Dual-wielding, bloom, and accuracy.

Games Halo 5: Guardians
1

Post 1 of 4
Dual-wielding added more options to the Halo sandbox. Players could opt to stick with wielding only one weapon, and thus retain the ability to melee, use equipment and grenades, or they could run around dual-wielding weapons, which dealt an impressive amount of firepower in exchange for losing other abilities. Players who preferred dual-wielding had 21 different combinations of weapons to choose from, in Halo 2 and Halo 3. Removing dual-wielding restricted player choice.

Canonically, the player is a Spartan cyborg supersoldier, encased in 1,000 pounds of Mjolnir power-armour. Standard weapons are like toys in the player’s hands–in fact, some UNSC weapons even have to be increased in size specifically for Spartans. Compared to the Mjolnir armour, UNSC weapons weigh nothing. There is no reason why Spartans–or Elites–should be unable to dual-wield weapons.

As to the six weapons in Halo 2 [SMG, Magnum Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, Brute Plasma Rifle, Needler] and Halo 3 [SMG, Magnum Pistol, Plasma Pistol, Plasma Rifle, Spiker, Mauler]–these weapons are underpowered when not dual-wielded, especially compared to their counterparts in games without dual-wielding. This is a poor balancing decision by Bungie–it’s not a problem with dual-wielding itself.

Dual-wielding provides the player with increased firepower, in exchange for:
• Melee
• Grenades
• Equipment
• Quickly switching to secondary weapon.
• Accuracy

Logically, having both hands full means that it’s a little difficult for a Spartan to physically use a secondary weapon/grenades or equipment at the same time. I’m sure they’d use their teeth if they could, but the helmet gets in the way.

Removing the option to melee whilst dual-wielding is an odd decision. Spartans have two hands, therefore they can make two fists, and in each hand they have a weapon which can be used as a makeshift cudgel. There’s no need to drop one weapon whilst meleeing–and there’s no balancing issue involved–in the Halo games, Spartans won’t shoot whilst meleeing anyway, and they apparently won’t use both fists to punch an enemy at the same time, either.

Reduced accuracy makes sense, because the Spartan has the additional problems of countering the separate recoil effect of each weapon, and has to aim both weapons at exactly the same spot at once–it’s simply more difficult to dual-wield.

Note that weapon accuracy does not equal bloom, or spread, or precision. Logically, the actual spread of bullets fired from the player’s gun is not going to magically increase simply because the person holding the gun has a weapon in the other hand, too.

Weapon accuracy is a measure of where the player is aiming–accuracy in itself measures how close you got to the true value, or the target.

Weapon precision, or bullet spread is a measure of how precise the weapon is–it doesn’t matter if the player is aiming in a completely different direction to where the bullets actually end up going–as long as all the bullets end up in the exact same spot, that weapon is extremely precise.

These are some of the factors which may affect weapon precision, in the real world and in video games:

  • Varying/inconsistent wind speeds.and directions.- The shape and calibre of the bullet.- The angle that bullets/pellets exit the barrel. Shotguns have pellets which spread out. Precision weapons are supposed to have basically no spread, until the bullet loses enough velocity that it starts tumbling in the air.- Bloom [Video games only].- Using a scope [Video games only].These are some of the factors which may affect your accuracy.
  • Consistent wind speeds and directions.- Gravity.- Recoil.- Using a scope.- The speed of the bullet and the range of the target.- Your aim—the ability to compensate for the above factors.Smart-scope is a camera built-in to UNSC, Covenant, and Promethean weaponry which wirelessly displays a live video of what the weapon is aiming at to your HUD whilst zoomed in. The HUD will also display where the weapon is aimed at all times–this is the targeting reticule. [As an aside, this is why I like to call Halo 5’s “Smart-Scope” by the name “digital iron-sights.”–because a Spartan has no need to literally and physically look down the sights of the weapon unless their helmet is broken.]

Not a lot has changed about the reticule in Halo games. Typically it’s just there, in the centre of the screen, or a little below the centre, depending on the game. The Blind Skull and the Malfunction skulls may cause it to vanish completely, and weapons which had no scope in Halo 3 had no reticule when zooming in with the Mjolnir Mark VI’s in-bulit 2x zoom function. In Halo Reach, a visual representation of something called “bloom” was added–the reticule actually would expand when firing a weapon.

Bloom is present in every Halo game, for most weapons, regardless of the presence or absence of the expanding reticule. Bloom makes weapons less precise the faster the weapon is fired, and is supposed to simulate the effects of recoil. With recoil, the weapon should move, and thus the targeting reticule which shows where the weapon is pointing should move. An actual simulation of recoil would decrease weapon accuracy, but not its precision. Upon a cursory examination, in Halo the bullets which are fired from a supposedly precise weapon such as the DMR, are exiting the barrel at completely different, and random angles, rather than travelling the same path each time.

