To sum up what the majority feels of the March update

Games Other Halo
1

I can confidently feel the majority of people here agree with this.

> I am very disappointed in these playlist changes.
>
> Squad Slayer was the result of many months of complaining on bungie’net’s Optimatch forum. It was designed to offer a playlist without a disproportion number of grey-green-and-grey Community Maps. It was also a refuge from armour abilities not considered fun or appropriate in a Slayer environment. I am of course referring to Armour Lock, an ability that temporarily delays death, stoppers fun and often leads to an illogical outcome, as team mates intervene and the better player is not rewarded. It is not a promising sign to be reverting back to past mistakes, hurdles it was thought had been overcome (or more accurately circumvented).
>
> The maintaining of default and TU settings has also been a mistake in my opinion (with perhaps the exception of Invasion that was balanced around default). 343 had the opportunity to clarify the identity of Halo, instead it has been further blurred between a multitude of different settings. Attention should have been devoted towards rectifying the problems with default (melees, bloom, grenades), rather than dividing the population by attempting (and failing) to please everyone.
>
> Finally I will end on the most pressing point. You claim to have listened to complaints regarding bleedthrough. While you may have heard, you have not listened. Complaints, from the voice of reason, revolved around bullet bleedthrough, not melee bleedthrough. Bullet bleedthrough has resulted in players being unable to accurately judge how much damage they are able to take in combat, as they die in one shot with nearly a third of their shield remaining or, having lost even the smallest fraction of their shield, die in 4 shots from the DMR. It also hasn’t helped the potency of grenades. Melee bleedthrough on the otherhand rewards shooting in CQB without allowing players to cheaply turn the tables with a melee, or worse go for a double beatdown. The latter, melee bleedthrough, is a good thing. The former, bullet bleedthrough, is not. Please give us the former without the latter.
>
> Concerned and confused,
> Tom

I love you 343i but the March update is a BIG mistake.

2

I wish Tom was a mod here just like on BNet

3

The best place to have posted this was directly below (or nearest to) that post itself. Are you trying to prove how far you’re willing to bend the rules because you seem to be doing a lot of bending?

4

I hate the update. But Melee bleedthough was more of a problem than bullet bleedthrough.

Bring back evade now

5

> The best place to have posted this was directly below (or nearest to) that post itself. Are you trying to prove how far you’re willing to bend the rules because you seem to be doing a lot of bending?

Well I don’t believe I am breaking any rules, and I’m doing this for the betterment of the game and the community. The more the word spreads the better chance of 343 catching this and maybe fixing this problem.

6

> The best place to have posted this was directly below (or nearest to) that post itself. Are you trying to prove how far you’re willing to bend the rules because you seem to be doing a lot of bending?

You mean inside the dumping bin thread that no one will ever read through?

This forum arrangement structure is terrible. Any suggestions thatbget made as threads get locked and potholed to these dump threads and the only pages that get read in them are the first and current last pages. We need more focused specific discussion instead of just having every thread get locked and potholed.

7

> I hate the update. But Melee bleedthough was more of a problem than bullet bleedthrough.

Amen on the melee bleedthrough. That was the primary… make that only… reason I didn’t vote for TU. Two shot plus melee was SOOOOOOOOO broken and made it nigh impossible for me to enjoy the game. I like the armor lock changes. I like the camo changes. I can live with the bloom changes. I hated bleed with a flaming passion that can’t be extinguished.

8

I think that if we can’t one both, we should have one of the other as far as bleedthrough goes. I’m more of an advocate of keeping Bullet bleedthrough instead of melee bleedthrough to promote shooting, but honestly all it would take is buffing the damage/resistance ratios to 110%/110% and then nerfing melee to 90% to allow both.

9

I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.

So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.

10

> I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.
>
> So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.

Not true. Being killed by a sniper shot when you have half shields or a shotgun shell at less than full shields are both examples of bullet bleedthrough that existed before the TU. Both of those shots, which would not kill you with full shields, could kill with lowered but not fully depleted shields.

