing I can not argue against however is the modified CQC combat. This has definitely changed with the implementation of bleedthrough, and quite drastically to say the least.
> > If by consistency you mean every single battle ends in a double melee trade than yes. Default Reach promotes meleeing over shooting in CQC, while bleedthrough promotes shooting then meleeing.
> >
> > 3 DMR shots + melee shouldn’t deal as much damage as one melee but in default Reach’s system it does.
>
> My own experience has shown that bleedthrough actually results in more mutual pummels. Since it only takes a few AR rounds to make somebody one-hit-kill with a melee, people throw melee attacks far earlier than they would without bleedthrough.
>
> At least without bleedthrough, a smart combatant could time their own melee attacks to survive and kill their opponent. Now their only hope is to avoid melee battles altogether. Something which I’ve already said is far too difficult.
WITH bleedthrough a smart combatant can time their melee attacks to survive and kill their opponent. Why? Firing bullets actually has an effect. Without bleedthrough, timing melees is a joke and will almost always lead to a trade with both players double meleeing, because meleeing is far more effective than firing 4 DMR bullets or however many AR bullets to pop the shields.
> I think the cause of the head shots having different results is due to the health pack glitch. Sometimes when you pick a health pack up it will appear to bring back some health but in reality it doesn’t. This is the only thing I can think of to cause the inconsistencies in head shots you are speaking of. One thing I can not argue against however is the modified CQC combat. This has definitely changed with the implementation of bleedthrough, and quite drastically to say the least.
I don’t think it matters how much health somebody has, they die if they’re hit with an unshielded headshot. It’s more likely that the TU version of bleedthrough (something that wasn’t intended for Reach originally) was imperfectly implemented. There are bound to be technical bugs when you try to tack on something like that after the fact.
> > I think the cause of the head shots having different results is due to the health pack glitch. Sometimes when you pick a health pack up it will appear to bring back some health but in reality it doesn’t. This is the only thing I can think of to cause the inconsistencies in head shots you are speaking of. One thing I can not argue against however is the modified CQC combat. This has definitely changed with the implementation of bleedthrough, and quite drastically to say the least.
>
> I don’t think it matters how much health somebody has, they die if they’re hit with an unshielded headshot. It’s more likely that the TU version of bleedthrough (something that wasn’t intended for Reach originally) was imperfectly implemented. There are bound to be technical bugs when you try to tack on something like that after the fact.
True, can’t argue with you on that one. Well I think I am going to retire for the night. Just remember one thing… watch out for those trolls and flamers! I am going to send you a friend request on Waypoint. Until tomorrow, I will see you on the forums later.
> WITH bleedthrough a smart combatant can time their melee attacks to survive and kill their opponent. Why? Firing bullets actually has an effect. Without bleedthrough, timing melees is a joke and will almost always lead to a trade with both players double meleeing, because meleeing is far more effective than firing 4 DMR bullets or however many AR bullets to pop the shields.
That’s hardly what actually happens though. It’s difficult to explain what actually happens in combat.
Often times, a player has time to shoot a person with their AR for a little while before they are meleed. Once they’re whacked, their first instinct is to melee back, despite the shots they fired. In this case, they lose the battle because the person can just melee them again.
But if they were smart, the AR player would have kept shooting so that his opponent’s shields pop while the other player is recovering from his first melee. Then he can throw a quick melee before they can throw their second one. The necessary timing actually works out more than you might think.
This situation works well without bleedthrough, and I suspect it’s what Bungie intended.
Conversely, bleedthrough allows the AR wielder to successfully give into his instinct to melee back, instead of being tactical and firing their gun a little more before they melee. In its own way, I might argue that bleedthrough actually encourages more melee attacks.
Its funny… I can’t recall ever being derped by a sprint + double melee and have not encountered ar rushing since playing TU games.
Maybe I’m just lucky… maybe I’m so lucky I’ll win all my dmr spam fights…
> > WITH bleedthrough a smart combatant can time their melee attacks to survive and kill their opponent. Why? Firing bullets actually has an effect. Without bleedthrough, timing melees is a joke and will almost always lead to a trade with both players double meleeing, because meleeing is far more effective than firing 4 DMR bullets or however many AR bullets to pop the shields.
>
> That’s hardly what actually happens though. It’s difficult to explain what actually happens in combat.
>
> Often times, a player has time to shoot a person with their AR for a little while before they are meleed. Once they’re whacked, their first instinct is to melee back, despite the shots they fired. In this case, they lose the battle because the person can just melee them again.
>
> But if they were smart, the AR player would have kept shooting so that his opponent’s shields pop while the other player is recovering from his first melee. Then he can throw a quick melee before they can throw their second one. The necessary timing actually works out more than you might think.
>
> This situation works well without bleedthrough, and I suspect it’s what Bungie intended.
>
> Conversely, bleedthrough allows the AR wielder to successfully give into his instinct to melee back, instead of being tactical and firing their gun a little more before they melee. In its own way, I might argue that bleedthrough actually encourages more melee attacks.
While I wish the scenario you outlined were the case more often than not, it sadly is rather ideal as opposed to realistic. Melee is simply too powerful in CQC situations and bleedthrough, while certainly a step in the right direction, isn’t the entire solution. Ultimately, I’d like to see reduced melee damage with bleedthrough, but that won’t happen, so bleedthrough is the next best option.