In short, precision weapons in Halo are imprecise.
Continued in next post

2

Post 2 of 4

Using a scope
Another interesting feature about Halo’s weapons is that their precision often magically increases [bullet spread decreases] simply by zooming in–this is evident in the Halo CE pistol and sniper rifle, for example. The bullet spread of a weapon in Halo seems to be tied in to the reticule itself–imagine a circle 2cm in diameter as the reticule. Each bullet/pellet exits the barrel of the weapon at a random angle and direction within that circle. When using the 2x zoom, the reticule appears to be the same diameter to the player–2cm, and once again, the bullet spread is bounded by that circle, but to the target the actual spread has reduced by half. For the sniper rifle, with 10x magnification, the effect was much more pronounced–whilst zoomed in, all shots landed in the same place even across the entire length of Blood Gulch. When not zoomed in, the first shot would hit the target, and the next shot would miss the wall entirely–the sniper rifle is literally 10x more precise when zoomed in. [As another aside, when testing this, I noticed that the superior game engines of Halo 4 and H2A don’t show plasma damage/bullet holes in structures, which was not helpful].

To clarify, using a scope is supposed to increase accuracy because it makes the target easier to see. It’s not supposed to make the weapon more precise.

So, weapons in Halo are less precise when not zoomed in and less precise when shots are spammed. Not a lot of people seem to be concerned about the zoom issue–with good reason–it might not be realistic, but the argument can be made that it makes for better [more fun] gameplay, which is of paramount importance. On the other hand, the bloom mechanic doesn’t accurately portray anything in real life, and the argument can be made that it is detrimental to gameplay, as it introduces a major element of randomness to precision weapons–weapons which in real life, are designed to hit the exact same spot every single time.

Believe it or not, but bloom really doesn’t simulate a single thing from the real world. The bloom mechanic has bullets firing at different, basically impossible angles from the barrel of the weapon, and the angle and direction is random. On the other hand, each weapon has a recoil animation and, in more recent Halo games, the entire view of the battlefield actually shudders as the weapon is fired–with the net result that the reticule, with respect to the battlefield, actually bobs up and down slightly. That’s simulated recoil, not bloom. All that’s required is for the precision weapon to actually fire bullets in the direction the barrel is aiming as it recoils–like it’s supposed to–and instead of having an imprecise, random “precision” weapon, players would have a predictable, more realistic simulation of recoil for their weapons.

Halo players may also find this version of recoil more interesting, as they may be able to compensate for the recoil [similar to compensating for the steady upwards crawl of the SMG], and thus be able to fire their weapon more quickly and accurately than players who can’t adequately compensate for the recoil, and thus must fire more slowly to maintain accuracy.

Wind speed and direction, air resistance–the Halo games rarely simulate wind at all. They are quite capable of doing so, though. See “The Ark” mission in Halo 3, when the Forward Unto Dawn finds out that if she wasn’t rated for atmosphere, she certainly is by the time that mission is over. The effects of wind and weather on maps, quite apart from its effects on bullets, may be something that 343 industries may like to take into consideration for future Halo games. Another thing to consider is air resistance–modern bullets maintain aerodynamic stability by spinning. After the bullet has travelled a certain distance through the air, it will start to tumble, after which even bullets fired from a precision weapon in no wind will deviate from their original course.

Gravity–the Halo series has had some fun with gravity–although not nearly enough for a space opera where humanity, the Covenant, the Forerunners and the Precursors can all generate artificial gravity to some extent. Even the concept of a Halo ring is based on the idea of using centripetal force to simulate gravity [although the Halo ring would have an angular velocity of 7km/s to generate 1G if it did rely on its spin for gravity].

Bullets in Halo have been portrayed in different ways. Sometimes they’re hitscan–meaning that as soon as a bullet is fired, then a line is generated from the weapon to the edge of the map, and the first thing that blocks that line instantly gets hit. Sometimes they’re actual, physical objects traversing a linear path, and they take some time to traverse the distance to the target. Sometimes they’re miniature missiles. It’s only on the rare occasion that objects fired from a weapon in Halo actually take note of gravity–such as with fuel rod cannons, wraith mortar cannons, brute shots and grenade launchers.

[Side note: The standard gravity hammer seems to have only a fraction of the capabilities of the Fist of Rukt --compare the Fist of Rukt with Half-Life 2’s Gravity Gun, and then take note of the fact that Halo 2 was released a week before HL2–and with that being said, the Fist of Rukt is quite similar to Thor’s Hammer].

Gravity already affects grenades–whether thrown by the player or fired from a grenade launcher. Gravity also affects every moveable object in the Halo sandbox–including the player. It might be interesting if Halo did apply the force of gravity to every object which is supposed to have mass–like UNSC bullets. Covenant weaponry uses magnetic fields to guide the plasma rounds, and hardlight…is basically technological magic, so anything goes, but if its name is taken literally, ie, as solid light, would probably travel at the speed of light, have basically unlimited range, and would be represented accurately in the Halo video games by hitscan lines unaffected by gravity.

Bullet spread and recoil–the shotgun fires multiple pellets at once, on slightly diverging paths. Personally, I liked the Halo CE shotgun, which actually had some range–as opposed to the pellets diverging at something liike a 45 degree angle so that the shotgun is effectively useless after a few metres. The shotgun is a highly imprecise weapon, and recoil would make it inaccurate only if another shot was fired whilst the shotgun was recoiling.

