Video right here.
http://www.bungie.net/Stats/Reach/FileDetails.aspx?fid=27030030&player=SKeTCHyKeV%20III
can’t watch video right now, but support.
You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
The No-bleed support argument fails .
Edited by a moderator. Please refrain from flaming other members.
Original post. Click at your own discretion.
> You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
>
> The No-bleed support argument fails .
on my phone; can’t watch.
And I think anyone who knows what they’re talking about knows BT is an upgrade and it’s only the derps and those that can’t adapt to more skillful gameplay who support it’s removal/caused it.
> > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> >
> > The No-bleed support argument fails .
Go go 75% melee!
> > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > >
> > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> >
> > on my phone; can’t watch.
>
> Go go 75% melee!
75% w/ BT or w/o?
With for certain.
> You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
>
> The No-bleed support argument fails .
That’s hardly a reasoning for it to remain. Trading kills happens a lot in halo.
It’s become a matter of opinions, Some people like No Bleedthrough because their shields popping adds a proper mechanism for their tastes. Shield’s pop you have the warning to take cover because you are one shot, sure it adds one bullet and supposedly slows down gameplay. Maybe people actually like it that way, where engagements are not ‘I shot first you dead’ but rather ‘you shot first, but if i return fire quick enough, i can recover from the ambush’
It’s got more than it’s share of issues with Warthog drivers dropping dead with no warning but ‘oh look, the driver just flew past my turret…wait’ The game was clearly not built for bleedthrough in my opinion.
There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences. I can’t stand Backburner Pyro’s in TF2, but i’m sure players who like using it wouldn’t budge against the argument, as a good analogy. (For the non TF2 players benefit, The Pyro is a Class in TF2, flamethrower who deals in mass dps, Backburner is a weapon that gives mini-crits for attacks from behind. Such power they could possibly kill an entire team traveling through a chokepoint if they flank.
> > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > >
> > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> >
> > on my phone; can’t watch.
>
> Go go 75% melee!
Actually, I’m testing 90% damage and 90% melee. If you don’t mind a 22-shot AR and 8 shot NR, it is perfect. Grenades don’t even break shields!
> > > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > > >
> > > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> > >
> > > on my phone; can’t watch.
> >
> > Go go 75% melee!
>
> Actually, I’m testing 90% damage and 90% melee. If you don’t mind a 22-shot AR and 8 shot NR, it is perfect. Grenades don’t even break shields!
Yikes! Shouldn’t grenades break shields? They do in all the other games.
> > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> >
> > The No-bleed support argument fails .
>
> That’s hardly a reasoning for it to remain. Trading kills happens a lot in halo.
>
> It’s become a matter of opinions, Some people like No Bleedthrough because their shields popping adds a proper mechanism for their tastes. Shield’s pop you have the warning to take cover because you are one shot, sure it adds one bullet and supposedly slows down gameplay. Maybe people actually like it that way, where engagements are not
>
>
>
> There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences. I can’t stand Backburner Pyro’s in TF2, but i’m sure players who like using it wouldn’t budge against the argument, as a good analogy. (For the non TF2 players benefit, The Pyro is a Class in TF2, flamethrower who deals in mass dps, Backburner is a weapon that gives mini-crits for attacks from behind. Such power they could possibly kill an entire team traveling through a chokepoint if they flank.
You guys act like being 1 shot or 2 shot is going to make a huge difference in the decisions you make. If you’re 1 shot you’re dead, 90% of the time. If you’re waiting until you’re 1 shot to leave a battle you’re doing it wrong regardless. 95%+ of the time, bleed through or no bleed through, shield pop or no shield pop, nothing is going to be different. It’s just an excuse. Period. You would have died anyway.
> ‘I shot first you dead’ but rather ‘you shot first, but if i return fire quick enough, i can recover from the ambush’
Yeah because I don’t out DMR kids who got 2 shots on me multiple times a game or anything; bleed through or vanilla, 100%, 85% or ZB. People miss, why don’t you guys understand this?
> It’s got more than it’s share of issues with Warthog drivers dropping dead with no warning but ‘oh look, the driver just flew past my turret…wait’ The game was clearly not built for bleedthrough in my opinion.
If you’re in a WH I guarantee 99% of the time you will always be shot by a DMR in which the bleedthrough “problem” would never occur.
The only problem with bleed through is the non-regenerating health w/ melees, which isn’t even that big of a problem it just adds a “new skill” of being weary of your health when engaging CQC and increases the importance of actually picking up a HP.
Other than that, BT is no different than any previous game.
> > > > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > > > >
> > > > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> > > >
> > > > on my phone; can’t watch.
> > > >
> > > > And I think anyone who knows what they’re talking about knows BT is an upgrade and it’s only the derps and those that can’t adapt to more skillful gameplay who support it’s removal/caused it.
