i see people moaning about how its op and unbalanced. OH MY GOD, PICKING UP WEAPONS IN HALO MAKES YOU DO MORE DAMAGE THAN SOMEONE ELSE??? WHO’D HAVE THOUGHT IT. seriously though this is a ridiculous argument, the whole point about halo is picking up power weapons to make you have an advantage over another player, and suddenly cause instead of 1 big weapon its two weaker weapons, everyone loses their minds. ITS THE SAME PRINCIPLE PEOPLE. come up with a good argument before using it next time.
i hope this changes the minds of some people who are against it for no reason and makes them see sense. dual weapons are a power weapon, hence their strength. i know they wont be in halo 5, but as i said in my post about the use of a super early beta, 343 will have enough time to implement it in this game and if not halo 5, perhaps halo 6
You act like that is the only argument against dual wielding. I hate dual wielding because it absolutely ruined the auto weapon sandbox and the magnum. The problem isn’t the fact that they can be used together the problem is that dual wield-able weapons are all worthless on their own with the exception of the Mauler and PP(and even then the PP still got its single shots nerfed into oblivion.
All the auto dual wieldable weapons are nothing but interchangeable bullet hoses, and the magnum has been an inferior version of the BR.
Not to mention dual wielding is an entirely superficial mechanic. ‘Combos’ were a thing before dual wielding existed and the entire dual wielding sandbox it a repetitive, boring mess. The only thing you gain from dual wielding is in reality one normal weapon at the cost of the versatility of grenades and melee. The only ‘strategy’ dual wield weapons have is hose an enemy down with bullets.
Dual wielding was an awful, superficial mechanic and I am glad its gone.
i wouldnt say the ar was any different, one of the most beloved halo weapons, which is also essentially a bullet hot. and yeah, they did make the magnum essentially useless, but thats bungies fault not dual wielding. they could have left the weak halo 3/2 pistols for dual wielding and ALSO left the halo 1 magnum in its glory as a single wield DMR type weapon. and dual wielding also introduced another beloved halo weapon, the br, which basically replaced the halo 1 magnum. now without dual wielding there is only an assortment of two handed weapons. would you like generic two handed rifle number 1, or two? ive already made a topic about how i loathed the storm rifle but thats more a personal thing. but you know what, youre right, the weapons were very interchangeable, but thats on 343s head to change. instead of opting for a ‘its too hard to balance so we wont do it :(’ mentality, they should rebalance weapons. reintroduce the plasma rifle with its halo CE functionality, those kind of things. i feel theres only a handful of unique weapons with no dual wielding. and yes they are weaker on their own, but thats part of what made it unique. halo without it is: everyone is equal, or your find a weapon and youre instantly stronger.but with dual wielding, its more a case of ‘i have half a good combination in my back pocket. now if i find another smg/plasma rifle etc. then i have a power weapon’. it added a third element to the gameplay. however i WILL agree that tweaks needed to be made to mechanics/weapon function/spawning.
We have a weapon in the sandbox that has been useless for years. Up until recently it was 100% pointless yet…it is still no good compared to its human look-alike. It is really hard to balance a sandbox after we fix the current weps I’ll be fine with duels coming back.
The argument against dual-wielding isn’t that it makes the player stronger, but rather that it makes each individual weapon weaker to the point of being useless.
It butchered the sandbox of every game that had it, and I’m glad that it’s gone.
every time i see dual wielding mentioned i see the term sand box thrown around. sand box just means the toolsyou are given in a game to play with,and adding MORE things does not damage that, it improves it. and people who think dual wielding was so detrimental to game play, i ask you; was halo 2 an unbalanced, unplayable mess which was complete shambles? was halo 3? no, dual wielding did nothing to negatively affect these games, whatsoever. they werent prominent enough to damage gameplay but were just another weapon option given to players so it wasnt, like i said before, which 2 handed bullet hose/singe shot rifle should i pick up?
> every time i see dual wielding mentioned i see the term sand box thrown around. sand box just means the toolsyou are given in a game to play with,and adding MORE things does not damage that, it improves it.
If 343i has limited resources and time (which is the case), adding pointless and redundant clones in favor of new and unique weapons, then yes, it damages the sandbox.
> and people who think dual wielding was so detrimental to game play, i ask you; was halo 2 an unbalanced, unplayable mess which was complete shambles?
Halo 2 may have been the most competitive, but a boatload of glitches and bullet-magnetism that allowed Rocket’s to make 180 degree curves towards distant players certainly broke the game.
> they werent prominent enough to damage gameplay but were just another weapon option given to players so it wasnt,
When the entire sandbox is negatively effected by it, there are some serious gameplay issues.
> like i said before, which 2 handed bullet hose/singe shot rifle should i pick up?
Given that the weapons are pretty much all reskins of each other, there’s no point in choosing which one to use. They’re all the same.
> I don’t really see that many people complaining that dual wielding makes two weapons stronger, but rather makes the one weapon weaker.
>
> <mark>To make it not utterly overpowered, the dual wieldable weapons end up becoming very weak on their own</mark>.
Simple, scalable damage. Make a single wielded SMG do 100% of it’s damage but when dual wielded scale it down to let’s say 80% for example.
Simpler yet, lower the accuracy when in dual wield mode by enlarging the reticle.
Dual wielding adds depth, variety and strategy as well as implementing a risk vs reward system. Should I be accurate and have one SMG or have two SMGs and have more firepower in a close quarters engagement.
The main reason I don’t want dual-wielding to be implemented is best summed up in the gender-neutral version of the Latin adjective defined as meaning strong or mighty.
GIVE ME A DECENT PISTOL WITH A 2X ZOOM OR GIVE ME DEATH! MAY THE M6C AND M6G ROT IN HELL!