Continued in next post

3

Post 3 of 4

That’s exactly what happens with the Battle Rifle. The Battle Rifle fires a three-round burst–logically, the first round would be the most accurate, but the second and third rounds are fired whilst the weapon is still recoiling from the first bullet, and the bullets go off-target. As far as I know, rifles are designed so that their shots do not diverge when exiting the barrel–even with fully automatic rifles, so any divergence in the bullet paths at the ranges seen in Halo is simply down to due to the user not adequately adjusting for recoil, and likely holding the weapon incorrectly in the first place. Guns recoil backwards–as in, the exact opposite direction to where the bullet is going. They don’t apply an upwards, or downwards, or sideways force–just a backwards one. The gun kicks back, and then forward. It will jump around a bit in real life, too–human joints don’t really allow for the complete immobilization of a weapon. A correctly held rifle will fire bullets which exit the barrel on parallel paths, and not the diverging ones seen in the Halo games. An incorrectly held rifle allows for the recoil to bend the elbows, the wrist, and/or the spine, so the gun is raised with each shot–or sometimes wavers sideways. I’m fairly sure that Spartans know how to hold a weapon correctly, and can keep it aimed in the right direction, even if the weapon does shudder in their hands.

Aerodynamics–as mentioned previously, bullets come in all different shapes and sizes and materials, and the guns that fire them have differences in rifling and barrel lengths, all of which contribute to the aerodynamic stability or the speed of the bullet–and ultimately determine the effective range of the weapon. Its only after a bullet fired from a rifle loses its aerodynamic stability that the bullet paths diverge from each other. Either that, or there’s a crosswind, or the gun is really --yoink–.

Bloom revisited–Bloom can thus be readily discounted as a viable means of simulating anything from real weapons. Logically, the first shot from a rifle in Halo should always hit the target exactly where the player wants it to go, as long as the target is within range. Subsequent bullets will be on parallel courses, not diverging. The bullets should not go at randomized angles or directions–the recoil from the weapon is highly predictable, and repeats with every round fired.

In Theater mode, it’s easy enough to examine what happens to a rifle in Halo as it fires. The gun is forced backwards into the shoulder, and the entire weapon actually bounces upwards slightly. Then the stock of the gun succumbs to gravity, and drops, thus lowering that end of the weapon–followed by the barrel a little later. Additional bullets may be fired whilst the gun is still recoiling backwards and bouncing upwards, but no bullets are fired whilst the gun is settling back into its original angle.

Sniper rifles are a little different, as the force of the recoil actually causes a Spartan’s spine to bend, thus instantly raising the barrel of the weapon. Once again, no additional shots can be fired before the weapon has settled into its original angle [but possibly not position]. With pistols, shotguns, and SAWs/SMGs…

Oh, good grief. I retract my earlier statement about Spartans knowing how to hold a gun. That’s terrible. With the SMG, Shotgun, and SAW, the stock of the gun is completely unsupported. No wonder the SMG/SAW climbs upwards when Spartans use it. With pistols…I don’t know what they think they’re doing, but the dominant hand should be as high as possible, and the other hand should not be supporting the base of the magazine, but should be supporting the other side of the pistol. The way Spartans hold pistols now would flick the gun upwards and to the side every single time.–that’s simply the way that human wrists are designed, and what happens when one side of the weapon is insufficiently supported.

The reticule revisited–The reticule on the HUD is basically acting as a prediction zone. The bullets will land somewhere within this circle. Increase the size of the circle, and increase the zone where the bullets land. Zoom in, and the bullets must still land within that circle, so weapon precision must increase whilst zoomed in. That’s the logic of the Halo games, and that is not what a reticule is supposed to do. A better representation would be crosshairs or a laser pointer–although considering Halo’s reticules are predominately rings or circles, it might be best to just reduce the size of those circles to keep with Halo’s aesthetics.

When weapons fire in Halo, they recoil visibly, and the Spartan’s head visibly moves–as seen by the screen shaking. However, the reticule is always supposed to move with where the weapon is pointing, due to how smart-link works, and not move with the head. So, a more accurate representation of the reticule would be if it wasn’t permanently affixed to the centre of the HUD, but actually moved around with where the weapon was pointing. So, when the weapon is lowered or holstered, the reticule for that weapon would actually move off the side of the HUD, instead of just vanishing, for example. This would also be a far more effective representation of recoil with the SMG–rather than the player’s head moving upwards with the SMG, the reticule would climb up the HUD.
Continued in next post.

4

Post 4 of 4

After meandering through all of these topics, we can finally get back around to the starting point of this argument: dual-wielding.