> > >
> > > Go go 75% melee!
> >
> > Actually, I’m testing 90% damage and 90% melee. If you don’t mind a 22-shot AR and 8 shot NR, it is perfect. Grenades don’t even break shields!
>
> Yikes! Shouldn’t grenades break shields? They do in all the other games.
With the Reach grenukes? You’re still able to be killed by either a single headshot or punch. It just feels so great.
> > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > >
> > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> >
> > That’s hardly a reasoning for it to remain. Trading kills happens a lot in halo.
> >
> > It’s become a matter of opinions, Some people like No Bleedthrough because their shields popping adds a proper mechanism for their tastes. Shield’s pop you have the warning to take cover because you are one shot, sure it adds one bullet and supposedly slows down gameplay. Maybe people actually like it that way, where engagements are not
> >
> >
> >
> > There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences. I can’t stand Backburner Pyro’s in TF2, but i’m sure players who like using it wouldn’t budge against the argument, as a good analogy. (For the non TF2 players benefit, The Pyro is a Class in TF2, flamethrower who deals in mass dps, Backburner is a weapon that gives mini-crits for attacks from behind. Such power they could possibly kill an entire team traveling through a chokepoint if they flank.
>
> You guys act like being 1 shot or 2 shot is going to make a huge difference in the decisions you make. If you’re 1 shot you’re dead, 90% of the time. If you’re waiting until you’re 1 shot to leave a battle you’re doing it wrong regardless. 95%+ of the time, bleed through or no bleed through, shield pop or no shield pop, nothing is going to be different. It’s just an excuse. Period. You would have died anyway.
>
>
>
> > ‘I shot first you dead’ but rather ‘you shot first, but if i return fire quick enough, i can recover from the ambush’
>
> Yeah because I don’t out DMR kids who got 2 shots on me multiple times a game or anything; bleed through or vanilla, 100%, 85% or ZB. People miss, why don’t you guys understand this?
>
>
>
> > It’s got more than it’s share of issues with Warthog drivers dropping dead with no warning but ‘oh look, the driver just flew past my turret…wait’ The game was clearly not built for bleedthrough in my opinion.
> >
> > If you’re in a WH I guarantee 99% of the time you will always be shot by a DMR in which the bleedthrough “problem” would never occur.
> >
> > The only problem with bleed through is the non-regenerating health w/ melees, which isn’t even that big of a problem it just adds a “new skill” of being weary of your health when engaging CQC and increases the importance of actually picking up a HP.
> >
> > Other than that, BT is no different than any previous game.
>
> You literally read my mind . I’m thanking you for this very useful post .
> > > > > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> > > > >
> > > > > on my phone; can’t watch.
> > > > >
> > > > > And I think anyone who knows what they’re talking about knows BT is an upgrade and it’s only the derps and those that can’t adapt to more skillful gameplay who support it’s removal/caused it.
> > > >
> > > > Go go 75% melee!
> > >
> > > Actually, I’m testing 90% damage and 90% melee. If you don’t mind a 22-shot AR and 8 shot NR, it is perfect. Grenades don’t even break shields!
> >
> > Yikes! Shouldn’t grenades break shields? They do in all the other games.
>
> With the Reach grenukes? You’re still able to be killed by either a single headshot or punch. It just feels so great.
Are they that much stronger? Or is it the shortened fuse that wrecks your day? I feel like they do need a nerf, but if they don’t break shields I fear the other weapons will suffer inordinately.
> > > > > > > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > The No-bleed support argument fails .
> > > > > >
> > > > > > on my phone; can’t watch.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > And I think anyone who knows what they’re talking about knows BT is an upgrade and it’s only the derps and those that can’t adapt to more skillful gameplay who support it’s removal/caused it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Go go 75% melee!
> > > >
> > > > Actually, I’m testing 90% damage and 90% melee. If you don’t mind a 22-shot AR and 8 shot NR, it is perfect. Grenades don’t even break shields!
> > >
> > > Yikes! Shouldn’t grenades break shields? They do in all the other games.
> >
> > With the Reach grenukes? You’re still able to be killed by either a single headshot or punch. It just feels so great.
>
> Are they that much stronger? Or is it the shortened fuse that wrecks your day? I feel like they do need a nerf, but if they don’t break shields I fear the other weapons will suffer inordinately.
this. While I haven’t tested it, I think 90% damage dealt would be too drastic of a change. IMO 110 DR is enough “Fix” with an acceptable amount of new problems. Although, I thought the same way about BT yet it got removed. I think we’re -Yoink- ed with Reach regardless.
> You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
>
> The No-bleed support argument fails .