11

> I can confidently feel the majority of people here agree with this.
>
>
>
> > I am very disappointed in these playlist changes.
> >
> > Squad Slayer was the result of many months of complaining on bungie’net’s Optimatch forum. It was designed to offer a playlist without a disproportion number of grey-green-and-grey Community Maps. It was also a refuge from armour abilities not considered fun or appropriate in a Slayer environment. I am of course referring to Armour Lock, an ability that temporarily delays death, stoppers fun and often leads to an illogical outcome, as team mates intervene and the better player is not rewarded. It is not a promising sign to be reverting back to past mistakes, hurdles it was thought had been overcome (or more accurately circumvented).
> >
> > The maintaining of default and TU settings has also been a mistake in my opinion (with perhaps the exception of Invasion that was balanced around default). 343 had the opportunity to clarify the identity of Halo, instead it has been further blurred between a multitude of different settings. Attention should have been devoted towards rectifying the problems with default (melees, bloom, grenades), rather than dividing the population by attempting (and failing) to please everyone.
> >
> > Finally I will end on the most pressing point. You claim to have listened to complaints regarding bleedthrough. While you may have heard, you have not listened. Complaints, from the voice of reason, revolved around bullet bleedthrough, not melee bleedthrough. Bullet bleedthrough has resulted in players being unable to accurately judge how much damage they are able to take in combat, as they die in one shot with nearly a third of their shield remaining or, having lost even the smallest fraction of their shield, die in 4 shots from the DMR. It also hasn’t helped the potency of grenades. Melee bleedthrough on the otherhand rewards shooting in CQB without allowing players to cheaply turn the tables with a melee, or worse go for a double beatdown. The latter, melee bleedthrough, is a good thing. The former, bullet bleedthrough, is not. Please give us the former without the latter.
> >
> > Concerned and confused,
> > Tom
>
> I love you 343i but the March update is a BIG mistake.

Very nice post by Tom and I agree.

I’ll also elaborate a bit more.

I think a lot of complaints about bleedthrough ARE about BULLET bleedthrough. It can be quite inconsistent and is hard to judge, especially when your shields are recharging are 1/2 or 3/4 full and it sometimes appears that a single headshot from a DMR kills you. Along with even the tiniest sliver of shields gone from a grenade will cause you to be 4 shot. Headshot bleedthrough just wasn’t done right in the TU, probably because its still Reach and its hard to make it work with it, when Reach was made w/o it.

Melee bleedthrough is good though, not just because its been in all past Halos or its “Halo” but because it makes sense and rewards shooting in a FPS. Theres no reason why 3 shots+melee equal the same as 1 melee, its illogical and promotes bad gameplay, such as the “derp down” (going for the double beatdown). What makes it even worse is sprint, it allows someone to just sprint across a “large” section of map and go for the double beatdown. Bloom also helps sprint double melees because of its added randomness and inconsistency, this shouldn’t need an explanation but I will if needed.

If you take a look at a playlist like MLG, they have zero bloom, no sprint and bleedthrough and double melees are so RARE. Why? Because with zero bloom theres no added randomness or inconsistency (other than headshot bleedthrough), no sprint makes it very hard and ineffective to try to go up for a double beatdown. And to top it off melee bleedthrough, by the time someone trying to rush up to you and double melee you, they’ve probably already been shot 3 times so when they get up to you, you beat them down and they now die, instead of now being on even terms or better yet you’ve 5 shotted them before they get to you.

So all in all, removing Melee bleedthrough is a big step backwards, as is removing Squad Slayer (for the reasons Tom mentioned).

12

> I hate the update. But Melee bleedthough was more of a problem than bullet bleedthrough.
>
> Bring back evade now

It’s quite the opposite actually. The Bullet bleedthrough was crap. Melee damage needed to be toned down, yes, but melee bleedthrough should not have been removed.

This Update has been met with almost all negative reception.

13

> > I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.
> >
> > So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.
>
> Not true. Being killed by a sniper shot when you have half shields or a shotgun shell at less than full shields are both examples of bullet bleedthrough that existed before the TU. Both of those shots, which would not kill you with full shields, could kill with lowered but not fully depleted shields.

