I really enjoyed dual wielding in halo 2 and 3, you could pop shields with one hand using a plasma pistol and pop their head off with the other using a magnum and their being so many awesome combinations; i generally loved just ripping things up with dual wield SMGs or making people die in a super quick mega pink mist!
Or even dual wielding silenced SMGs… that would be epic, drones wouldn’t stand a chance if they were to scurry back into halo as our enemy! I was disappointed when it was announced reach was not having duel wield, many weapons seemed useless to me as a result, such as the needler, but these are just my thoughts.
Personally i would like it if dual wielding were to return… it feels more halo
> I really enjoyed dual wielding in halo 2 and 3, you could pop shields with one hand using a plasma pistol and pop their head off with the other using a magnum and their being so many awesome combinations; i generally loved just ripping things up with dual wield SMGs or making people die in a super quick mega pink mist!
>
> Or even dual wielding silenced SMGs… that would be epic, drones wouldn’t stand a chance if they were to scurry back into halo as our enemy! I was disappointed when it was announced reach was not having duel wield, many weapons seemed useless to me as a result, such as the needler, but these are just my thoughts.
>
> Personally i would like it if dual wielding were to return… it feels more halo
>
> What do you guys think?
Dual wielding is a great way to increase variety within a weapon sandbox. Mixing and matching, intelligent pairing with other weapons to increase effectiveness, ect.
But, it causes weapons that can be dual wielded to be relativity useless when used alone, thereby decreasing variety within the commonly used weapon sandbox.
If dual wielding was to make a return, it would need to allow for the weapons to be useful by themselves.
My favorite idea is to give DW weapons a special characteristic that is taken away when dual wielded. The plasma rifle would freeze enemies temporarily if it scores a headshot, but this would be taken away when paired with another weapon. this could be applied to most DW weapons, removal of scopes, lowered aim assist, larger spread, removal of special characteristics could be used to balance the sandbox. While there could be no canonical reason as to why some of these things would happen, it seems to be the most effective way to balance these weapons.
> > No. It ruins the weapon sandbox.
>
> Instead of giving a dumb answer. why dont you tell us why it ruins the sandbox? So you dont look like a troll.
It’s incredibly obvious. Anyone with even a baseline knowledge of the franchise would know what im talking about.
Dual wielding forces the devs to make all the dual weapons weak as standalone weapons. Essentially you end up with a bunch of pointless joke weapons.
Just look at HCE’s sandbox compared to H2’s. In HCE all the weapons(barring a couple but remember this was a crude attempt at MP gameplay) were strong on their own with unique features and gameplay. In H2 you had the BR, the PWs and then a heap of garbage because most the weapons in the game had to be “balanced” aka nerfed to be dual weildable.
> > No. It ruins the weapon sandbox.
>
> Instead of giving a dumb answer. why dont you tell us why it ruins the sandbox? So you dont look like a troll.
But it does mess up the sandbox. For the most part, the weapons that are able to be dual wielded are less effective than their counterparts when used alone (AR>SMG, Shotgun>Mauler, ect). The existence of these weapons, crowds the sandbox with a lot of close ranged weapons that aren’t very good in the first place.
What he didn’t do was consider if there is any other alternative and assumed that 343i would not change the present formula.
> > > No. It ruins the weapon sandbox.
> >
> > Instead of giving a dumb answer. why dont you tell us why it ruins the sandbox? So you dont look like a troll.
>
> But it does mess up the sandbox. For the most part, the weapons that are able to be dual wielded are less effective than their counterparts when used alone (AR>SMG, Shotgun>Mauler, ect). The existence of these weapons, crowds the sandbox with a lot of close ranged weapons that aren’t very good in the first place.
>
> What he didn’t do was consider if there is any other alternative and assumed that 343i would not change the present formula.
> > > No. It ruins the weapon sandbox.
> >
> > Instead of giving a dumb answer. why dont you tell us why it ruins the sandbox? So you dont look like a troll.
