O and I think this is the best Halo, And umm isn’t this Halo4 or 5 already??
Is “decent amount of fanbase” your friends and the people that post on the bnet/here/other halo related forums? Still the minority. Nothing is wrong with Reach other than the occasional host migration.
There aren’t too many issues with Reach, and I don’t think it necessarily needs a title update. However, I wouldn’t mind the removal of Armor Lock, as I have always felt that invincibility in shooters felt very awkward and unfitting. That’s just me though.
Feels bad man.
I’m losing hope fast.
> Is “decent amount of fanbase” your friends and the people that post on the bnet/here/other halo related forums? Still the minority. Nothing is wrong with Reach other than the occasional host migration.
If you honestly believe that, there is something wrong with you.
There are TONS of glitches that affect gameplay, many tiny tweaks that could easily improve gameplay, and many annoyances that simply should not have been included in the first place.
Who cares if you think Reach is perfect? It’s 343i’s job to make EVERYBODY enjoy the game. I understand that is an impossible feat, but the least they could do is gain back some of the people that left by fixing some of the things that need fixing.
> I too would like my minute and twitch moves to be rewarded. But connections being what they are make such things almost impossible. A game designed for LAN only doesn’t have to take latency into account. Without the “clean kill” approach, host and connection to host become more of a deciding factor than skill with online games.
>
> It’s like thinking of CoD’s kill cam. You now how you can enter a room, walk 5 steps, see someone, and then proceed to empty half a mag. into that person, only to die while the enemy lives? And when you see the kill cam, you see that you were actually shot and killed at the entrance way, not 5 steps into the room? Well as far as I can tell, Reach has it so that within a certain time, both players will die, rather than the person closest to host (or host themselves) getting the kill alone.
> It’s a lesser of evils IMO. As with many things in Reach, for online play, Reach has many systems that are the lesser of many evils.
Thing is, I was thinking about this the other day and something struck me in game. It isn’t just down to the hitscan/infinite velocity DMR rounds, because it affects melee trades and even shotgun vs. sword battles too. There is a widened kill window compared to Halo 3 simply because even weapons other than those which have changed from having bullet travel time to having no travel time are affected. How often do you try to shotty a Sword guy only to have him beat you down as well as you getting the kill? I see the logic of your CoD argument, but for examples such as that (and the melee trade one, which makes herp-a-derps more powerful since melee repeat time is less important when there is ‘slack’ time after you have died to also land the second beatdown), H3 worked fine without this wider trade window and I see no reason for it to be implemented in Reach.
> I understand. But what can I tell ya, I rarely see a reason to debate differences of opinions if the differences still recognise the same facts. I’ll argue against something that I know is non-factual, not something I feel is derived from experience. For instance, I won’t argue that a person doesn’t like bloom. I will argue with a person who feels the system is uncontrollable.
>
> A person is allowed to not like how a system works, they however are not entitled to claim the system has no way of being monitored when the tools to monitor the system are very blatant.
>
> It is a pleasure reading your posts when they are made BTW. I like how you don’t resort to the usual disagreement tactics.
>
> But to stay on topic after all of that; I don’t think that bloom needs changing. It doesn’t reward spamming, it rewards good map position and teamplay. The speed at which it can be reliably shot is determined by distance and I find outright spammers only beat me when I have been caught in a battle or in the open, with my back turned. Those that alter their pace and/or rhythm according to the battle at hand win a heck of a lot more often than those that outright spam.
>
> I feel most players, in the heat of the moment, can’t distinguish the difference between a spammed DMR and a paced DMR. And by paced, I don’t mean waiting to shoot each shot with a completely rested bloom. I mean pacing so that the bloom covers 90-100% of the enemy with each trigger pull.
>
> I do not subscribe to the idea of “if all other factors of randomness and luck are removed from the game, the weapon can still be used to get a lucky kill and therefore is based on luck.” To me that is paraphrased: “If you play the game improperly and use the weapon improperly, you can still get a kill.” And all I can say to that is “A stopped analog watch is right twice a day. It’s wrong for every other second of said day.”
Firstly, thank you for the kind words. I appreciate your posts on here too, consistently useful and contributing to this discussion in exactly the way I hoped for when starting this thread. However, I have to strongly disagree here. The bloom system doesn’t reward pacing in a way which makes it worth it. The chances of a bullet falling in the centre of a fully bloomed reticle (ie. fully rewarding spamming) aren’t just present, but relatively high.
…
The problems are made worse by a seemingly high bullet magnetism which further negates the effect that a bloom system should have.
