There’s a lot of people eyeing Halo 3’s multiplayer as something for Infinite to take inspiration from, but how should it handle the UNSC weapons? I think a projectile-based sniper rifle works well to widen its skill gap, but for the magnum and battle rifle I wouldn’t mind them still being hitscan. Not sure about the railgun, I really like both of the versions we’ve seen even though they handle differently.
Projectile ftw
Gotta go with hitscan. Projectile weapons lead to inconsistent gameplay, which becomes even worse when games get laggy. Even under ideal circumstances, Halo 3’s BR was inconsistent at range and frustrating to use. I do think there should be something that prevents players from spamming shots across entire maps, but using projectile-based weapons is a poor solution.
One solution is to tweak the red-reticle range of the weapons so that they’re difficult to use at a range. Of course, this isn’t the best solution since we can’t have a “one-size-fits-all” way to apply this. The difference in map sizes between arena, BTB, and Warzone is immense. Perhaps there could be different levels of aim assist based on how far away your target is. Up to a certain point, you could get a fraction of aim assist instead of it being all or nothing. Alternatively, (and I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion,) we could bring back bloom from Halo Reach. Just a small amount of it, though. Enough to make it so that cross-map kills are more challenging to achieve, which would allow easier movement across larger maps.
As a rule of thumb, any projectile-based weapon needs to be powerful enough to offset that disadvantage. The Rocket Launcher is a good example of this. And the Suppressor from Halo 4 is a good example of what a projectile weapon should never be.
> 2533274978553590;4:
> Gotta go with hitscan. Projectile weapons lead to inconsistent gameplay, which becomes even worse when games get laggy. Even under ideal circumstances, Halo 3’s BR was inconsistent at range and frustrating to use. I do think there should be something that prevents players from spamming shots across entire maps, but using projectile-based weapons is a poor solution.
>
> One solution is to tweak the red-reticle range of the weapons so that they’re difficult to use at a range. Of course, this isn’t the best solution since we can’t have a “one-size-fits-all” way to apply this. The difference in map sizes between arena, BTB, and Warzone is immense. Perhaps there could be different levels of aim assist based on how far away your target is. Up to a certain point, you could get a fraction of aim assist instead of it being all or nothing. Alternatively, (and I know this is going to be an unpopular opinion,) we could bring back bloom from Halo Reach. Just a small amount of it, though. Enough to make it so that cross-map kills are more challenging to achieve, which would allow easier movement across larger maps.
>
> As a rule of thumb, any projectile-based weapon needs to be powerful enough to offset that disadvantage. The Rocket Launcher is a good example of this. And the Suppressor from Halo 4 is a good example of what a projectile weapon should never be.
Projectile weapons are not especially inconsistent when implemented properly. It is absurd to take a 12 year old game with a peer 2 peer system that had notoriously bad netcode even for the day and use it as the standard to judge projectile based weapons. Especially when the primary precision weapon had programmed random spread just to make things even worse.
A modern game with dedicated servers and a high tickrate would have no trouble keeping up with projectile based UNSC weapons. Using Halo 3 to criticize projectile based weapons in 2019 is ludicrous.
Projectile physics are better judged by looking at Battlefield 1, a much more modern game than H3 that plays great with projectile physics. I think it could be done right either way, but projectile could make it a bit more skillful.
I made a post about this a while ago, you can check it out here.
People enjoy hitscan more because for people with poor connections, it’s a more fair mechanic that can respond to latency issues faster than projectiles.
As much as I’d enjoy projectiles more, I think hitscan would be more viable mainly because of this point. I want fair and responsive gameplay.
Projectile. It increases the skill gap and prevents long range spam. Giving weapons different projectile flight speeds would be good as well. For example with the smg and dmr as the slowest and fastest. The smg being stronger in close range by giving it a high kill time but useless as longer ranges due do its spread and flight speed, whereas the dmr excels at long range because of the flight speed but would be at a disadvantage against an smg in close quarters. It also prevents weapons from excelling in ranges they’re not supposed to.
The issue of lag is a pointless argument because when there’s lag, hitscan or not you will likely miss because you could be shooting someone that isn’t actually where you’re aiming. I’ve had problems in the past on both h3 and reach from lag where an enemy is bouncing around or I’m bouncing around and couldn’t hit my target at all regardless of having projectile or hitscan weapons
I’m a hit scan guy myself. I understand why people like projectile and appreciate the skill gap but I personally just think it’s more satisfying to be able to point at at something, pull the trigger, and you for sure hit it.
Hitscan for the ones that use bullets, unless they’re faster, more consistent projectile bullets than in 3. If there’s a BR mode for whatever reason they’d probably need to switch to projectile.
I prefer projectile. Besides adding an additional dimension to the gunplay, it’s more natural, intuitive and just feels better.