>
> But it does mess up the sandbox. For the most part, the weapons that are able to be dual wielded are less effective than their counterparts when used alone (AR>SMG, Shotgun>Mauler, ect). The existence of these weapons, crowds the sandbox with a lot of close ranged weapons that aren’t very good in the first place.
>
> What he didn’t do was consider if there is any other alternative and assumed that 343i would not change the present formula.
Curious, perhaps the damage output of dual weapons didn’t apply to all arrangements. I mean, the dual needlers packed a punch. Well it felt like it to me…
Ye i think people are forgetting how fun it is to just stack up on two SMGs and rip up enemies with them. No dual wielding + too much bloom just makes the game slow.
However, they have to be really careful with the balance this time, maybe you shouldn’t be able to use your armour ability (if that’s features) while dual wielding.
> > > No. It ruins the weapon sandbox.
> >
> > Instead of giving a dumb answer. why dont you tell us why it ruins the sandbox? So you dont look like a troll.
>
> But it does mess up the sandbox. For the most part, the weapons that are able to be dual wielded are less effective than their counterparts when used alone (AR>SMG, Shotgun>Mauler, ect). The existence of these weapons, crowds the sandbox with a lot of close ranged weapons that aren’t very good in the first place.
>
> What he didn’t do was consider if there is any other alternative and assumed that 343i would not change the present formula.
Possibly 343i can add pick ups as attachments to the duel-wield able when they’re alone. For example the Pistol is useless without two of them in your hands(in Halo 3), so what 343i can do is place a pick-up like attachment such as an explosive(like the one shown in the E3 trailer)So this way the pistol wont be useless by itself anymore.
Hopefully, I didn’t make this confusing to anyone.
> Dual wielding is a great way to increase variety within a weapon sandbox. Mixing and matching, intelligent pairing with other weapons to increase effectiveness, ect.
> But, it causes weapons that can be dual wielded to be relativity useless when used alone, thereby decreasing variety within the commonly used weapon sandbox.
> If dual wielding was to make a return, it would need to allow for the weapons to be useful by themselves.
>
> My favorite idea is to give DW weapons a special characteristic that is taken away when dual wielded. The plasma rifle would freeze enemies temporarily if it scores a headshot, but this would be taken away when paired with another weapon. this could be applied to most DW weapons, removal of scopes, lowered aim assist, larger spread, removal of special characteristics could be used to balance the sandbox. While there could be no canonical reason as to why some of these things would happen, it seems to be the most effective way to balance these weapons.
It would be great if 343i made it equal via having dual wields have benefits as stand alones for example, the pistol and silenced SMG could only be scoped when not dual wielding, this tends to be the typical thing behind other games with dual wield.
> I think dual wielding really messes up the sandbox. Most dual wieldable weapons are fairly useless when only using one.
Solution:
Make these weapons only come as a pair.
Take the SMG for instance.
It would only come as a set, and you wouldn’t be able to use just one (unless 343i also decided to put in the Silenced SMG, that one logically would come as a single weapon).
Compared to the AR it would be better and stronger at close to short distances (tied on short distances with the AR) due to a larger bullet spread combined with a faster firing rate. Drawback is that it has recoil, and while that doesn’t matter at close range, it makes it more difficult to use and certainly less effective at medium distances.
The AR could then fire a bit slower, (like it has always) but be more precise and therefore more usefull at short-medium distances.
And that could apply to a number of weapons. Magnums for instance, or a replacement for the Mauler and Spiker (assuming Brutes aren’t in the game, but similar weapons might be).
This would effectively make dual wieldable weapons powerful in the situations they are created for, and make them good support weapons outside of those situations. Sort of like a semi-power weapon.
Wouldn’t mess up the sandbox, and would get rid of the problem that one is too weak.
