Vehicles and Melee combat should be the focus next

So it seems like Halo 5 was about improving the general feel of movement and thus allowing the action to be bigger in scale. (spartan abilities, giant warzone maps, multiple paths through campaign levels)
Going back to previous games feels very different: they are all so much less intuitive. it really is completely just about knowing how to play each map and basic shooting skill, which is fine, but halo 5 gives you more tools to think about and play around with which can make it more fun to learn.

But as soon as you get in a vehicle, it feels pretty much like it did in previous games. The vehicles control better and some of them have interesting twists (nadegoose godlike) but the way you drive vehicles in halo is the same, and the way you have to use them is very strictly defined and hard to learn, just like player movement in old Halo games.

As far as Melee goes, it’s never been an especially deep thing. Ninjas are about the most interesting thing they bring to the table, but those fall more under the category of player movement: nothing about the actual hit is really interesting. Assassination animations are cool but I feel like they mainly serve to cover up the lack of compelling feedback you get from a normal backsmack. At its most basic, squaring off against another person at close range, melee is the least interesting part of the often quoted dynamic of gun + grenade + movement + melee. It can still be PART of exciting moments, it’s just never really the cause of them. People hate getting double melee’d not because it’s cheap, really, but because it’s boring.

Vehicles don’t need to be completely different. They should work based on the same principles, but the idea of spartan abilities should be applied to them in ways that can further those principles. And that can be done in ways that both ground these vehicles in their in-fiction mechanics as well as new things the fiction makes up solely to excuse better gameplay (Warthogs that can strafe, Ghosts that can climb steep inclines) or just general changes to the controls or tuning that give players more input and confidence.

For Melee a less forgiving approach may be required. We all have seen cool CQC fight scenes in movies and game cutscenes. We’ve even seen first person games get CQC done right. But with Halo, you don’t want it to turn into this hideously complicated thing that turns people off from even engaging with it. You don’t want every close quarters fight to turn into chief and locke fighting. Cause while that was a cool fight, they abandoned every other aspect of halo gameplay during it: no grenades, limited movement, no guns. But I think if you can get melee to a point where it is at least entertaining and skillful to fight with melee only, then that’s proof that melee will be a more interesting part of varied fights that use all of the mechanics in the game. It should look cool and feel cool. Two people punching themselves in the face to death is not cool. CQC is about defense and offense, dramatic comebacks and finishers. Currently the game treats it like a short-range gunshot: impersonal and detatched from a sense of physical tangibility and reality. It just needs a little something. I’m not sure I know exactly what, but it needs it. (Note that I consider the Spartan Charge and ground pound to be movement-centric, as they are basically just new ways of delivering a fairly standard melee attack)

And I guess combining these two things: the mechanics of boarding and meleeing people in vehicles. I can’t honestly think of what could be done to make this better, but the way it works right now is, to put it lightly, “fiddly”. Obviously all of the boarding maneuvers are incredibly complicated acrobatic feats and it seems like a huge task to make them more player-driven, but I’d like to think that they could be a bit more controlled and involved than “hold input while in proximity of part of vehicle”.

So in conclusion I’m not saying that player movement or normal weapons aren’t important, and those should definitely be adjusted and added to in future games. I just think that they don’t need a very radical shift from what Halo 5 has left them as, and mostly can get by on tuning, tweaks, and aesthetic changes. Vehicles and Melee are parts of Halo 5 that feel very tradtional, and they aren’t “bad” because of that. They just don’t fit in as well as they could with a game that has moved forward in a lot of ways.

  1. I actually read this wall of text.
  2. This is Halo and not the UFC. Even now Halo has more non-gun combat than most other shooters. There’s no need for sophisticated hand-to-hand combat.
  3. Your statement “hold input while in proximity of part of vehicle” explains how boarding a vehicle works in most (I’d say even all) games. You can board vehicles from different sides and angles in Halo, which is again, more than most other shooters.
  4. Being close to a vehicle means two things:
  • the possibility of destroying a vehicle by boarding it and placing a grenade for an easy kill (which helps reduce the potential overpower of vehicles)
  • the possibility of being run over while trying to board a vehicle (which makes placing a grenade more difficult and balances this “easy grenade kill”)
    If boarding a vehicle to place a grenade was too easy and could be done from all sides and angles, then there would be no point in having vehicles at all.
  1. “Warthogs that can strafe” - right, why not make them hover and shoot lasers too? I’m sure there’s some fiction that can support this idea.
  2. “People hate getting double melee’d not because it’s cheap, really, but because it’s boring.” - No, people hate getting double melee’d because they could’ve prevented the second melee.
  3. I’m not trying to be mean or toxic. Just my feedback on your feedback.

