> > Unless you are spamming 2 accounts.
> >
> > And “quoting well enough” is not quoting. Stating one is paraphrasing is what one does when doing so. You can put said paraphrase in quotation marks, italicize or bold but you do not quote and then paraphrase. You do not say “and I quote;” and then paraphrase.
>
> Why would I care about any of this?
hes just telling you proper quoting / forum etiquette, something he needs to work on as well (with answering questions directly).
I simply would not believe bungie would do such a thing! There are many core issues that people are screaming about on bungie.net over a million times. I simply like to think that they are unaware of them.
I think its pretty clear I didn’t come here to be polite. Your concern about posting “etiquette” doesn’t exactly concern me.
> its been stated a million times what core gameplay mechanics need to come back so im not going to repeat it.
"come back"
You see, that’s the thing. Reach was designed to be different. Core-mechanics from previous Halo’s aren’t coming back because they were intentionally left out so Reach could be different. It just so happens it’s not as popular anymore. It’s only broken in the eyes of old Halo players that are trying to play it like a previous Halo game. It’s actually not broken though, only different.
Thanks for providing the perfect excuse to post a reminder of our rules. As always, you can view the guidelines you agreed to at registration here:
http://halo.xbox.com/forums/announcements/f/6/t/1423.aspx
To make things easier, though, here’s the most relevant part-
> The Forums are intended to provide a positive experience for all members. Please make sure that you are not detracting from the community experience for any user. Your opinions are welcome but refrain from personal attacks and harassment of other members, and from posting content which could be viewed as unlawful, threatening, -Yoink!-, harmful, indecent, lewd, abusive and inflammatory. All content posted on the Forums should maintain a helpful and courteous tone, and not be intended to provoke or flame other community members.
Apologies for the interruption. Use the report button… if you need me. 
> > its been stated a million times what core gameplay mechanics need to come back so im not going to repeat it.
>
> "come back"
>
> You see, that’s the thing. Reach was designed to be different. Core-mechanics from previous Halo’s aren’t coming back because they were intentionally left out so Reach could be different. It just so happens it’s not as popular anymore. It’s only broken in the eyes of old Halo players that are trying to play it like a previous Halo game. It’s actually not broken though, only different.
No, it’s still broken. I know it’s not Halo1-3 but there are enough bad decisions made that need to be fixed. I read the Bungie article too, that they won’t majorly change anything because that’s the way it is meant to be, but some things need to be nerfed, cleaned up, tweaked, and generally rethought in details big and small. Bungie keeps missing the mark overall. They are making some decisions that make a lot of players happy but the execution of said decisions are very lacking. Whats worse is they actually tend to acknowledge issues but seem to ignore them. I choose to believe that 343 is already working on some things and that’s the reason Bungie isn’t.
> Thanks for providing the perfect excuse to post a reminder of our rules.
lol
bsangel’s strappin on the B.net boots.
And on another note, at least 343 is actually looking at the forums. Yay! They might actually love us!
> Nearly beautifully put PhArm in half of your first paragraph. Now if you believe those words yet still feel Reach faulters for being different knowing the following quote from Bungie, then that is probably your answer to why the chances of a TU or radical change is very, very unlikely.
>
>
>
> > We should start off by making it very clear that Halo: Reach is not Halo 3. There are some distinct and fundamental differences that you’ll definitely need to account for, both straight out of the gate and over the long haul. These are differences you shouldn’t expect to see changed. They are, as we say, by design.
>
> http://www.bungie.net/News/content.aspx?type=topnews&link=BWU_050710
>
> And honestly, that is my point. Wanting things different for the next Halo is ok. But claiming a system is broken and then proceeding to describe how it works like it’s intended won’t get things changed. Demanding things certainly won’t get things changed. And complaining incorrectly worsens the problem. Telling people they suck for not thinking like you certainly won’t want them to play like you either.
>
>
> I’m all for fixing broken things or changing things again, but not out of fear or fallacy. That the framerate stutters the way it does during MP is a legit complaint. Complaining that Grenades or Melee are too viable at close-range is not legit as those are the ranges they are meant to be used. They are also suppose to be part of a trifecta that may not be equilateral, but it certainly isn’t suppose to be looking like the Eiffel Tower with guns at the peak.
The things I don’t like are bloom, grenades, slow movement, and the design of AA. (being pick-ups are preferred). This is my subjective opinion.
If this is truly the way the designed it I can stomach their decisions, I simply play less and spend time on other games. However my main concerns are not aimed at changing the systems as a whole, but rather perfecting them where they are flawed. (As should be fork in eye obvious to everyone)
The bloom system does not work correctly on the DMR. To say the DMR and the NR both work is an oxymoron. Both bloom systems work different. One of them strongly discourages spamming while the other does not. Logically both of these cannot be considered working considering their bloom functions is entirely different. One or the other is broke, otherwise you are left will an ill functioning unintuitive bloom system that is nothing short of frustrating.
