“two hit melee kill is garbage”
Yeah, 3 melee hits is soooooooo much better. Besides, with your model and someone wanted to actualy kill with melee on a weakened opponent, wouldn’t you end up killing in two hits? People call for faster kill times and you’re slowing it down.
3 hit kill is dumb. Halo 2/3 did it just fine.
For the people that are saying they want a 3 hit melee system. I ask you, Have you played Halo2 before the first patch. It was a 4 or sometimes even 5 hit beatdown. Obviously that is not the same as 3 but if you go back and play that you will be amazed at how bad anything higher than 2 is.
> the same as 3 but if you go back and play that you will be amazed at how bad anything higher than 2 is.
2 Hit works
> > > Halo 3 AND Halo Reach had terrible Melee systems. 2 hit kill Melee is garbage. It should have bleedthrough like Halo 3, yes, but it should also do ALOT less damage.
> > >
> > > Melee attacks should kill in 3 hits, taking 2 hits to fully drain a shield, and one after shield is drained to kill. Doing exactly 40% damage, when a player’s health is 60% Shields, and 40% health. Meaning that it is Impossible to kill in a single melee while shields are UP, however, meleeing a shield drained opponent ALWAYS finishes him off.
> > >
> > >
> > > To Clarify:
> > >
> > > Player is at 100% health.
> > >
> > > 60% is Shields, 40% is health.
> > >
> > > 1 Melee Attack deals 40% of that damage.
> > >
> > > This leaves the player with 20% Shields, and 40% health.
> > >
> > > 2 Melee Attacks deal 80% of that damage.
> > >
> > > This leaves the player with 0% Shields, and 20% Health.
> > >
> > > 3 Melees kill.
> > >
> > >
> > > IF a Player is at 1% Shield, and they are melee attacked, they will be left at 1% Health. IF a Player is at 0% Shields, and 40% Health, they will die.
> >
> > Yeah that might work – I just hate when you shot someone a few times and its still a 2 hit melee to kill them and its the same for them to kill me 2 hit melee…
>
> Or we could just ditch the Yoink!ing terrible health system of H2/H3/Reach and opt for a sensible system that could allow for either 2 or 3 hit melees.
>
> Option 1: 2HK Melee
> Player is at 100%
> 50% is Shields, 50% is Health
>
> Melee damage: 50%
>
> 1 First melee takes away shields leaving 0% shields, 50% health
>
> 2 Second melee kills however if a player has say 1% shield, 50% health than the melee will leave the player with 0% shields, 1% health
>
> This option removes the deathcharge(No dying from one melee with 3/4 shields) while still keeping up the pace of melee.
>
> Option 2: 3HK Melee(This time we will use fractions)
> Player is at 6/6
> 3/6 is Shields, 3/6 is Health
>
> Melee does 2/6 damage
>
> 1 first melee leaves the player with 1/6 shields, 3/6 health
>
> 2 Second melee leaves player with 0/6 shields, 2/6 Health
>
> 3 Third melee kills
>
> This option also removes deathcharge and gives weapons and even more prominent role in CQC.
The point of the system is consistency. In a nutshell, Melee can’t be 2 hit kill, it leads to terrible melee+melee fights. Also if a player HAS shields, he CANNOT die in one hit. But if he has no shields, he HAS to die in one hit. Again for consistency.
Therefore a 40% Melee Damage in a situation where a player’s health is 60% Shields vs 40% health is the only way for it to make sense.
Anyway, based on timing Melees, in a 5 shot kill scenario, shooting him Once should not affect the number of Melees required to kill. If you shoot him 2 or 3 times, it should be 2 melees to kill. If you shoot him 4+ times he will die in one Melee.
Likewise if you Melee first then shoot, it should be 2 shots to kill. And if you Melee Twice than shoot, it should be one shot.
