look, i’m not a fan of CoD before anyone tries to pull that one, all i’m trying to do is put things in perspective.
we all know what loadouts are, you get to select your weapons and AA(in Reach) but i think the fear over them is getting blown way out of proportion.
the way i see Reach loadouts werent bad it was the balance issues with the AAs, but if halo 4 just had loadouts (no AAs) than their are a lot of benefits. lets look away from player against player multiplayer and something like firefight, to me its soo much more interesting to chose weapons suited to your skillset and made a more interesting firefight team and in some scenarios requires people to work with each other and rely on each other, say for instance you need a grenadier to take out a hunter or damage a wraith. or somebody with an AR needs help taking out a lot of enemier somebody with a DMR(or in halo 4s case a BR) can help take out enemies if they become surrounded. granted it dosent happen all the time but its one less interesting feature that makes more dynamic gameplay
for standard multiplayer depending on the weapons players can chose ones that better suit their skillset, AR for short range and BR for long range and stuff along those lines.
the way i see all of this mass hysteria is people are so afraid that loadouts automatically mean armor abilitys when in reality it dosent and even without them are still usefull for multiplayer purposes. But thats just my opinion, feel free to agree or disagree but all i’m saying is this is whats going on and what we could lose from the loss of loadouts.
I agree, but I’m more surprised at the people who are now for it than against it. Not even a few days ago people hated the idea of it coming back and now they love it. It’s surreal.
> I agree, but I’m more surprised at the people who are now for it than against it. Not even a few days ago people hated the idea of it coming back and now they love it. It’s surreal.
well all i’ve seen today is about the video perks AAs and loadout stuff.
The weapons just need to be balanced. They NEED to fit into their niches and nothing else if we loadouts, or everyone will just go for the utility weapon load out.
If an AR user ambushes a BR user at close range, the AR user needs to win unless their terrible at aiming.
Like wise, a BR user needs to beat an AR user if they get into a conflict with a range of about 25 meters. The AR’s spread will go bad, and the BR’s burst will be on target.
Furthering this trend, at distances of about 70 meters, a DMR user needs to need a BR user because the BR’s spread going apart, and the single shot qualities of the DMR.
I’m really not a fan of switching Halo to an armor based class or perk system because my initial thought is Call of Duty. However, a perk system doesn’t necessarily mean it will be implemented like Call of Duty.
For all we know right know, 343 could be implementing the system in Halo 4 that will be fair AND fun. Until we learn more, I can’t really say that I hate it or love it–but I am cautiously optimistic about it.
> I’m really not a fan of switching Halo to an armor based class or perk system because my initial thought is Call of Duty. However, a perk system doesn’t necessarily mean it will be implemented like Call of Duty.
>
> For all we know right know, 343 could be implementing the system in Halo 4 that will be fair AND fun. Until we learn more, I can’t really say that I hate it or love it–but I am cautiously optimistic about it.
what do perks have to do with loadouts?? loadouts are for weapons and AAs (in reach’s case) we have seen nothing that says perks would be connected to loadouts
Unequal starts aren’t fun. Halo’s always been about a level playing field at the start of a match. Loadouts make it way harder to achieve that balance.
I wouldnt mind loadouts but i dont want them to be able to allow players to spawn with whatever weapon they want even if its not a “power weapon.” I think that would take away from halo’s “equality” or whatnot. One thing i love about halo is how everyone starts off with the same weapon or in reach’s case similiar weapons that are balanced.
I wonder when they say loadouts they mean like pre-set ones like in reach, meaning they would have time to create different loadouts then test them to see which combinations would be the best for any given game type
> look, i’m not a fan of CoD before anyone tries to pull that one, all i’m trying to do is put things in perspective.
>
> we all know what loadouts are, you get to select your weapons and AA(in Reach) but i think the fear over them is getting blown way out of proportion.
>
> the way i see Reach loadouts werent bad it was the balance issues with the AAs, but if halo 4 just had loadouts (no AAs) than their are a lot of benefits. lets look away from player against player multiplayer and something like firefight, to me its soo much more interesting to chose weapons suited to your skillset and made a more interesting firefight team and in some scenarios requires people to work with each other and rely on each other, say for instance you need a grenadier to take out a hunter or damage a wraith. or somebody with an AR needs help taking out a lot of enemier somebody with a DMR(or in halo 4s case a BR) can help take out enemies if they become surrounded. granted it dosent happen all the time but its one less interesting feature that makes more dynamic gameplay
>
> for standard multiplayer depending on the weapons players can chose ones that better suit their skillset, AR for short range and BR for long range and stuff along those lines.
>
> the way i see all of this mass hysteria is people are so afraid that loadouts automatically mean armor abilitys when in reality it dosent and even without them are still usefull for multiplayer purposes. But thats just my opinion, feel free to agree or disagree but all i’m saying is this is whats going on and what we could lose from the loss of loadouts.
When I get into a game that’s AR starts I hate it. I rage. If I can spawn the the DMR/BR or whatever the precision weapon of the game is I’m all aboard, sign me up.