But lets not argue about mechanics anymore, rather let us agree that they may have been designed like this. If they truly were made this way you will at least have to agree that they were done so to decrease the difficulty and level the playing field. While some games have found success with easy game play I have always thought the opposite is what made halo stand alone in console FPS, but this is changing with the market $.
> One or the other is broke, otherwise you are left will an ill functioning unintuitive bloom system that is nothing short of frustrating.
Incorrect, you are left with a choice. Actual choice.
Halo isn’t suppose to be competitive because it is about the 1-weapon fighting for powerups. Halo is capable of being competitive because it gives players a choice to approach a battle. It does this by attempting to be as symmetrical as possible but without taking away the choice from a player. And it is by the execution of this choice, the controls and methods of the choice that allow Halo to be played competitively.
In Reach, a player has a viable choice at just about anytime. In the rare circumstances there is no choice but to die, that is ok. That means tactics and strategy was used to create a situation that favoured someone 99%. That’s not a broken system, that’s a balanced and diverse system.
Halo was never meant to be played like Super Ken Fighter: Sagat with a little Zangief (as some people would claim it is, this is for example, all SF:IV characters are tournament legal). A competitive FPS, like a competitive fighting game offers choice and diversity. However, the difference is, SF is very asymmetrical where Halo is very symmetrical.
But still at its core, Halo is meant to be a casual game where anyone can find anything they’d like. The competitive crowd molded Halo into their own variant, as Halo was intended. Not to be competitive, but to be molded.
So believe me when I say we are in agreement that Halo should always be moldable, I don’t view most, if any reason I appear to be negative against as a sign of being broken. It’s a matter of not using the same clay one is used to… you have to work it a different way to get it to look like the clay you used before.
> > One or the other is broke, otherwise you are left will an ill functioning unintuitive bloom system that is nothing short of frustrating.
>
> Incorrect, you are left with a choice. Actual choice.
>
> Halo isn’t suppose to be competitive because it is about the 1-weapon fighting for powerups. Halo is capable of being competitive because it gives players a choice to approach a battle. It does this by attempting to be as symmetrical as possible but without taking away the choice from a player. And it is by the execution of this choice, the controls and methods of the choice that allow Halo to be played competitively.
>
> In Reach, a player has a viable choice at just about anytime. In the rare circumstances there is no choice but to die, that is ok. That means tactics and strategy was used to create a situation that favoured someone 99%. That’s not a broken system, that’s a balanced and diverse system.
>
> Halo was never meant to be played like Super Ken Fighter: Sagat with a little Zangief (as some people would claim it is, this is for example, all SF:IV characters are tournament legal). A competitive FPS, like a competitive fighting game offers choice and diversity. However, the difference is, SF is very asymmetrical where Halo is very symmetrical.
>
> But still at its core, Halo is meant to be a casual game where anyone can find anything they’d like. The competitive crowd molded Halo into their own variant, as Halo was intended. Not to be competitive, but to be molded.
>
> So believe me when I say we are in agreement that Halo should always be moldable, I don’t view most, if any reason I appear to be negative against as a sign of being broken. It’s a matter of not using the same clay one is used to… you have to work it a different way to get it to look like the clay you used before.
A choice between broken, frustrating, and random vs. skillfull?
We clearly disagree on what halo is and that is not going to change.
> Reach is not good because of overpowered grenades, slow default movement, AA’s made spam by the loadout system, and bloom.
>
> That was easy.
Halo 3 is not good because of wimpy grenades, equipment that is worthless and terrible BR spread.
That was easy.
> > > its been stated a million times what core gameplay mechanics need to come back so im not going to repeat it.
> >
> > "come back"
> >
> > You see, that’s the thing. Reach was designed to be different. Core-mechanics from previous Halo’s aren’t coming back because they were intentionally left out so Reach could be different. It just so happens it’s not as popular anymore. It’s only broken in the eyes of old Halo players that are trying to play it like a previous Halo game. It’s actually not broken though, only different.
>
> No, it’s still broken. I know it’s not Halo1-3 but there are enough bad decisions made that need to be fixed. I read the Bungie article too, that they won’t majorly change anything because that’s the way it is meant to be, but some things need to be nerfed, cleaned up, tweaked, and generally rethought in details big and small. Bungie keeps missing the mark overall. They are making some decisions that make a lot of players happy but the execution of said decisions are very lacking. Whats worse is they actually tend to acknowledge issues but seem to ignore them. I choose to believe that 343 is already working on some things and that’s the reason Bungie isn’t.