Ordnance class weapons dont count in the debate, that was established a long time ago. And the shotty actually has multiple projectiles, because its a shotty.

14

> > I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.
> >
> > So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.
>
> Not true. Being killed by a sniper shot when you have half shields or a shotgun shell at less than full shields are both examples of bullet bleedthrough that existed before the TU. Both of those shots, which would not kill you with full shields, could kill with lowered but not fully depleted shields.

I’m completely speculating here, but I think that the setup worked like this:

The weapon data contained a flag determining whether or not the weapon’s damage could bleed through. For nearly all weapons, this flag was set to “off”; for a few, like the sniper rifle, sword, and hammer, it was set to “on”.

343i’s TU couldn’t directly modify the weapon or melee data. Ergo their only recourse was to make it so that in certain gametypes, the game would ignore the bleedthrough flag and always assume that it was on, regardless of what weapon is used.

Ergo 343i’s TU wouldn’t be able to disable bleedthrough for some weapons but not others, and it wouldn’t be able to enable bleedthrough on melees while keeping it unchanged for everything else, as that kind of fine-tuning was only possible pre-release. Their option is to turn bleedthrough on for all damage types, or defer to the Vanilla Reach bleedthrough data.

15

> > > I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.
> > >
> > > So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.
> >
> > Not true. Being killed by a sniper shot when you have half shields or a shotgun shell at less than full shields are both examples of bullet bleedthrough that existed before the TU. Both of those shots, which would not kill you with full shields, could kill with lowered but not fully depleted shields.
>
> I’m completely speculating here, but I think that the setup worked like this:
>
> The weapon data contained a flag determining whether or not the weapon’s damage could bleed through. For nearly all weapons, this flag was set to “off”; for a few, like the sniper rifle, sword, and hammer, it was set to “on”.
>
> 343i’s TU couldn’t directly modify the weapon or melee data. Ergo their only recourse was to make it so that in certain gametypes, the game would ignore the bleedthrough flag and always assume that it was on, regardless of what weapon is used.
>
> Ergo 343i’s TU wouldn’t be able to disable bleedthrough for some weapons but not others, and it wouldn’t be able to enable bleedthrough on melees while keeping it unchanged for everything else, as that kind of fine-tuning was only possible pre-release. Their option is to turn bleedthrough on for all damage types, or defer to the Vanilla Reach bleedthrough data.

I hope the same problems don’t bog down Halo 4.

16

> > > I highly doubt they have the granularity to separate bullet and melee bleedthrough. Because the game wasnt designed for it in the first place.
> > >
> > > So it had to go, caused more problems that it purports to solve. Not tht i agree with melee bleedthrough either, got real tired of the AR rush in H3.
> >
> > Not true. Being killed by a sniper shot when you have half shields or a shotgun shell at less than full shields are both examples of bullet bleedthrough that existed before the TU. Both of those shots, which would not kill you with full shields, could kill with lowered but not fully depleted shields.
>
> I’m completely speculating here, but I think that the setup worked like this:
>
> The weapon data contained a flag determining whether or not the weapon’s damage could bleed through. For nearly all weapons, this flag was set to “off”; for a few, like the sniper rifle, sword, and hammer, it was set to “on”.
>
> 343i’s TU couldn’t directly modify the weapon or melee data. Ergo their only recourse was to make it so that in certain gametypes, the game would ignore the bleedthrough flag and always assume that it was on, regardless of what weapon is used.
>
> Ergo 343i’s TU wouldn’t be able to disable bleedthrough for some weapons but not others, and it wouldn’t be able to enable bleedthrough on melees while keeping it unchanged for everything else, as that kind of fine-tuning was only possible pre-release. Their option is to turn bleedthrough on for all damage types, or defer to the Vanilla Reach bleedthrough data.

Pretty much what i assumed. They dont have the settings granularity to do it because the game was never designed for general bleedthrough.

Spose that probably settles it now.

17

Or does it?