I played squad slayer matches after the TU was added to it. It’s amazingly fine and perfect.
TU made this game worth playing.
> I played squad slayer matches after the TU was added to it. It’s amazingly fine and perfect.
but but…
IN MY ‘OPINION’
its better when:
•the primary weapon spawn is inconsistent.
•charging in like an idiot is a viable strategy due to the extra protection of ‘no-bleed’ melees.
•armor lock is still overpowered.
•invis isnt nerfed.
/sarcasm.
i just love how people can actually think the TU negatively effects the game AT ALL, aside from sword block being removed (cuz the sword was just too hard to use, and i need all the help i can get while i flail around with it LOL).
only on waypoint is this RDF-mentality present.
> > > Yes, and opinions CAN be right or wrong. Your unwillingness to defend yours shows that yours is wrong.
> >
> > Opinions are not meant to be right or wrong, because they are only that : opinions, which means subjective.
>
> call me crazy, and imma go out on a limb here to say
>
> if your opinion cannot actually be backed up using LOGIC, or REASON, its prolly not something MOST PEOPLE would consider ‘valid’.
>
> it can be my ‘opinion’ that guns dont shoot bullets. am i right? NOPE. can you prove it? YEP. do i look like a dolt to suggest otherwise? YEP.
You should always be carefull with assumptions like that.Remember when people belived earth was plate?
Anything you can do, say or think is <mark>only</mark> a Human experience, and it is <mark>not strictly related</mark> to the Reality itself, if it even exists.So opinions, even logical, are not necessarily true or false because they are only based in Human’s limited abilities to measure and analyse it’s environnement.Which are not perfect.
So, at the extreme,we could say guns don’t shoot bullets, gunpowder does.Or, in fact it’s the emptyness in your soul which attracts the bullet by allowing the powder to explode.Or, if we were back 6000 years, it’s the god of thunder who punishes your ennemies by your hand throwing iron bees.Or, 10000 years in the futur, it’s the dark energy in the universe which makes primitive monkeys to use weapons by triggering agressive thoughts in their so-called brain through the 7th dimension.Or however you want to explain it.
Remember, to get next to the truth, you must not destroy other people’s vision.You must use it to improve and complete yours, which will make it better, and maybe next to the reality…if it even exists;).
> > > > Yes, and opinions CAN be right or wrong. Your unwillingness to defend yours shows that yours is wrong.
> > >
> > > Opinions are not meant to be right or wrong, because they are only that : opinions, which means subjective.
> >
> > call me crazy, and imma go out on a limb here to say
> >
> > if your opinion cannot actually be backed up using LOGIC, or REASON, its prolly not something MOST PEOPLE would consider ‘valid’.
> >
> > it can be my ‘opinion’ that guns dont shoot bullets. am i right? NOPE. can you prove it? YEP. do i look like a dolt to suggest otherwise? YEP.
>
> You should always be carefull with assumptions like that.Remember when people belived earth was plate?
> Anything you can do, say or think is <mark>only</mark> a Human experience, and it is <mark>not strictly related</mark> to the Reality itself, if it even exists.So opinions, even logical, are not necessarily true or false because they are only based in Human’s limited abilities to measure and analyse it’s environnement.Which are not perfect.
>
> So, at the extreme,we could say guns don’t shoot bullets, gunpowder does.Or, in fact it’s the emptyness in your soul which attracts the bullet by allowing the powder to explode.Or, if we were back 6000 years, it’s the god of thunder who punishes your ennemies by your hand throwing iron bees.Or, 10000 years in the futur, it’s the dark energy in the universe which makes primitive monkeys to use weapons by triggering agressive thoughts in their so-called brain through the 7th dimension.Or however you want to explain it.