Dual-wielding only exists for the player Halo 2, Halo 3 and Halo 2 Anniversary. Technically, it also exists for the flag carrier in Halo 4, as well, but the main reason it was removed in Halo ODST, Halo 4, Halo Reach, and probably Halo 5, is that Bungie originally tried to “balance” dual-wieldable weapons by making them completely ineffective on their own, and making the player unable to melee. Actually, there was no need for any of that. Dual-wielding is actually a concept which balances itself. Let’s take a look at what actual dual-wielding as a Spartan would be like, compared to wielding only one weapon

One weapon

  • Allows melee with weapon. Only one punch lands at a time, even when one hand is free.- Allows use of grenades and other equipment which needs to be physically activated.- Allows quick switching to secondary weapon.- When Spartans learn how to hold SMG, Shotgun and Sniper-type weapons correctly, recoil is adequately compensated for, and the weapon does not flick upwards or to the side. Bullets may end up travelling parallel paths, not diverging ones unless with the Shotgun, which is designed so that the pellets diverge.Dual-wielding
  • Double the firepower.- Allows melee with either weapon. Spartans only use one weapon to melee at a time. See skull fist-punch for example. Second weapon is no longer dropped.- One weapon must be dropped before the Spartan can use grenades, equipment which needs to be physically activated [armour abilities/thruster pack apparently don’t], or switch to their holstered weapon.- Recoil cannot be adequately compensated for. The weapons will flick upwards and to the unsupported side [weapons held in the right hand flick to the left, weapons held in the left hand flick to the right–and vice versa for shoulder mounted weapons]. Weapons do not return to their original position or their original angle, so the weapon and the reticule will climb upwards.- Another point to consider is that each weapon is going to be sending a reticule to the HUD. That means there’s going to be two reticules visible. It may be that each weapon and reticule will oscillate, so both weapons are only aimed at the same spot for a fraction of the time. This oscillation would likely get worse the faster the Spartan moves, and when the player accelerates, the weapons will likely be pointing in completely different directions.- The interesting thing about dual-wielding is that it allows for combinations of different weapons. Each weapon would have different recoil and oscillation times when dual-wielded compared to another weapon. Players may find it interesting when they try and compensate for two different recoil strengths at once.- In keeping with the idea that each weapon is going to be separately smart-linked to the HUD, and have a separate reticule, it’s worth noting that, unless Mjolnir armour is equipped for splitscreen mode, the scopes of the weapons can’t be used, so players would be unable to zoom with dual-wielded weapons [except with the Mjolnir’s built-in 2x zoom function, which as seen in previous Halo games, removes the reticule from the HUD whilst zoomed].- Second weapon blocks more of the player’s field of vision.So, in summary, dual-wielding allows for double the firepower and ability to melee with either hand, in exchange for lack of grenade access, inability to use equipment, increased recoil, severe weapon crawl, inability to zoom in or use a scope, difficulty in keeping both weapons aimed in the same direction due to oscillation, inability to switch to the holstered weapon, and more of the field of vision blocked by the second weapon. Personally, I think that’s balanced–and it would remain balanced even if players could wield a rocket launcher in one hand and a gravity hammer in the other. Every single weapon should be able to be dual-wielded–but dual fuel-rod cannons or similar would be just about as dangerous to the person wielding them as the enemy.

The advantages and disadvantages of dual-wielding are similar to the advantages and disadvantages of a shotgun. It’s harder to miss with a shotgun due to the spread of the pellets–only a few of the pellets need to hit the target for it to be effective at killing the target–such as a bird, or a dangerous animal. However, what must also be taken into consideration is where the pellets which missed are going to go–through walls, ceilings, trees, cover…teammates–or perhaps the bullets will ricochet and kill the person firing the shotgun. It’s the same with dual-wielding. Players have far more firepower, so it’s much more likely that they’ll hit the enemy with a bullet or two, but it should always be much harder to get consistent shots on a target, and much easier to kill yourself or your teammates in the process.

Bloom, and the way Halo simulates recoil, never increased the difficulty of hitting the target consistently–wind speed, or a predictable weapon oscillation, or similar would do that. What bloom does is make the shots more or less random–and one thing that weapon-users, in real life or video games do not like in their weapons, is random, unpredicatable behaviour. It’s not a question of realism in video games. It’s a question of fun gameplay, and random, unpredictable weapon behaviour, for me personally, falls in the “not fun” and “–yoinking-- awful weapon design” categories.

So there you have it–dual-wielding, bloom, and factors which may affect weapon precision and accuracy in future Halo games. Let me know what you think, and if I’ve goofed in some way, don’t hesitate to let me know exactly where and how, so I can fix it. Thanks for reading!

The issue of players hogging power weapons is considered four posts down from this one. Special thanks to TryHardFan for bringing the issue to my attention.

5

Holy -Yoink- I just read all of that… I really need a hobby

6

For once, someone has convinced me that dual wielding could effectively be in halo with the correct balances unlike what bungie came up with. One thing you need to fix is that when making the comparison between dual wielding and using one weapon, put a space for dual wielding so people don’t think the entire description falls under one category. I’m still against the idea of dual wielding power weapons as it only increases selfishness and can prove much more detrimental to the team if one person manages to die and give up 2 power weapons. But overall, it’s nice that you’ve addressed some of the previous issues I thought with the balance of dual wielding, like needing one free hand to melee. One question: when it comes to the oscillation of the weapons as they kick left and right, will their reticles follow the direction in which they shoot? Because what I was imagining was that as you shoot longer, the guns could move further left or right due to lack of full support on both sides of the gun.

Thats all for now. I’ll give more thoughts later

7

Tl;Dr but wanted to bump for the parts I read being interesting before my attention span couldn’t handle the task.