So if No-Bleed fails because you can trade kills easily…
By that logic Bleed fails because you can trade kills easily.
Wonderful.
Maybe we should just remove Melee altogether.
> > You should . It’s definitive proof you can trade kills very easily without bleed through .
> >
> > The No-bleed support argument fails .
>
> So if No-Bleed fails because you can trade kills easily…
>
> By that logic Bleed fails because you can trade kills easily.
>
> Wonderful.
>
> Maybe we should just remove Melee altogether.
Yes but with Bleed you are rewarded for all your melees Hit Points and all your shots .
The melee should do a set damage , not vary on the situation .
> It’s become a matter of opinions, Some people like No Bleedthrough because their shields popping adds a proper mechanism for their tastes. Shield’s pop you have the warning to take cover because you are one shot, sure it adds one bullet and supposedly slows down gameplay. Maybe people actually like it that way, where engagements are not ‘I shot first you dead’ but rather ‘you shot first, but if i return fire quick enough, i can recover from the ambush’
You don’t know if you’re one shot or two shot? Who the hell cares? You shouldn’t be challenging regardless. If you die, it’s your fault for being reckless and not taking cover while weak. If this is honestly a factor to people then their issues are a lot bigger than the bleedthrough issue.
Also how the hell does bleedthrough correlate with the ‘who-sees-who first’ argument? It doesn’t. At all. That’s a pathetic excuse for logic.
HEY GUYS, ONE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS KEEPS SNIPING ME WHILE I TRY TO GET ROCKETS. WE SHOULD SOLVE THIS ISSUE BY REMOVING THE ROCKETS.
> It’s got more than it’s share of issues with Warthog drivers dropping dead with no warning but ‘oh look, the driver just flew past my turret…wait’ The game was clearly not built for bleedthrough in my opinion.
‘Oh look, my shields are low’
THAT’S your -Yoinking!- warning.
> There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences.
Sure I can. You can’t hide behind an opinion, which what most of you try to do when backed into a corner. Just accept that your train of thought is deeply flawed and leave the thread quietly.
> > It’s become a matter of opinions, Some people like No Bleedthrough because their shields popping adds a proper mechanism for their tastes. Shield’s pop you have the warning to take cover because you are one shot, sure it adds one bullet and supposedly slows down gameplay. Maybe people actually like it that way, where engagements are not ‘I shot first you dead’ but rather ‘you shot first, but if i return fire quick enough, i can recover from the ambush’
>
> You don’t know if you’re one shot or two shot? Who the hell cares? You shouldn’t be challenging regardless. If you die, it’s your fault for being reckless and not taking cover while weak. If this is honestly a factor to people then their issues are a lot bigger than the bleedthrough issue.
>
> Also how the hell does bleedthrough correlate with the ‘who-sees-who first’ argument? It doesn’t. At all. That’s a pathetic excuse for logic.
>
> HEY GUYS, ONE OF THE OTHER PLAYERS KEEPS SNIPING ME WHILE I TRY TO GET ROCKETS. WE SHOULD SOLVE THIS ISSUE BY REMOVING THE ROCKETS.
>
>
>
> > It’s got more than it’s share of issues with Warthog drivers dropping dead with no warning but ‘oh look, the driver just flew past my turret…wait’ The game was clearly not built for bleedthrough in my opinion.
>
> ‘Oh look, my shields are low’
>
> THAT’S your Yoinking! warning.
>
>
>
> > There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences.
>
> Sure I can. You can’t hide behind an opinion, which what most of you try to do when backed into a corner. Just accept that your train of thought is deeply flawed and leave the thread quietly.
I will choose otherwise. I have actually realized that this is entirely become a war of opinions, this way is better, that way is better; it goes absolutely no where. There is this severe mark of futility where an argument may as well be a brick wall when opinions are elevated to fact/truth/what have you.
Where will this honestly get us? dead end debates where neither party budges, one party holding to the new games features, the other party arguing the last games features. It goes back and forth with no end in sight. Has anyone actually realized this? It’s enough to state an opinion on the matter, not argue with no end in sight.
> > > There’s this thing about player preferences, If it ‘feels right’ to them, nothing in the world can mark it as a ‘failed’ argument. You really can’t argue against drastically differing preferences.
> >
> > Sure I can. You can’t hide behind an opinion, which what most of you try to do when backed into a corner. Just accept that your train of thought is deeply flawed and leave the thread quietly.
>
> Opinions are rarely logical, cogent arguments are not necessarily correct, and uncogent ones don’t mean the conclusion is false.
>
> Arguing till your blue in the face that reach isn’t more like CE than h3 will not change my perceptions of the game when I first put it into my xbox. (Just as an example)
> Feelings and opinion are valid, we just feel the need to further validate them when we express them here on these forums.