> 2533274859755618;1:
> So it seems like Halo 5 was about improving the general feel of movement and thus allowing the action to be bigger in scale. (spartan abilities, giant warzone maps, multiple paths through campaign levels)
> Going back to previous games feels very different: they are all so much less intuitive. it really is completely just about knowing how to play each map and basic shooting skill, which is fine, but halo 5 gives you more tools to think about and play around with which can make it more fun to learn.
>
> But as soon as you get in a vehicle, it feels pretty much like it did in previous games. The vehicles control better and some of them have interesting twists (nadegoose godlike) but the way you drive vehicles in halo is the same, and the way you have to use them is very strictly defined and hard to learn, just like player movement in old Halo games.
>
> As far as Melee goes, it’s never been an especially deep thing. Ninjas are about the most interesting thing they bring to the table, but those fall more under the category of player movement: nothing about the actual hit is really interesting. Assassination animations are cool but I feel like they mainly serve to cover up the lack of compelling feedback you get from a normal backsmack. At its most basic, squaring off against another person at close range, melee is the least interesting part of the often quoted dynamic of gun + grenade + movement + melee. It can still be PART of exciting moments, it’s just never really the cause of them. People hate getting double melee’d not because it’s cheap, really, but because it’s boring.
>
> Vehicles don’t need to be completely different. They should work based on the same principles, but the idea of spartan abilities should be applied to them in ways that can further those principles. And that can be done in ways that both ground these vehicles in their in-fiction mechanics as well as new things the fiction makes up solely to excuse better gameplay (Warthogs that can strafe, Ghosts that can climb steep inclines) or just general changes to the controls or tuning that give players more input and confidence.
>
> For Melee a less forgiving approach may be required. We all have seen cool CQC fight scenes in movies and game cutscenes. We’ve even seen first person games get CQC done right. But with Halo, you don’t want it to turn into this hideously complicated thing that turns people off from even engaging with it. You don’t want every close quarters fight to turn into chief and locke fighting. Cause while that was a cool fight, they abandoned every other aspect of halo gameplay during it: no grenades, limited movement, no guns. But I think if you can get melee to a point where it is at least entertaining and skillful to fight with melee only, then that’s proof that melee will be a more interesting part of varied fights that use all of the mechanics in the game. It should look cool and feel cool. Two people punching themselves in the face to death is not cool. CQC is about defense and offense, dramatic comebacks and finishers. Currently the game treats it like a short-range gunshot: impersonal and detatched from a sense of physical tangibility and reality. It just needs a little something. I’m not sure I know exactly what, but it needs it. (Note that I consider the Spartan Charge and ground pound to be movement-centric, as they are basically just new ways of delivering a fairly standard melee attack)
>
> And I guess combining these two things: the mechanics of boarding and meleeing people in vehicles. I can’t honestly think of what could be done to make this better, but the way it works right now is, to put it lightly, “fiddly”. Obviously all of the boarding maneuvers are incredibly complicated acrobatic feats and it seems like a huge task to make them more player-driven, but I’d like to think that they could be a bit more controlled and involved than “hold input while in proximity of part of vehicle”.
> –
> So in conclusion I’m not saying that player movement or normal weapons aren’t important, and those should definitely be adjusted and added to in future games. I just think that they don’t need a very radical shift from what Halo 5 has left them as, and mostly can get by on tuning, tweaks, and aesthetic changes. Vehicles and Melee are parts of Halo 5 that feel very tradtional, and they aren’t “bad” because of that. They just don’t fit in as well as they could with a game that has moved forward in a lot of ways.

Didn’t read (all) of this MASSIVE WALL OF TEXT - But no H2H combat is not need in H

> 2535419704007429;2:
> 1. I actually read this wall of text.
> 2. This is Halo and not the UFC. Even now Halo has more non-gun combat than most other shooters. There’s no need for sophisticated hand-to-hand combat.
> 3. Your statement “hold input while in proximity of part of vehicle” explains how boarding a vehicle works in most (I’d say even all) games. You can board vehicles from different sides and angles in Halo, which is again, more than most other shooters.
> 4. Being close to a vehicle means two things:
> - the possibility of destroying a vehicle by boarding it and placing a grenade for an easy kill (which helps reduce the potential overpower of vehicles)
> - the possibility of being run over while trying to board a vehicle (which makes placing a grenade more difficult and balances this “easy grenade kill”)
> If boarding a vehicle to place a grenade was too easy and could be done from all sides and angles, then there would be no point in having vehicles at all.
> 5. “Warthogs that can strafe” - right, why not make them hover and shoot lasers too? I’m sure there’s some fiction that can support this idea.
> 6. “People hate getting double melee’d not because it’s cheap, really, but because it’s boring.” - No, people hate getting double melee’d because they could’ve prevented the second melee.
> 7. I’m not trying to be mean or toxic. Just my feedback on your feedback.