8

@TryHardFan
Oops. Looks like Microsoft Word’s formatting doesn’t translate over to Halo Waypoint. Now I’ve got to put in that formatting again. :frowning:

The point you’ve brought up with players hogging power weapons is a separate issue, quite apart from dual-wielding. If I have a Rocket Launcher holstered and a Gravity Hammer equipped, I’ve effectively got the same problem–losing two weapons to the enemy team–although with dual-wielding you could actually end up losing three. When I hog power weapons like this, typically it’s so I can deny the enemy access to those weapons. The problem is, once I have them, it’s far safer to keep them than it is to leave the weapon lying on the ground in the vicinity of my teammates–where the weapon can be forgotten and picked up by the enemy team later on in the match.

This is where an adequate signalling system needs to be in place between teammates. Taking my cue from Portal 2’s co-op, a simple tagging system, which means “I want you to go to/remain at that location,” should suffice for most situations, and allow players to highlight enemies, or teammates, or objectives, or weapons lying on the ground. Being able to swap weapons/ammunition with teammates would be a good idea, too–we’ve only been able to do that with the Marines in the campaign since–what was it–Halo CE, or Halo 2? It’s already in the game in the first place, so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be implemented in multiplayer.

With the tagging system and being able to swap weapons with teammates, your concern with players hogging power-weapons should be adequately addressed–unless the player who has those weapons is just deliberately being a yoink, anyway–and really, not implementing a neat gameplay concept or removing it [like friendly fire in Halo 5] simply because players can be utter yoinks, is not really an adequate reason because those players will always find some way to yoink around with their teammates, anyway.

With the oscillation of the dual-wielded weapons, yes, those reticules will follow the weapons as they track left and right. The position of the reticule is supposed to show where the weapon is aiming, after all, and not just mark the centre of the HUD. I was thinking that each weapon bob around in a predictable circular path as the Spartan moved, even when the weapon wasn’t firing. Each weapon would have a different oscillation circle and have a different angular velocity. With two weapons, the result of the two separate pathways would look something like a Venn Diagram–with two points where the reticules would temporarily overlap/intersect, before diverging again.

The trouble with dual wielding is that you aren’t supporting your weapons properly–you just physically can’t do it with only one hand per weapon. So, when the player walks, the gun is going to bob up and down in the first place. Then with the recoil, left handed weapons will kick up and to the right [when your left hand wraps around the grip, the fingers do not support the right side as much as the left, so the gun moves away from the left support]. The shooter may attempt to compensate by moving that hand down and to the left, but inevitably they will overcompensate, and so the gun travels around in a little circle. If the shooter does not attempt to compensate at all, then the gun will keep on climbing upwards and to the right until something gets in the way of it climbing further that way.

9

> 2533274803493024;7:
> Tl;Dr but wanted to bump for the parts I read being interesting before my attention span couldn’t handle the task.

Heh. I get response on my posts on my threads a lot. I take the view that unless all potential factors are considered, the internet will rip any argument to pieces. The trouble with all potential factors being considered…is that the OP ends up being too yoinking long for most people to read. There’s either sufficient evidence to support the argument, or it’s a poorly constructed argument. My only hope is that my arguments don’t end up being long and poorly constructed.

Using counter-arguments is much easier. Their job is to simply poke a hole anywhere in the original argument, so they can be much shorter.

10

> 2533274880692195;3:
> So, a more accurate representation of the reticule would be if it wasn’t permanently affixed to the centre of the HUD, but actually moved around with where the weapon was pointing. So, when the weapon is lowered or holstered, the reticule for that weapon would actually move off the side of the HUD, instead of just vanishing, for example. This would also be a far more effective representation of recoil with the SMG–rather than the player’s head moving upwards with the SMG, the reticule would climb up the HUD.

I believe the Hyrdra does this correctly when it locks-on to other players, right?

Either way, that would be so awesome, and innovative! I hope 343 considers this dynamic reticule idea. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a shooter approach reticules like that.

11

> The point you’ve brought up with players hogging power weapons is a separate issue, quite apart from dual-wielding. If I have a Rocket Launcher holstered and a Gravity Hammer equipped, I’ve effectively got the same problem–losing two weapons to the enemy team–although with dual-wielding you could actually end up losing three. When I hog power weapons like this, typically it’s so I can deny the enemy access to those weapons. The problem is, once I have them, it’s far safer to keep them than it is to leave the weapon lying on the ground in the vicinity of my teammates–where the weapon can be forgotten and picked up by the enemy team later on in the match.
> This is where an adequate signalling system needs to be in place between teammates. Taking my cue from Portal 2’s co-op, a simple tagging system, which means “I want you to go to/remain at that location,” should suffice for most situations, and allow players to highlight enemies, or teammates, or objectives, or weapons lying on the ground. Being able to swap weapons/ammunition with teammates would be a good idea, too–we’ve only been able to do that with the Marines in the campaign since–what was it–Halo CE, or Halo 2? It’s already in the game in the first place, so there’s no reason it shouldn’t be implemented in multiplayer.
> With the tagging system and being able to swap weapons with teammates, your concern with players hogging power-weapons should be adequately addressed–unless the player who has those weapons is just deliberately being a yoink, anyway–and really, not implementing a neat gameplay concept or removing it [like friendly fire in Halo 5] simply because players can be utter yoinks, is not really an adequate reason because those players will always find some way to yoink around with their teammates, anyway.