Define “broken”. You kids throw broken around as if Reach isn’t playable by any means. It’s quite playable. Are there things in Reach that frustrate players? Of course. Doesn’t mean that Reach is broken however. You could say I’m Pro-Reach. I welcome a title update though. I don’t mind if bloom was tweaked and armor lock was taken out. There are other things that could be tweaked, but Reach is quite the well made game. It sold well and all of the top reviewing sites (G4, Metacritic) gave it exceptional scores.
“derp but reach fails herpyderpderpderp”. K.
> A choice between broken, frustrating, and random vs. skillfull?
>
> We clearly disagree on what halo is and that is not going to change.
No it won’t. Especially since a competitive player would say the reason the Pistol in CE and the BRs in H2 and H3 were the go-to weapons is because the rest of the weapons were either broken, frustrating or seemingly random and therefore unskillful to use when compared to those go-to’s… because the go-to’s could be used in 99% of the situations for equal or better results than the other choices (non-power). So really, what choice is there if there is a better choice? The Pistol and BRs were broken, easy and 1 had randomness increased in it to attempt to remove its effectiveness over the other weapons.
Ironic x2. Halo has always been as you say, a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful that you seem to dislike.
Ironic x3. Halo has always attempted to not be a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful.
Ironic x4. Halo is now a game that isn’t broken, is frustrating and the least random vs the most skillful of all the Halos, though is the centre of the original claim.
Now whether it’s the most fun, of course that’s a matter of opinion per person. No Halo is universally praised as the best… I like it that way.
> > A choice between broken, frustrating, and random vs. skillfull?
> >
> > We clearly disagree on what halo is and that is not going to change.
>
> No it won’t. Especially since a competitive player would say the reason the Pistol in CE and the BRs in H2 and H3 were the go-to weapons is because the rest of the weapons were either broken, frustrating or seemingly random and therefore unskillful to use when compared to those go-to’s… because the go-to’s could be used in 99% of the situations for equal or better results than the other choices (non-power). So really, what choice is there if there is a better choice? The Pistol and BRs were broken, easy and 1 had randomness increased in it to attempt to remove its effectiveness over the other weapons.
>
> Ironic x2. Halo has always been as you say, a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful that you seem to dislike.
>
> Ironic x3. Halo has always attempted to not be a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful.
>
> Ironic x4. Halo is now a game that isn’t broken, is frustrating and the least random vs the most skillful of all the Halos, though is the centre of the original claim.
>
> Now whether it’s the most fun, of course that’s a matter of opinion per person. No Halo is universally praised as the best… I like it that way.
This.
Every Halo has had its own personal flaw. Like you said, fun is subjective and what version of Halo people like is all an opinion. Personally, I can’t stand to play Halo 1. It just…isn’t enjoyable to me. I prefer Halo 2/Reach to both Halo 1 and Halo 3. Of course, this is just my mere opinion.
7 1/2 months past release date. any news on a title update?
> 7 1/2 months past release date. any news on a title update?
Nope.
But we have learned from Urk that 343i should be in complete control of supporting Halo very soon. What 343i will do to support Reach specifically is still unknown.
> > > A choice between broken, frustrating, and random vs. skillfull?
> > >
> > > We clearly disagree on what halo is and that is not going to change.
> >
> > No it won’t. Especially since a competitive player would say the reason the Pistol in CE and the BRs in H2 and H3 were the go-to weapons is because the rest of the weapons were either broken, frustrating or seemingly random and therefore unskillful to use when compared to those go-to’s… because the go-to’s could be used in 99% of the situations for equal or better results than the other choices (non-power). So really, what choice is there if there is a better choice? The Pistol and BRs were broken, easy and 1 had randomness increased in it to attempt to remove its effectiveness over the other weapons.
> >
> > Ironic x2. Halo has always been as you say, a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful that you seem to dislike.
> >
> > Ironic x3. Halo has always attempted to not be a choice between broken, frustrating and random vs the skillful.
> >
> > Ironic x4. Halo is now a game that isn’t broken, is frustrating and the least random vs the most skillful of all the Halos, though is the centre of the original claim.
> >
> > Now whether it’s the most fun, of course that’s a matter of opinion per person. No Halo is universally praised as the best… I like it that way.
>
> This.
>
> Every Halo has had its own personal flaw. Like you said, fun is subjective and what version of Halo people like is all an opinion. Personally, I can’t stand to play Halo 1. It just…isn’t enjoyable to me. I prefer Halo 2/Reach to both Halo 1 and Halo 3. Of course, this is just my mere opinion.
Based on everything you two say it seems you hated Halo and like Reach because it is not Halo. I think you found the primary weapons frustrating because they were hard to use and COULD beat other weapons in any range(if the user of the shotgun/sword/sniper were bad). It sounds like you are anti-utility weapon.