This one makes a very valid point

> 2535419704007429;2:
> 1. I actually read this wall of text.
> 2. This is Halo and not the UFC. Even now Halo has more non-gun combat than most other shooters. There’s no need for sophisticated hand-to-hand combat.
> 3. Your statement “hold input while in proximity of part of vehicle” explains how boarding a vehicle works in most (I’d say even all) games. You can board vehicles from different sides and angles in Halo, which is again, more than most other shooters.
> 4. Being close to a vehicle means two things:
> - the possibility of destroying a vehicle by boarding it and placing a grenade for an easy kill (which helps reduce the potential overpower of vehicles)
> - the possibility of being run over while trying to board a vehicle (which makes placing a grenade more difficult and balances this “easy grenade kill”)
> If boarding a vehicle to place a grenade was too easy and could be done from all sides and angles, then there would be no point in having vehicles at all.
> 5. “Warthogs that can strafe” - right, why not make them hover and shoot lasers too? I’m sure there’s some fiction that can support this idea.
> 6. “People hate getting double melee’d not because it’s cheap, really, but because it’s boring.” - No, people hate getting double melee’d because they could’ve prevented the second melee.
> 7. I’m not trying to be mean or toxic. Just my feedback on your feedback.

As I said in my wall of text, I don’t want hand to hand to be hugely involved. I just want it to be a little less simplistic, and I also kind of want Assassinations to be default enabled in most game modes, and worth the animation time due to normal melee being more skill-based. My aim is not to make melee the primary form of combat, in fact I think that it’s currently slightly too much of an easy panic move. Lower damage and the sword “clash” effect might be all it needs, but perhaps there’s a solution I haven’t considered?

I guess I should have clarified: when I was talking about “boarding” I meant “boarding another player’s vehicle and kicking them out”. This is a very powerful and acrobatic move, and I feel like they could be a way to make it feel less like normally getting into a vehicle does.

Warthog strafing isn’t an especially compelling idea to me, I’m just spitballing ways that vehicles could become a little less squirrely to control, and thinking specifically of how armor abilities enhance things spartans could already do, albeit in a clumsier manner.

I wrote the wall of text when I was tired and bored, I realize I could have been a bit more concise. I think I was trying to be sort of high-level rather than making too many direct suggestions, since my main goal is to communicate my view to 343 and I feel like they’d be better served by knowing my general feelings than some random uber-specific suggestion I have.

TL;DR: 343 should apply the same thought process that resulted in the development of spartan abilities to vehicles and melee combat.

Thank you for elaborating your point.

Regarding the hand-to-hand combat, I must say that I agree with you now.

> I also kind of want Assassinations to be default enabled in most game modes, and (it’s) worth the animation time due to normal melee being more skill-based.

I’ve thought about how to make the hand-to-hand combat look less simplistic and more spartan-like. I can’t quite put it into words, but I saw some Doom gameplay that should relay what I want to say best. I created a gif for your convenience:

Halo is not supposed to copy this, but be inspired by it.

Regarding the boarding of enemy vehicles, I must say that I still don’t agree with you. Yes, it’s an acrobatic maneuver that feels fiddly and hard to execute, but it must be like this, as I explained in my previous post. However, my opinion on the controls of the vehicles itself is a bit divided. I don’t see a way how the controls of a Warthog could be improved, but Halo might be ready to introduce some new vehicles and replace old ones.

> 2535419704007429;6:
> Thank you for elaborating your point.
>
> Regarding the hand-to-hand combat, I must say that I agree with you now.
>
>
> > I also kind of want Assassinations to be default enabled in most game modes, and (it’s) worth the animation time due to normal melee being more skill-based.
>
>
> I’ve thought about how to make the hand-to-hand combat look less simplistic and more spartan-like. I can’t quite put it into words, but I saw some Doom gameplay that should relay what I want to say best. I created a gif for your convenience:
>
> https://media.giphy.com/media/p0AdeaVrGZf4Q/giphy.gif
>
> Halo is not supposed to copy this, but be inspired by it.
>
> Regarding the boarding of enemy vehicles, I must say that I still don’t agree with you. Yes, it’s an acrobatic maneuver that feels fiddly and hard to execute, but it must be like this, as I explained in my previous post. However, my opinion on the controls of the vehicles itself is a bit divided. I don’t see a way how the controls of a Warthog could be improved, but Halo might be ready to introduce some new vehicles and replace old ones.

I think you might be onto something as far as melee animations, that can go a long way towards changing the feel of CQC even if only a few actual mechanics are changed. Ideally it wouldn’t lock you in place like the Doom animations, unless it’s an assassination.

re: boarding, I definitely understand the reasons it is the way it is, but I sort of wish the way spartans move around vehicles were a little less clumsy and thus enabled a less simplistic boarding action. Perhaps this is more down to tuning of vehicles and how easy it is to splatter or knock-back someone than it is to changing the way spartans move.

You may be right about getting rid of some vehicles, or at least vastly redesigning them. The new direction the universe is going in gives plenty of excuses for that. The Warthog was clearly made with local co-op and multiplayer in mind, it’s far more difficult to coordinate online or when relying on AI. (people complain about AI being bad with the warthog, but perhaps the bigger issue is that it wasn’t ever designed with effective use by AI in mind?)