Watch even the most recent MLG footage where players have had a chance to really get used to the bloom and the most effective way to treat it. I generally don’t like resorting to the ‘just watch MLG’ tack since it’s often not applicable to default game arguments, but in this case it definitely is. Much as default fans will hate on MLG for the changes made to the game, the pros themselves have no interest in anything but finding the most effective way to use the DMR, and that is to fire at faster than what should be the logical RoF. What I mean by that is trusting to a good degree of luck, pushing more on 70% and even less reticle coverage rather than your 90-100% figure, and allowing the magnetism/chances of bullets hitting the centre do the rest. It’s well demonstrated by watching players consistently use the same RoF (working again on this rough 70, sometimes even 60% reticle coverage principle) in the same ranges of combat and have it work most of the time, but sometimes chance just won’t be forgiving and they’ll do what they’ve always done in as close to identical situations as possible with vastly differing results, plugging 4-5 shots in the direction of of a 1-shot enemy only to be outshot when the normally would have gotten the headshot in 1-2 shots.
I feel sympathetic for your arguments in general, opinions may differ but they are just that, and you always make your points well with good founding, but at this point I’m forced to turn your point around say that I simply can’t accept an argument that the DMR bloom’s punishment and reward system functions in a way so as to properly promote pacing. It just flies in the face of well established and tested evidence. There have been countless test videos on the MLG forums where someone stands in one spot at what can be approximated as medium range from a stationary opponent (say from Red Car bridge to Red Rocks, or Health Pack on Asylum) and fires the DMR at the same RoF (many of these videos are tested at full spam, others at this ‘just shy of spam’ approach that most MLG players have adopted), only to have results differing by as much as 3 shots for a kill within a matter of 5 tests. There simply shouldn’t be such variation, let alone in as small a sample as 5 or even 10 tries.
Even then, what’s shocking is that the successful kills aren’t even consistent in terms of where the shot hits, sometimes you can spam at full RoF and not only hit every shot, but the final (and therefore 5th) shot is a headshot. With a fully bloomed reticle. There is no way that it can be argued that the DMR consistently promotes pacing when such things are the case.
Of course, this is all on the basis of LAN, but that actually raises another point. Whilst it’s true that LAN doesn’t accurately reflect the experiences of playing on LIVE, the foremost environment for which the game was designed, it does provide a very close representation of host experiences online. When I notice that I’m host at the start of a game, I actively change my approach to DMR pacing simply because I know that I’m able to pay less attention to bloom and still win out, giving me a clear advantage. Playing off-host, and especially on less than exemplary connections, actually replicates the kind of bloom I’d like to see, since I am forced to pace to ensure shots registering consistently. Shot registration is less forgiving to spamming, and magnetism is decreased, meaning that pacing is more effective for me than spamming. However, those on a better connection to the host, or the host themselves, are simply able to fire faster than me with the same effects most of the time. The two problems with this are a) the disparity and b) the fact that even then it’s only most of the time.
If bloom consistently punished spamming in a way similar to that which Frag’s video suggests, then off host and even less than god connection experiences would be much closer to that of the host, or rather the other way round, increasing fairness and parity of online experience. It would make players in the game have experiences more on a level with one another, and it would make LAN and online perform in a more similar way too.
Even if spamming were consistently punished as you suggest, ensuring that it’s consistently the case by eliminating the possibility for fully bloomed reticles to have shots land at the centre of the reticle would therefore not degrade the experience at all, just ensure that it always works like it should. Connection disparity dictating gameplay ability is something that should be worked against, and an oftentimes but still inconsistently forgiving bloom is bad enough, but one that changes how forgiving it is based on connection only compounds the problem.
I didn’t say Reach is perfect. I just don’t think it needs a TU.
You also do realize that just a small number of people actually post on forums for video games? I mean, you come across like you know what you are talking about, so you would understand this, right?
Sorry, I was paraphrasing.
Yes, I understand that the forums are considered a minority. I was basing my statements on Reach’s current population. It is nothing compared to what Halo 3’s was, so I’m assuming that not as many people enjoy this game compared to Halo 3. The Xbox-Live population has tripled from what it was a few years ago. So if so many people have Xbox-Live, why is Reach’s population smaller than what Halo 3’s was? Was it due to competition? I doubt it, Halo 3 had to deal with just as many top-selling titles as Reach does now.
The only explanation I can think of is that people do not like how Reach turned out, and would most likely like it changed (fixed).
> You can’t fix what’s not broken.
This is a matter of opinion. Reach suits the needs of a surprising number of people and falls short in the eyes of others. I say “surprising” because the gameplay of Reach is not what I would consider desirable and no I don’t think I’m in a minority for thinking that.