Creating a system where Melee is a burst of damage when used properly, but isn’t something you can rely on alone as a weapon. Used correctly, a Melee can ‘effectively’ replace 3 DMR body shots in a battle (This takes into account that DMR should deal 15% player damage. thats 5 shot headshot / 7 shot bodyshot kill with an excess 5% damage):
Legend:
S = Shoot - May Melee after Instantly, or Shoot after 1 Pace
M = Melee - May Melee or Shoot after 3 Paces
K = Kill
S-S-SM—S=K (10 paces)
S-S-SM—M=K (10 paces)
S-S-S-S-S=K (9 paces)
M—M—S=K (9 paces)
M—M—M=K (9 paces)
S-S-S-SM=K (8 paces)
S-SM—S=K (8 paces)
S-SM—M=K (8 paces)
M—S-S=K (7 paces)
SM—S=K (6 paces)
SM—M=K (6 paces)
M—SM=K (6 paces)
As you can see from the chart, Melee can be used to either decrease your kill time if used correctly, or increase it if used incorrectly depending on your combo. 3 Melee attacks is a very weak combo compared to, say, one Melee, and 2 Shots.
> For the people that are saying they want a 3 hit melee system. I ask you, Have you played Halo2 before the first patch. It was a 4 or sometimes even 5 hit beatdown. Obviously that is not the same as 3 but if you go back and play that you will be amazed at how bad anything higher than 2 is.
Melee Post Patch in Halo 2, and Melee in Halo CE were 3 hit, and they worked GREAT. Yes pre-patch it was 4-5, and it was bad. But it ISNT 3 hit. And 3 hit is proven to work. MLG was also 3 hit in Reach until TU Bleethrough, and wonky Melee Damage percentages got in the way of them making it impossible for a good 3 hit kill system of Melee.
3 hits is necessary, because Double Pummels are garbage, and in a 3 hit kill system, there are several scenarios that can beat a triple pummel, especially if triple pummels are the exact same kill time as 5 shots.
The only weapons that should kill in 2 melee attacks are Brute weapons (or any other weapon SPECIFICALLY MADE to have a bayonette. And the only ones that should kill in 1 are the Energy Sword and Hammer (Or any weapons SPECIFICALLY MADE to be a Melee only power weapon).
> > > > Halo 3 AND Halo Reach had terrible Melee systems. 2 hit kill Melee is garbage. It should have bleedthrough like Halo 3, yes, but it should also do ALOT less damage.
> > > >
> > > > Melee attacks should kill in 3 hits, taking 2 hits to fully drain a shield, and one after shield is drained to kill. Doing exactly 40% damage, when a player’s health is 60% Shields, and 40% health. Meaning that it is Impossible to kill in a single melee while shields are UP, however, meleeing a shield drained opponent ALWAYS finishes him off.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > To Clarify:
> > > >
> > > > Player is at 100% health.
> > > >
> > > > 60% is Shields, 40% is health.
> > > >
> > > > 1 Melee Attack deals 40% of that damage.
> > > >
> > > > This leaves the player with 20% Shields, and 40% health.
> > > >
> > > > 2 Melee Attacks deal 80% of that damage.
> > > >
> > > > This leaves the player with 0% Shields, and 20% Health.
> > > >
> > > > 3 Melees kill.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > IF a Player is at 1% Shield, and they are melee attacked, they will be left at 1% Health. IF a Player is at 0% Shields, and 40% Health, they will die.
> > >
> > > Yeah that might work – I just hate when you shot someone a few times and its still a 2 hit melee to kill them and its the same for them to kill me 2 hit melee…
> >
> > Or we could just ditch the Yoink!ing terrible health system of H2/H3/Reach and opt for a sensible system that could allow for either 2 or 3 hit melees.
> >
> > Option 1: 2HK Melee
> > Player is at 100%
> > 50% is Shields, 50% is Health
> >
> > Melee damage: 50%
> >
> > 1 First melee takes away shields leaving 0% shields, 50% health
> >
> > 2 Second melee kills however if a player has say 1% shield, 50% health than the melee will leave the player with 0% shields, 1% health
> >
> > This option removes the deathcharge(No dying from one melee with 3/4 shields) while still keeping up the pace of melee.
