Yep, another thread full of opinions you don’t agree with. But, I felt compelled to put all of my thoughts about the game so far into a single post (actually 2 posts since it couldn’t fit in 1) for all to read and reply “QQ” with. So, I’ll start off with the things I like about Halo 4 matchmaking.
Loadouts
I actually like that they took it a step further than Reach and allowed you to customize and change every aspect of your loadouts. It’s obviously a big ripoff from CoD (a lot of things in this game are) but I think it’s fine in this game.
Perks (Tac Packages, Support Upgrades, Specializations)
Another CoD ripoff but again, I don’t mind it in Halo. None of them give a big enough advantage to feel overpowered and it allows you to further accentuate your playstyle. I was a bit disappointed that Specializations weren’t a 3rd perk but instead an added Tac Package/Support Upgrade, but oh well.
Dominion
I think Dominion is a great successor to Territories/Land Grab. I always hated those gametypes in previous games because the areas you had to occupy were always in plain view with little to no cover, so 3-4 grenades was all that was needed to clear it out. Dominion takes a bit more strategy and a lot more teamwork IMO. Now, I don’t like EVERYTHING in Dominion, but I’ll save that for when I start talking about my dislikes.
Challenges
I’m happy there are challenges specific to war games/spartan ops/campaign and that there are more of them. Some of the XP values don’t make sense to me but it gives me incentive to play more and play differently.
Spartan Ops
I’m pretty indifferent about the removal of Firefight for Spartan Ops. Firefight was always extremely laggy for me so I didn’t play it much, but if it weren’t than I probably would have played it more. Anyway, I like Spartan Ops because they feel like weekly miniature campaign add-ons that I get for free. They give you some back story and a purely cooperative experience outside of campaign.
Now, for the things I dislike about Halo 4. There are gonna be a lot more dislikes than likes and I’ll explain my reasoning for them.
Bodyshots dealing the same damage as Headshots with active shields.
This is something I haven’t seen any complaints about, but yet I feel it is a huge issue with the game. Obviously this isn’t true with the Sniper/Beam rifle, but 4 shots to the body with a BR/DMR do the same exact amount of damage as 4 headshots. The reason I feel this is an issue is because it promotes trigger spamming instead of good aim. Now, since this applies to everyone and thus makes it an even playing field, you might be wondering why it matters. Well, it shortens the skill gap of players and overall makes the game easier to casual players. Back in H2/H3, the skill gap was much larger since if Player A and Player B were BR’ing each other and one of them got more headshots because they had better aim, they would win out on that duel. Since Reach though, it takes 4 bodyshots and only 1 headshot for a kill. Players should be rewarded for their better aim instead of who got the last headshot off first.
Weapon Balance
Oh man, the most controversial topic in competitive shooters. Everyone has an opinion and they think everyone else is wrong. I’m just going to go through the weapons that I think need readjusting and move on.
Battle Rifle
I feel the BR needs a buff. As of right now, the BR is inferior to the DMR in every way. Less range, Slower fire rate, smaller magazine size, and smaller total ammo capacity. In no situation is the BR better (if all shots hit at the same time). I still prefer the BR for small maps since the slower fire rate helps me pace my shots and miss less, but even if the BR user gets first shot on a DMR user and both players hit every shot, the DMR user will win. Since it’s a mid-range weapon, I think it should be a 4 shot kill.
DMR
The thing I don’t like about the DMR is it’s range. Currently, it has the longest unzoomed/zoomed range than any other starting weapon, and still has auto-aim from the back of pelican on Ragnarok to someone on the human turret (same as middle to the front of one of the bases). The reason I don’t like this is because it turns large maps into campfests. With a starting weapon that can cover a third of any large map (and almost half of Ragnarok), it makes getting out of areas with little cover way harder than it should be. If I spawn in the open, immediately sprint towards the nearest form of cover and still die to someone shooting me with a DMR halfway across the map, something is wrong. I think the range should be nerfed to match that of the Light Rifle.
Boltshot
Yep, you guessed it, I think the Boltshot should be nerfed. Why? Because it has a longer insta-kill range than the shotgun, which is a power weapon. Think about that. A starting secondary weapon not only CAN insta-kill an enemy, but it’s insta-kill range is LONGER than that of a power weapon that you can not spawn with. And before you tell me I’m wrong, go test it out for yourself. I actually tested it with a friend of mine earlier using the DMR’s range indicator. It’s fact. And because you can spawn with this weapon, it largely encourages people to camp behind corners. I would personally make it either unable to insta-kill enemies (from full shields of course) in return for faster reload/less charge time, or severely decrease the insta-kill range to near melee distance.
Those are the 3 major weapon balance issues to me. I’ll quickly go through some less important ones.
Assault Rifle: Feels a bit too powerful at mid-range. If the AR user surprises a BR/Carbine user even at mid-range (which is the latters specialty) then 4/5 times the AR wins.
Scattershot/Shotgun: Scatter has a faster fire rate and longer overall/insta-kill range (although the insta-kill range is very random due to spread). Would maybe reduce damage.
Railgun: I think the Railgun could use a boost in splash damage.
Sniper/Beam/Binary Rifle: All 3 of these should have reduced ammo, ESPECIALLY the Binary.
Even in the average player’s hands, the Binary is a near guaranteed 2-3 kills.
Continues on next post.