Of course, and there is nothing you can truly do to prevent those situations from happening when it comes to bad teammates. And the part that I bolded is the reason why we need to have some trading system within the game. You could make it so that when two teammates hold the southern part of the d-pad, both players can trade weapons or give each other more ammo. Although when it comes to the tag system in which players try to tell each other what to do, I don’t think it’s gonna work. As much as it could be beneficial to the team by requesting players to go to specific chokepoints or objectives, the human mind sadly has a tendency to be independent and not be under the will of others for their own good. There’s no problem with this idea, but I think it can definitely get some mixed responses, like dual wielding. Some people think it makes them look like a boss, while others feel like it only clutters the sandbox with useless items due to balance, which hasn’t been addressed until now.

12

> 2535460843083983;10:
> > 2533274880692195;3:
> > So, a more accurate representation of the reticule would be if it wasn’t permanently affixed to the centre of the HUD, but actually moved around with where the weapon was pointing. So, when the weapon is lowered or holstered, the reticule for that weapon would actually move off the side of the HUD, instead of just vanishing, for example. This would also be a far more effective representation of recoil with the SMG–rather than the player’s head moving upwards with the SMG, the reticule would climb up the HUD.
>
>
> I believe the Hyrdra does this correctly when it locks-on to other players, right?
> Either way, that would be so awesome, and innovative! I really hope 343 considers this. I don’t think I’ve ever seen a shooter approach reticules like that.

Effectively, that’s the sort of thing I imagine the smart-linked reticule is supposed to do–move around the HUD. Only, in that case, a clear distinction must be made between the reticule that is linked to where the gun is pointing, and the predictive/target-lock reticule–where the guided missile is attempting to end up. The Halo 2 Rocket Launcher, and the Sabre/Broadsword missiles have this sort of thing, as well.

I imagine that’s the sort of thing the Wii motion sensor technology was originally designed for, particuarly in conjunction with something like Oculus Rift. With the Xbox/Playstation controller the player has two analogue sticks–one to rotate your avatar’s head, and one to move your avatar’s body. Ideally, you need a third one to control where the weapon is actually pointed, instead of tying it in to the motion of the head. It’s possible that a series like the Metroid Prime Trilogy has a control system like this, where the weapon can be moved independently of where the player is actually looking, but I don’t really know–I’m still saving up at present to get a couple of Nintendo and Sony consoles, so I can actually see for myself what gaming is currently like outside of Microsoft’s domain.

13

> Of course, and there is nothing you can truly do to prevent those situations from happening when it comes to bad teammates. And the part that I bolded is the reason why we need to have some trading system within the game. You could make it so that when two teammates hold the southern part of the d-pad, both players can trade weapons or give each other more ammo. Although when it comes to the tag system in which players try to tell each other what to do, I don’t think it’s gonna work. As much as it could be beneficial to the team by requesting players to go to specific chokepoints or objectives, the human mind sadly has a tendency to be independent and not be under the will of others for their own good. There’s no problem with this idea, but I think it can definitely get some mixed responses, like dual wielding. Some people think it makes them look like a boss, while others feel like it only clutters the sandbox with useless items due to balance, which hasn’t been addressed until now.

Pfft. Who needs real teammates who don’t follow orders, when we can have bots, right? :slight_smile:

In my opinion, sandbox clutter is a good thing. It gives the player more to choose from. Honestly, every Halo Legendary campaign can be completed with just three weapons–the plasma pistol, a headshot capable weapon [DMR, BR, etc], and for Flood Combat forms, a melee/CQC weapon. That’s it. There’s no need for grenades, or melee, or armour abilities or vehicles, or other weapons. Just those three weapons, and the ability to move, jump, and take cover, will get you through every campaign, solo, on Legendary. [except for when the game forces the player into a vehicle].

…but it would be a seriously dull game series if that was all we could do.

14

> 2533274880692195;13:
> > Of course, and there is nothing you can truly do to prevent those situations from happening when it comes to bad teammates. And the part that I bolded is the reason why we need to have some trading system within the game. You could make it so that when two teammates hold the southern part of the d-pad, both players can trade weapons or give each other more ammo. Although when it comes to the tag system in which players try to tell each other what to do, I don’t think it’s gonna work. As much as it could be beneficial to the team by requesting players to go to specific chokepoints or objectives, the human mind sadly has a tendency to be independent and not be under the will of others for their own good. There’s no problem with this idea, but I think it can definitely get some mixed responses, like dual wielding. Some people think it makes them look like a boss, while others feel like it only clutters the sandbox with useless items due to balance, which hasn’t been addressed until now.
>
>
> Pfft. Who needs real teammates who don’t follow orders, when we can have bots, right? :slight_smile:
>
> In my opinion, sandbox clutter is a good thing. It gives the player more to choose from. Honestly, every Halo Legendary campaign can be completed with just three weapons–the plasma pistol, a headshot capable weapon [DMR, BR, etc], and for Flood Combat forms, a melee/CQC weapon. That’s it. There’s no need for grenades, or melee, or armour abilities or vehicles, or other weapons. Just those three weapons, and the ability to move, jump, and take cover, will get you through every campaign, solo, on Legendary. [except for when the game forces the player into a vehicle].
>
> …but it would be a seriously dull game series if that was all we could do.