> >
> > Option 2: 3HK Melee(This time we will use fractions)
> > Player is at 6/6
> > 3/6 is Shields, 3/6 is Health
> >
> > Melee does 2/6 damage
> >
> > 1 first melee leaves the player with 1/6 shields, 3/6 health
> >
> > 2 Second melee leaves player with 0/6 shields, 2/6 Health
> >
> > 3 Third melee kills
> >
> > This option also removes deathcharge and gives weapons and even more prominent role in CQC.
>
> snip
You are missing the point I made. I can get behind a 3HK melee. But Melee will NEVER be properly balanced if we have an unbalanced health and Shield. 60/40 shield/health does nothing good for gameplay an we will never get a good melee system and don’t fixthe health system so that health and shields are equal. 50/50>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>60/40
If I shoot someone 2 or 3 times 1 melee should kill them / it should not be a even battle
Agreed with FUNZBOB. 2 HK is much faster gameplay.
Regarding the 50/50 health/shields - mind explaining why a 60/40 screws up balance?
Bleedthrough.
The problem with it in Reach was that people couldn’t adapt to it after having the game out for about a year. And so they complained, and complained, and complained until something was done.
Bleedthrough, the more they take from Halo 3 MM system the better imo.
> Bleedthrough, the more they take from Halo 3 MM system the better imo.
Very True Sir
Shield popping as is gives is great.
My problems are how slow reloading is and how slow it feels to swap to a lot of weapons.
I don’t believe shield popping would feel so bad to some players if they knew they could swap out to their PP or Magnum and reliably down the shields of a player for a melee kill/headshot on a sprinter attempting/ambusher who sprung their trap much too soon.
Something else for me, if the Sword gets to carve through melees, it should still receive damage from melees.
Bleedthrough. Because if i unload DMR into him while he sprints at me, and i have full sheilds but dont quite manage to take down his and we melee eachother, we shouldnt be left with the same health.
That is all.
> Bleedthrough. Because if i unload DMR into him while he sprints at me, and i have full sheilds but dont quite manage to take down his and we melee eachother, we shouldnt be left with the same health.
>
> That is all.
I hate that happening in Reach …
I don’t want that to happen in Halo 4.
> If I shoot someone 2 or 3 times 1 melee should kill them / it should not be a even battle
If the player has any shields at all then 1 melee to the front shouldn’t be a kill. Significant damage? Yes. Kill? No.
Like I said before it dumbs down the CQC gap considerably to have a H3 system of health/melee. Bleedthrough is good(and not specific to Halo 3), but everything else about the melee/health system is awful. It turns every non-headshot weapon into a CLUB.
Melee should work in service of the gunplay not the other way around. In Halo 3 every non-headshot weapon was in service to a melee. Nearly every CQC gunfight devolved into “how do I get enough shots to melee” instead of “how I should use melee to help me in the GUNFIGHT.”
> > If I shoot someone 2 or 3 times 1 melee should kill them / it should not be a even battle
>
> If the player has any shields at all then 1 melee to the front shouldn’t be a kill. Significant damage? Yes. Kill? No.
>
> Like I said before it dumbs down the CQC gap considerably to have a H3 system of health/melee. Bleedthrough is good(and not specific to Halo 3), but everything else about the melee/health system is awful. It turns every non-headshot weapon into a CLUB.
>
> Melee should work in service of the gunplay not the other way around. In Halo 3 every non-headshot weapon was in service to a melee. Nearly every CQC gunfight devolved into “how do I get enough shots to melee” instead of “how I should use melee to help me in the GUNFIGHT.”
The Club
Bleedthrough is necessary, it’s been a part of Halo for a long time and unlike many other things, it’s always been good and added to the game experience. Halo Reach showed us how awful a Halo game without bleedthrough is, and I doubt many would ever want to return to that, when they know what it means.
Whats bleedthorugh,i havent played Halo 3 campaign,i dont play the multiplayer that much, i haved ODST 
Bleedthrough is realistic, zero bleedthrough is not. if I shoot someone down to one sliver of shields while I have full shields and we melee eachother we should not have the same health.
The best bleedthough system is one that does not let you die from a punch when you have a sliver of shields and full health.