I don’t understand what you liked about Halo… The CE pistol and BR MADE Halo great to many people and you seem to hate those guns. Weird.
> > Reach is not good because of overpowered grenades, slow default movement, AA’s made spam by the loadout system, and bloom.
> >
> > That was easy.
>
> Halo 3 is not good because of wimpy grenades, equipment that is worthless and terrible BR spread.
>
> That was easy.
The frag grenades in Halo 3 were the best in my opinion. The damage was perfect, they were enough to take out your shields but never kill you if you had full shields. And I loved the physics of that grenade. It took a considerable amount of skill to be good at using them to their fullest potential.
Equipment was not worthless either, They were essential for winning games in Team Slayer and Team Doubles on certain maps. Isolation and Assembly are good examples and there’s a lot more maps too. Equipment most notably the Power Drainer and the Regen are a big part of changing the outcome of a battle. At most I would say that Equipment was to easy and to use and just allowed for cheap kills.
Agreed on the Random Br spread from Halo 3. But is not a big of a problem as the bloom in Reach is right now.
> It does this by attempting to be as symmetrical as possible but without taking away the choice from a player.
i find this statement to be especially hilarious. taking ‘choice’ away is EXACTLY what the current DMR’s algorithm does for some players who dont want to get killed by its shoddy implementation.
see, everyone here has an opinion about things, the difference is, the people who are against bloom can actually back their opinions up with the fact that blooms implementation doesnt benefit ANYONE when spamming wins. there is a reason why you dodge the questions that i post, that reason is pretty fundamental really. the reason is, in answering my questions you either look completely ridiculous, or prove me right.
no really, who benefits when spamming wins vs someone who is trying to use their gun correctly? can you provide us with EVEN ONE group of people who benefit from this?
do noobs benefit from trying to use a mechanic that makes them fail the vast majority of the time? nope.
do average players benefit from trying to use a mechanic that makes them fail the vast majority of the time? nope.
do pros benefit from a game where individual skill in shooting DMR vs DMR battles doesnt matter in the least because the ‘optimal’ way to shoot in the average situation is to spam the first 4 shots, then headshot? nope.
do pros benefit from using good cadence and flawless aim at mid range, only to be beat by someone smashing their R trigger? nope.
the way bloom was implemented literally does not benefit A SINGLE PERSON in DMR vs DMR battles because if 1 person is spamming, the result is completely random, or sporadic, or whatever word you want to use (you can debate semantics all day, but spamming doesnt win more than 50% against pacing).
thats the thing about the majority too. sure, the majority might love these mechanics, but the fact remains that the majority either
1.) has no idea whats going on in the first place
2.) have no idea why the mechanics are bad
3.) havent considered or thought about who the mechanics being this way benefits
4.) could care less what the mechanics are, as long as ‘halo’ is in the title of the game
> And it is by the execution of this choice, the controls and methods of the choice that allow Halo to be played competitively.
yea, except, for some reason, for the first time in the history of halo games, skill in shooting doesnt matter some of the time because of the way the mechanics were implemented. it used to be that i would engage 1v1 BR battles, or pistol battles because i felt confident in my abilities, and i knew that if i shot better, i would win the encounter. now, however, i absolutely dread the thought of having to 1v1 DMR someone because i know that
1.) even if i shoot better i will not win some of the time (even tho there is literally no reason for this)
2.) if i miss even 1 bullet the chances of the full auto spammer to win against me go up substantially
3.) if i slip up on cadence for even 1 bullet the chances for the full auto spammer to win against me go up substantially
so, instead of… yanno actually playing halo to shoot people and have them shoot back, i have to -Yoink!- power weapons, actively seek mini nukes, and use other clown tactics to get around the DMR’s algorithm being so poorly implemented.
all i really want is for the DMR to not let full auto spamming win, AT ANY RANGE, EVER, in 1v1 DMR battles. i am tired of getting beat by people who make no attempt at using the gun properly because the gun was implemented poorly.
why did bungie even name it the Designated Marksman Rifle? it functioned like its name would suggest in the beta, but in the actual game, it is spammed constantly, over every range by almost everyone, to SUCCESS none the less.
> In Reach, a player has a viable choice at just about anytime.
yea, except the choice to use your PRIMARY WEAPON SPAWN to face someone using their PRIMARY WEAPON SPAWN (something that happens frequently, or would, if the game wasnt so bad) where the victor is the person who shoots better has COMPLETELY GONE OUT THE WINDOW. seriously. pistol vs pistol battles, or BR vs BR battles, and DMR vs DMR battles are CORE to halo. you should be able to use your primary weapon spawn for COMPETITIVE games to 1v1 someone and have the victor go to the person who shoots better. thats just intuitive gaming. unfortunately for all of us, thats not how this game functions.