That would seriously suck wouldn’t it? :stuck_out_tongue:

In my opinion, giving the player more options to choose from isn’t necessarily a good thing if those aren’t viable options. In those situations, players would feel forced to pick up weapons that are already worthless, and we don’t need that. While there are some aspects in which players feel the same way in halo 5 to be forced to use their smg or ar, those options are more viable now. I don’t want too many guns where they are essential in every gunfight and are required in order to perform well, nor do I want guns that are untouched and waste space for other mechanics 343 can improve on. That being said, I wonder how they can implement the original weapons like the plasma rifle with all the new SA’s. My other hope is that they can improve the look of the new rocket launcher since it looks too modern. Maybe because of that militaristic color, so I hope the skin of the weapon will be improved.

15

Bleh. Can someone check my maths? The combinations of dual-wielded weapons in Halo 2 and 3 is ((6! / 4!) / 2) + 6 = 21. There are actually eight different dual-wieldable weapons in H2A [the Survivor magnum, which can’t pick up additional ammunition for Flood gametypes, and the suppressed SMG were added]. So, for H2A, the number of combinations would be ((8! / 6!) / 2) + 8 = 36 different weapon combinations. The forumula I’m using is (n! / (n-r))(1 / r) + n*.* Basically, it’s the combination without repetition formula, but with the +n to account for the fact that players can dual-wield the same weapon.

13 weapons have been confirmed for Halo 5 Guardians–11 standard and two legendary. If all of these could be dual-wielded, then players would be able to take their pick from ((13! / 11!) / 2) + 13 = a total of 91 different weapon combinations for dual-wielding purposes.

When you consider that dual-wielding actually means that the player can carry a maximum of three weapons, then the amount of weapon combinations that the player could equip would be ((13! / 10!) / 3)…hang on a second. There’s some more repetition, here…all three weapons can be the same, or two of the three weapons can be the same…so I think that means…I add my previous result of 91 to this one? I’m fairly sure that’s how it works. I think.

So ((13! / 10!) / 3) + 91 = 663 different combinations of weapons that players would be able to carry, if all 13 weapons confirmed for Halo 5 Guardians could be dual-wielded. That’s a lot to choose from.

> That would seriously suck wouldn’t it? :pIn my opinion, giving the player more options to choose from isn’t necessarily a good thing if those aren’t viable options. In those situations, players would feel forced to pick up weapons that are already worthless, and we don’t need that. While there are some aspects in which players feel the same way in halo 5 to be forced to use their smg or ar, those options are more viable now. I don’t want too many guns where they are essential in every gunfight and are required in order to perform well, nor do I want guns that are untouched and waste space for other mechanics 343 can improve on. That being said, I wonder how they can implement the original weapons like the plasma rifle with all the new SA’s. My other hope is that they can improve the look of the new rocket launcher since it looks too modern. Maybe because of that militaristic color, so I hope the skin of the weapon will be improved.

By the way, @TryHardFan, multiplayer is worse than campaign in that regard–you’re always up against plasma pistol/headshot enemies, so 90% of the time, players don’t need other weapons, anyway. Even vehicles succumb to the plasma pistol, allowing the player to get close enough to jump on the vehicle and either hijack or destroy it.

As to ineffective objects in the Halo sandbox, I direct you to the Mongoose, which is followed by the Traffic Cone. Oh, and I really don’t like the Forerunner Suppressor, as it’s not that useful, but then again, I never found the sentinel beam to be particuarly useful either, but I really like that weapon.

16

> 2533274880692195;15:
> Bleh. Can someone check my maths?

You have N weapons. After choosing one, you still have N weapons to choose from. So for dual wielding, the total number of choices is N^2, including repetitions. The amount of choices that don’t have two same weapons is N^2-N, and half of those are repetitions. So, the amount of actual choices you have is N^2-(N^2-N)/2=(N^2+N)/2. If you take one of these combinations, and take the third weapon into account, you have, again, N choices in front of you, so you make yet another multiplication by N, and you end up with N(N^2+N)/2 choices.

17

> 2533274825830455;16:
> > 2533274880692195;15:
> > Bleh. Can someone check my maths?
>
>
>
>
> You have N weapons. After choosing one, you still have N weapons to choose from. So for dual wielding, the total number of choices is N^2, including repetitions. The amount of choices that don’t have two same weapons is N^2-N, and half of those are repetitions. So, the amount of actual choices you have is N^2-(N^2-N)/2=(N^2+N)/2. If you take one of these combinations, and take the third weapon into account, you have, again, N choices in front of you, so you make yet another multiplication by N, and you end up with N(N^2+N)/2 choices.