>
> Remember, to get next to the truth, you must not destroy other people’s vision.You must use it to improve and complete yours, which will make it better, and maybe next to the reality…if it even exists;).
except science has come a long way, and the vast majority of the MATURE people (17+) who play halo will be able to differentiate opinions based on nothing but ‘feelings’ and opinions being based on FACTS, LOGIC, AND REASON. clearly one holds more weight by any sensible persons standards.
seriously.
lets say you are making a sequel to a game. you are seeking feedback for your next game and letting the community decide all of the ‘v2’ mechanics:
2 people give you feedback (only), so this is what you have to work with (again this is hypothetical, so just bear with me).
person #1 says ‘THIS IS DUMB! I HATE THIS GAME! guns arent random, thats a lie’
person #2 says ‘this is suboptimal, heres why, heres examples, heres the logic behind it, heres the reasoning behind it, heres a logic question "how does this benefit anyone versus an implementation that doesnt do (insert whatever)’
CLEARLY person #2 is who you listen to.
its completely, and totally foolish to people who operate on nothing more than ‘feelings’ when another group of people can lay out logical, reason-based arguments then back them up with facts.
for example: some people think the 100% bloom DMR is more consistent. this is straight false. when they make this assessment and say ‘THIS IS BETTER’ based on their false sense of truth, its laughable to listen to them. 85% bloom and 0% bloom are more consistent than 100% bloom was, or ever will be, regardless of how you shoot.
or maybe its that some people actually PREFER the gun to be inconsistent, to which i’d simply ask ‘who does this inconsistency actually benefit’? at this point, 99% of the people i ask will refuse to answer my question because, quite frankly, it uproots their ENTIRE ARGUMENT, making it look incredibly foolish because its based on nothing but ‘feelings’ alone, completely and totally ignoring LOGIC and REASON.
I agree with everything in the OP except for armor lock.
My only problem is bleed-through.
> My only problem is bleed-through.
I disagree.
> My only problem is bleed-through.
I like bleed-through. Maybe it can be tweaked on the guns, but for melee it’s great.
> > My only problem is bleed-through.
>
> I like bleed-through. Maybe it can be tweaked on the guns, but for melee it’s great.
It would be a lot better if the Magnum and NR behaved like the DMR.
Normal old damage but will still bleed through on slivers of shield.
No whole one shot less crap.
> My only problem is bleed-through.
I agree. I think the new shield behavior was an improvement.
> > > My only problem is bleed-through.
> >
> > I like bleed-through. Maybe it can be tweaked on the guns, but for melee it’s great.
>
> It would be a lot better if the Magnum and NR behaved like the DMR.
> Normal old damage but will still bleed through on slivers of shield.
> No whole one shot less crap.
Pistol was already fixed. I only use the NR in 85% anymore, I don’t have to count shots when I hold down the trigger.
> except science has come a long way, and the vast majority of the MATURE people (17+) who play halo will be able to differentiate opinions based on nothing but ‘feelings’ and opinions being based on FACTS, LOGIC, AND REASON. clearly one holds more weight by any sensible persons standards.
Science? a <mark>long</mark> way?We must not live in the same planet :)How can our science or knowledge be long when we are an extremely young species?
No offense, but what I call a mature player is a little bit older…let’s say over 30.Because at these ages you have often enough living experience to stand back and stop believing your always right.But it doesn’t mean a 18’s opinion is less important.
I have to agree though, fact, logic and reason are a good way (actually, one of the best we have)to discuss and improve knowledge, but they absolutely cannot be considered the truth.
> seriously.
>
> lets say you are making a sequel to a game. you are seeking feedback for your next game and letting the community decide all of the ‘v2’ mechanics:
>
> 2 people give you feedback (only), so this is what you have to work with (again this is hypothetical, so just bear with me).
>
> person #1 says ‘THIS IS DUMB! I HATE THIS GAME! guns arent random, thats a lie’
>
> person #2 says ‘this is suboptimal, heres why, heres examples, heres the logic behind it, heres the reasoning behind it, heres a logic question "how does this benefit anyone versus an implementation that doesnt do (insert whatever)’
>
> CLEARLY person #2 is who you listen to.
Not necessarily.In my vision, I’ll listen both, and ask myself why.When someone talks to you, he’s saying 3 things :
-what he believes he’s saying
-what he don’t know he’s saying
-what you think he’s saying
But I agree, arguing is a more polite, easy to understand way.What we would call “civilized” 
> its completely, and totally foolish to people who operate on nothing more than ‘feelings’ when another group of people can lay out logical, reason-based arguments then back them up with facts.
