What do you prefer more? Close quarters combat or long, open range DMR/ sniper duels.
Personally I prefer CQC. To me CQC is better because you got more options. Do you throw a grenade or go for the pummel. Also duels are more likely to be completed. I find that when I play reach and Halo 4 because of the openness of some of the maps it’s easy to take cover or escape before you die. That’s not as easy if you’re opponent is within radar range.
Another reason for me preferring CQC is that I’m not that good with a sniper rifle . In CQC, weapons like the DMR and sniper are less effective unless you’re truly skilled with them but with the latter, CQC weapons are completely useless.
-Shotguns
-rockets
-pistol
-AR
-Sword
-gravity hammer
- plasma rifle
- plasma pistol
So these are my reasons for preferring close quarters combat. What are yours for preferring long range combat or CQC?
I like everything lol.
I just like to switch things up a bit from time to time.
But mostly, I dig BTB- more laid-back and open.
CQC all the way.
I’d love to be able to say it’s because I believe that it’s a very skillful and respectable play style but it really all comes down to the fact that no body goes through the trouble of practicing it on regular basis.
Everyone’s always rushing for the sniper or concentrating on medium range fights with their BR so it’s just so easy to abuse the fact that you can concentrate on being good in CQC and the vast majority of players you come across wont be as good as you up close.
I’d love to be able to say that being good in CQC is just as hard as being good in any other range but I’d be biased. I’ve got a lot to improve on when it comes to medium and long range fights so maybe I’m just bad at the game overall and chose the easiest play style as a result of that.
I’m all for making CQC harder though. I want respect for what I put so much time into being good at.
Why do think close range weapons are useless? I find them fun to shoot someone in the face with a shotgun or air slash them with a energy sword but I do prefer CQC over long range combat, sure im good at both but I take any chance I have for a fight up close
> Why do think close range weapons are useless? I find them fun to shoot someone in the face with a shotgun or air slash them with a energy sword but I do prefer CQC over long range combat, sure im good at both but I take any chance I have for a fight up close
Well if you play Campaign on Legendary the long range weapons still retain their usefulness to a degree, they’ll lose some damage but since you’re so far away from the enemy there’s nothing stopping you from putting a few more shots in them. But if you try using a Shotty on a Legendary Elite it’ll just bounce off their shields and proceed to kick you in the face before you can shoot them again.
I’d really like it if the difficulty settings affected the enemy AI’s intelligence and numbers, not their health.
For me, you can’t top excitement, intensity, and chaos of close quarters battle. Every weapon gets a chance to shine, from side arms, automatics, and scoped rifles. Grenades come into their own here, especially frags and the area-denial pulse grenades. Close quarters is also the only place where melee and assassinations can take place.
Ranged combat has it’s place, sure, but those pitched battles are more routine than not, and often come down to who fired first or who left themselves too exposed.
Speaking of CQB, bring back that awesome armor!
> Why do think close range weapons are useless? I find them fun to shoot someone in the face with a shotgun or air slash them with a energy sword but I do prefer CQC over long range combat, sure im good at both but I take any chance I have for a fight up close
I’ll clarify that for you. I don’t find them useless in general I was making the comparison that in CQC, long range weapons are still viable however you can’t use CQC weapons in a non CQC confrontation. I’ve noticed because of features like sprint maps are larger and there are more open spaces, the shotgun is utterly useless on most maps in halo 4. At least you can sprint then lunge with the sword though.
I think halo 5 would benefit from halo CE style maps but that’s personal preference.
I can almost anything (except for the rocket launcher, accidents happen) but I prefer cqc fighting with my assault rifle.
Sometime I use the environment to my advantages by jumping on something like a crate and jump again to get the height advantage. but a lot of moving every direction so I get less bullet fire on my armor and I get the advantage.
This become less successful with halo 4 with the dmr & BR and the fact that halo 4 is more faced paced.
Hope halo xbox one gets a slower pace because I don’t wan’t halo to be a first shot wins game like a lot of other shooters.
Halo must stays at its roots.
If both are done correctly, I enjoy both.
Halo suffers from poorly balanced weapons and excessive auto aim. The fundamental process of point-and-shoot in this game has been severely lacking.
Regardless of range, the more damage a weapon does, the less auto aim it should have. That simple change will engage players at the core of FPS game play. The high damage weapons would be inherently rewarding because they would be challenging to use. It would be nice to get into a strafe battle with someone and actually miss a few times. I am so tired of he reticle lock-on auto aim, and then the rock paper scissors outcome.
In Reach, before my current account, I was a dedicated Close Quarters or Mid Range. Even with precision weapons I either end up mid-range or close-range.
My only beef with the sword is its place in using Active Camouflage distributors. Why does one game have it sticking out when others it doesn’t?
I’d personally would prefer a bit of both. If I had to choose one though I’d say close quarters. Close Quarters makes the fights more interesting and harder to run from. Especially In a corridor. It would also be particularly interesting if there was a long corridor with a few hiding spots scattered in it, (there’s a map like that in halo 4 isn’t there?) It be even more annoying running up there with a sniper on the other side.
Close Range
The closer the enemy is, the faster he moves relative to your FoV, meaning strafe is more effective, meaning aim is more difficult, meaning the game is more challenging. You can also pole-vault over objects to your advantage in CQC, something not really feasible if you’re just sniping across the map. Halo was built on Close/Medium combat.
The only downside is that the latch-on super-lunge Melee throws most of this out the window. That and automatic weapons lowering the aim requirement.
> there’s a map like that in halo 4 isn’t there?
If you’re referring to Adrift, it’s less about tricks and more about camping and waiting for someone to come up to you, or setting up with a sniper at the end of the hall.