To solve the problem of the overall better weapon being “better” (The AR in this example) these sets of weapons should only be available on specific maps. A set of SMG’s is fairly useless on a map the size of Blood Gulch, Valhalla or any other big map with lots of open spaces. But could work on maps with more confined areas as well. Like Headlong (the interiors), or Battle Canyon, Turf, those kinds of maps. And yes, you could have both the SMG/AR or just AR or just SMG in those situations. Depending on gametype of course.
> > I think dual wielding really messes up the sandbox. Most dual wieldable weapons are fairly useless when only using one.
>
> Solution:
> Make these weapons only come as a pair.
> Take the SMG for instance.
>
> It would only come as a set, and you wouldn’t be able to use just one (unless 343i also decided to put in the Silenced SMG, that one logically would come as a single weapon).
> Compared to the AR it would be better and stronger at close to short distances (tied on short distances with the AR) due to a larger bullet spread combined with a faster firing rate. Drawback is that it has recoil, and while that doesn’t matter at close range, it makes it more difficult to use and certainly less effective at medium distances.
> The AR could then fire a bit slower, (like it has always) but be more precise and therefore more usefull at short-medium distances.
>
> And that could apply to a number of weapons. Magnums for instance, or a replacement for the Mauler and Spiker (assuming Brutes aren’t in the game, but similar weapons might be).
>
> This would effectively make dual wieldable weapons powerful in the situations they are created for, and make them good support weapons outside of those situations. Sort of like a semi-power weapon.
> Wouldn’t mess up the sandbox, and would get rid of the problem that one is too weak.
But then you lose the ability to swap weapons and have pairs that are tactically useful (plasma pistol, magnum). This is a major component of the dual wielding concept and removing it for the sake of eliminating the use of only one of the weapons at a time would leave the sandbox worse off than where it began.
Make every weapon special, so that dual wields will be useful by themselves (scopes, tighter spread, special abilities, melee bonuses) but remove them when paired, so that dual wielding should be more of a brute force/close range means of taking down enemies than, say, sniping enemies from afar with your pistol’s scope.
> > > I think dual wielding really messes up the sandbox. Most dual wieldable weapons are fairly useless when only using one.
> >
> > Solution:
> > Make these weapons only come as a pair.
> > Take the SMG for instance.
> >
> > It would only come as a set, and you wouldn’t be able to use just one (unless 343i also decided to put in the Silenced SMG, that one logically would come as a single weapon).
> > Compared to the AR it would be better and stronger at close to short distances (tied on short distances with the AR) due to a larger bullet spread combined with a faster firing rate. Drawback is that it has recoil, and while that doesn’t matter at close range, it makes it more difficult to use and certainly less effective at medium distances.
> > The AR could then fire a bit slower, (like it has always) but be more precise and therefore more usefull at short-medium distances.
> >
> > And that could apply to a number of weapons. Magnums for instance, or a replacement for the Mauler and Spiker (assuming Brutes aren’t in the game, but similar weapons might be).
> >
> > This would effectively make dual wieldable weapons powerful in the situations they are created for, and make them good support weapons outside of those situations. Sort of like a semi-power weapon.
> > Wouldn’t mess up the sandbox, and would get rid of the problem that one is too weak.
>
> But then you lose the ability to swap weapons and have pairs that are tactically useful (plasma pistol, magnum). This is a major component of the dual wielding concept and removing it for the sake of eliminating the use of only one of the weapons at a time would leave the sandbox worse off than where it began.
> Make every weapon special, so that dual wields will be useful by themselves (scopes, tighter spread, special abilities, melee bonuses) but remove them when paired, so that dual wielding should be more of a brute force/close range means of taking down enemies than, say, sniping enemies from afar with your pistol’s scope.
You would just get a different set of tactics.
And let’s be honest: would you truely miss those people who keep spamming the Plasma Pistol overcharge + pistol set? I certainly don’t.
Your idea might work as well, but then you get the thing that each weapon has a special ability which could potentially result in making them overpowered or unbalanced opposed to the regular weapons (AR, BR/DMR, Pistol etc)