Hmm…I’m getting the same results with your N(N^2+N)/2 formula with two weapons, but I’m fairly sure that the fraction of repetitions for three weapons is not half. Take a look at these combinations: AAA, AAB, AAC, ABB, BBB, ABC, ACC, BCC, CCC. We’ve got 1/9 of the available combinations which don’t have repetition. Trouble is, when I replace /2 in the last formula you gave me by /9, I get a decimal result for my calculations, which tells me that something is seriously off with that formula.

18

> 2533274880692195;17:
> > 2533274825830455;16:
> > > 2533274880692195;15:
> > > Bleh. Can someone check my maths?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > You have N weapons. After choosing one, you still have N weapons to choose from. So for dual wielding, the total number of choices is N^2, including repetitions. The amount of choices that don’t have two same weapons is N^2-N, and half of those are repetitions. So, the amount of actual choices you have is N^2-(N^2-N)/2=(N^2+N)/2. If you take one of these combinations, and take the third weapon into account, you have, again, N choices in front of you, so you make yet another multiplication by N, and you end up with N(N^2+N)/2 choices.
>
>
> Hmm…I’m getting the same results with your N(N^2+N)/2 formula with two weapons, but I’m fairly sure that the fraction of repetitions for three weapons is not half. Take a look at these combinations: AAA, AAB, AAC, ABB, BBB, ABC, ACC, BCC, CCC. We’ve got 1/9 of the available combinations which don’t have repetition. Trouble is, when I replace /2 in the last formula you gave me by /9, I get a decimal result for my calculations, which tells me that something is seriously off with that formula.

All of those combinations are unique combinations. AAA means you are dual wielding some type of weapon, and you have a similar weapon reserved. AAB means you are dual wielding one type of weapon, and you have a weapon of other type reserved. All of the ones you listed are legitimate combinations.

Even combinations like ABA and AAB are legitimate, because you in the first you are dual wielding A and B, and you have A reserved, but in the second you’re dual wielding two As and have B reserved. The only combinations you need to watch out for are of the type ABA, and BAA, because it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re dual wielding A and B, or B and A. This is why you can consider the first pair of numbers as just one weapon, which is any of the original dual wielding combinations. Then you can just choose any of the other weapons to accompany that, without worrying about any more repetition.

19

> All of those combinations are unique combinations. AAA means you are dual wielding some type of weapon, and you have a similar weapon reserved. AAB means you are dual wielding one type of weapon, and you have a weapon of other type reserved. All of the ones you listed are legitimate combinations.
>
> Even combinations like ABA and AAB are legitimate, because you in the first you are dual wielding A and B, and you have A reserved, but in the second you’re dual wielding two As and have B reserved. The only combinations you need to watch out for are of the type ABA, and BAA, because it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re dual wielding A and B, or B and A. This is why you can consider the first pair of numbers as just one weapon, which is any of the original dual wielding combinations. Then you can just choose any of the other weapons to accompany that, without worrying about any more repetition.

Ah, no. You’re confusing combinations with permutations. Easy enough mistake to make. I’m not concerned as to whether or not I’ve got a needler in my left hand, right hand, or holstered. I’m only concerned as to whether or not I have a needler, and how many of them I have. Make sense? I used this site to brush up on the formulas and the differences between the two concepts: http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html

20

> 2533274880692195;19:
> > All of those combinations are unique combinations. AAA means you are dual wielding some type of weapon, and you have a similar weapon reserved. AAB means you are dual wielding one type of weapon, and you have a weapon of other type reserved. All of the ones you listed are legitimate combinations.
> >
> > Even combinations like ABA and AAB are legitimate, because you in the first you are dual wielding A and B, and you have A reserved, but in the second you’re dual wielding two As and have B reserved. The only combinations you need to watch out for are of the type ABA, and BAA, because it doesn’t make a difference whether you’re dual wielding A and B, or B and A. This is why you can consider the first pair of numbers as just one weapon, which is any of the original dual wielding combinations. Then you can just choose any of the other weapons to accompany that, without worrying about any more repetition.
>
>
>
> Ah, no. You’re confusing combinations with permutations. Easy enough mistake to make. I’m not concerned as to whether or not I’ve got a needler in my left hand, right hand, or holstered. I’m only concerned as to whether or not I have a needler, and how many of them I have. Make sense? I used this site to brush up on the formulas and the differences between the two concepts: http://www.mathsisfun.com/combinatorics/combinations-permutations.html

No, I’m not concerned about permutations or combinations. Neither of them allows you to choose two of the same, so neither of them applies here. Blindly applying combinatorial formulas is going to lead to excluding certain possibilities, such as having two or three Needler’s. That’s why neither is going to benefit you here.

You need to understand what you want here. Most importantly, you want the ability to pick something twice, so anything involving factorials is out the window (not exactly, but it’s easier without). Secondly, you want to ignore order when dual wielding, as, like you said, it doesn’t matter whether you have a Neelder in your right or left hand. However, you don’t want to ignore order when you bring in the third weapon, because it does make a difference whether you are dual wielding Needlers and have a Plasma Pistol holstered, or you’re dual wielding a Plasma Pistol and a Needler, and have another Needler holstered.