I don’t like Reach and I don’t want to play it anymore.
For those that do, well, good for you I guess.
*This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not purposely bypass the profanity filter.
Umm ya I never played Halo2 because I like a game? I feel the switch flipping
<----------------------
Did u play CE ???
Mods were everywhere in Halo2 EVERYWHERE!
Does anyone here on the forums have reason to believe we will ever see a Title Update for Halo Reach?
It would be great if Bungie (or 343) themselves could answer this question, but aside from Jeremiah (at Bungie) making playlist changes, it appears as if the forums have largely been a hands off experience.
(this same discussion is also taking place on the Bungie forums - http://www.bungie.net/Forums/posts.aspx?postID=58867272)
Please keep your discussion of what you want or what you think should be in a Title Update out of this thread. It is not meant to get everyone to fight over what should/could be in an update; it is simply meant to see if there is any hope that a Title Update ever, possibly, maybe happen.
For those that still don’t understand what a Title Update actually is; a Title Update is a downloaded patch for a game that allows the developer to change basic functions of the game. For example, with a Title Update for Reach they could change the power of grenades, make players jump higher, or decrease the amount of bullets the assault rifle can carry – among other things.
Just for a little perspective
Halo 2 (they were called auto updates back then)
release date : November 9, 2004
title update 1 : Nov 17, 2004 (two weeks after launch)
title update 2 : ???
title update 3 : April 18, 2005 (five months after launch)
rank reset : May 9, 2007 (2.5 years after launch)
Halo 3
release date : September 25, 2007
title update #1 : February 19, 2008 (5 months after launch)
title update #2 : September 23, 2008 (1 year after launch)
Halo Reach
release date : September 14, 2010
title update : nothing even rumored (going on six+ months after launch)
Sources (for those that care)
Halo 2 : Halo 2 Auto-Updates | Halo Alpha | Fandom
Halo 3 : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halo_3#Downloadable_content
I think eventually we will see something. I think the transition from Bungie to 343 has contributed to the delay.
I remember reading in a BWU something like reach is so different from all the halos coding. we can make alot of changes just by tweaking the options. we dont need a title update. and i dont mind i love halo reach.
I don’t think they need a title update. Halo 2 and 3 each received title updates because they had elements that were flat-out broken and needed fixing. Reach is a far more stable game.
Yes, there are some gameplay elements that are controversial, but those are design decisions that bungie made because they like it that way. I suspect that overall, Reach performs the way Bungie intended it to.
> Halo 2 and 3 each received title updates because they had elements that were flat-out broken and needed fixing. Reach is a far more stable game.
>
> Yes, there are some gameplay elements that are controversial, but those are design decisions that bungie made because they like it that way. I suspect that overall, Reach performs the way Bungie intended it to.
Halo 3 had no problems with it, the melee system worked as intended, yet Bungie still decided to tweak it. Why? Maybe because the community hated it? Well, the same goes for Reach.
Reach does have element that are flat-out broken, do you think they intended to make the Gauss hog shoot through forge objects? Reach also has many gameplay mechanics that people simply do not enjoy. I think this warrants a TU.
Hope so ,because the DMR bloom is ridiculous!!!
I hope in the next TU they add more recoil and more AA’s like Armor lock
> I don’t think they need a title update. Halo 2 and 3 each received title updates because they had elements that were flat-out broken and needed fixing. Reach is a far more stable game.
>
> Yes, there are some gameplay elements that are controversial, but those are design decisions that bungie made because they like it that way. I suspect that overall, Reach performs the way Bungie intended it to.
it is possible the game mechanics perform the way Bungie intended it, but there is no denying that the game itself is failing to perform as expected. for whatever reason, most players have largely left the game. the one competitive playlist failed to ever catch on.
halo 3 was the king of xbox live for 2-3 years (on and off for awhile with COD MW2). halo reach hasn’t been in the top two since the first month it was released.
there is no doubt a problem with the product when it can’t continue to attract players on a consistent basis. it can’t even beat COD MW2 in the weekly number of players.
i think a large reason for the mass exodus is that many players feel as if Reach just doesn’t “feel” like a Halo game. granted it’s still a fun and entertaining way to pass time, but for whatever reason there isn’t any sort of addictive quality to Reach that keeps players coming back day after day. maybe a title update could/would fix this, maybe it wouldn’t. at this point it’s probably too little too late.
it would be nice to have any sort of information from either Bungie or 343i on the matter. in lieu of any hope that anyone is actually still working on Halo Reach it seems as if they will continue to bleed players.
No TU needed.