Wow, witches, let’s burn em all! (kidding).
No, honestly, it depends what you’re talking about.If you hope reason and logic will lead you hunting , playing music or surviving in a hostile environnemment, you’re wrong, trust me
Sometimes, feelings trascend our logic abilities, but that’s a long learning thing, and another story 
> for example: some people think the 100% bloom DMR is more consistent. this is straight false. when they make this assessment and say ‘THIS IS BETTER’ based on their false sense of truth, its laughable to listen to them. 85% bloom and 0% bloom are more consistent than 100% bloom was, or ever will be, regardless of how you shoot.
>
> or maybe its that some people actually PREFER the gun to be inconsistent, to which i’d simply ask ‘who does this inconsistency actually benefit’? at this point, 99% of the people i ask will refuse to answer my question because, quite frankly, it uproots their ENTIRE ARGUMENT, making it look incredibly foolish because its based on nothing but ‘feelings’ alone, completely and totally ignoring LOGIC and REASON.
In fact, to answer this kind of questions with logic, we should start with the definition of the concerned concepts.So let’s start with the definition of “more consistant” :
What does it means?consitant to what?better for what?for having fun?for feeling(oh no, the banned word!;)) more competitive?more accurate?less?balance towards weapon sandbox?for balancing what?players level?host advantage?poorly designed maps(long distance, cover, etc)?
My personal vision about the TU stuff?Mainly, I don’t care.I love 100%, I love ZB even more, but maybe I think 100% is better for the game for weapon balance/map design questions…I don’t know, we’ll see.But I don’t like bleed through!
To finish with this (and to stop flooding before we get banned), I understand your point, but I just can’t agree with the “my point of view is better” thing, for any reason, “even” logic.Hey man, everything has a reason to be, even stupid people!
I’d love to go further on “Why we think what we think, physics, philosophy and religion”, but this is the wrong place and my eng is not good enough.
Love these eng lessons, though
I don’t like the fact that 343 impose me to play TU
I prefer Reach gameplay
Why not putting two parallel playlists: competitive Reach and competitive TU
so everybody can play all the gametypes with the rules they want
this is not so difficult to do… everyone would be happy
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not flame or attack other members.
“armor lock and active camo were fine the wy they were.”
LOL… but seriously how can you have such OP AA’s along with sprint and the rest. It was always calling for a nerf.
I always thought active camo sucked even before the nerf. I dunno why everybody cried about it. It lit up your radar like a Christmas tree and they couldn’t move for -Yoink- without becoming visible haha All you had to do was keep your back to a wall until it ran out and they’d suddenly be visible and clueless on how to proceed. Pretty sure I’ve died to sprinters 100x more than active camo. Hell, I never even saw it unless I foolishly chose Team Slayer. It’s worse when my own team uses it and it -Yoinks!- up my motion tracker.
Armor Lock, while a completely stupid idea, only ruined Team Slayer for me, which it will continue to do because that wasn’t a playlist that was randomly chosen to be updated.
> I don’t like the fact that 343 impose me to play TU
> I prefer Reach gameplay
> Why not putting two parallel playlists: competitive Reach and competitive TU
> so everybody can play all the gametypes with the rules they want
>
> this is not so difficult to do… everyone would be happy
You’re not forced to. There are still plenty of Playlists that don’t have the TU.
> > I don’t like the fact that 343 impose me to play TU
> > I prefer Reach gameplay
> > Why not putting two parallel playlists: competitive Reach and competitive TU
> > so everybody can play all the gametypes with the rules they want
> >
> > this is not so difficult to do… everyone would be happy
>
> You’re not forced to. There are still plenty of Playlists that don’t have the TU.
right, but if I want to play multiteam I must play with the TU settings…
with parallel playlists I could play normal multiteam and “you” with the TU settings (for exemple)
This post has been edited by a moderator. Please do not post spam.