For those who say flinch is “not competitive”, that’s BS. Just hear me out.
It may be random about what direction your aim is sent in, but it really requires players to adjust/adapt. Descoping, in my opinion, is less competitive for players can just easily scope in again the instant they are shot. A lot of players don’t like descoping cause they suck at adjusting to the situation at hand. While I agree that some weapons have too much flinch, like the BR, the mechanic itself makes the gameplay interesting. It also makes long-range battles more challenging as you have to keep your aim on the target as you are shot. With the descoping, you don’t have to readjust your aim, you just click the right stick and start shooting. That takes less skill. For sniping weapons, perhaps de-scope would be more suitable considering they’re harder to aim for most players. It just sucks when you get your aim but you’re shot by one burst of a BR, with massive recoil ruining your aim in the process.
Understand what I am saying, and think about it from a non-biased perspective. Now isn’t flinch far more challenging than descoping? My suggestion is that they have a TU which decreases the amount of flinch for weapons such as the BR, and for sniper weapons, replace the flinch with descoping (the “flinching” game mechanic just does not work out well with snipers).
I also wanted to say that a large chunk of the Halo community is pretty biased when it comes to what’s “competitive”. Every multiplayer game is really competitive, except for the ones based around cooperative gameplay. How can people say Call of Duty, Battlefield 3, and heck, even platformers with multiplayer like Sonic Adventure 2 aren’t competitive? They have different gameplay mechanics and work differently, but they’re still competitive. I don’t like CoD either, but saying it’s not competitive is like saying the sky is purple. Games pit two or more players against each other in a match of skill and strategy. That’s not competitive?
I think the main argument is that flinch doesn’t belong in Halo 4. Halo isn’t supposed to be random. Every single previous Halo had descoping, which was not random, so why switch it now?
> While I agree that some weapons have too much flinch, like the BR, the mechanic itself makes the gameplay interesting. It also makes long-range battles more challenging as you have to keep your aim on the target as you are shot. With the descoping, you don’t have to readjust your aim, you just click the right stick and start shooting. That takes less skill. For sniping weapons, perhaps de-scope would be more suitable considering they’re harder to aim for most players.
The more you hit someone and descope them, the less shots they are likely they get off and disorientated they get. If you shot someone with flinch, that isn’t likely yo happen. Add in the Stability Support Upgrade and flinch loses its appeal.
Player 1 has his sniper scope placed on Player 2’s head. Player 2 shoots player 1 in the body.
There are two things that could happen next.
Descope: Player 1, who had the better aim, pulls the trigger and kills player 2 because despite being unscoped still had the reticule already placed on Player 2’s head.
Flinch: Player 1’s scope shoots five miles in the air, causing him to lose focus and player orientation while Player 2 pulls off a second body shot and kills Player 1.
Who was the better player? Player 1 had the better accuracy, and in a descope situation likely would have won.
In flinch situation however, Player 1 lost because of the disorienting factor of flinch, and the inability to aim at all while flinching.
This is why I am opposed to flinch. At the same time, when a sniper is getting shot at by a DMR, it causes significantly less flinch. The Sniper is able to maintain a decent amount of accuracy and shoot the DMR player, negating the DMR’s shots because the Sniper didn’t descope and therefore wasn’t at a disadvantage.
Sniping is not hard in this game. Descope really needs to be added because it is to easy. If i am correct, the only to starters that really cause bad flinch for snipers are the dmr and carbine. Shooting a sniper with any other weapon is like giving away a free kill. From what i remember, no on could scope in as long as they were being shot at, and duels came down to who had the best unscoped aim.
Descope rewards you for being accurate. As long as you lined your shot up, you can still get the kill after being descoped, which doesn’t alter the direction of your reticule. Descope creates a skill gap, because some people either can’t shoot without zooming or can’t line up their shots in time and are panicking.
Flinch is random, it overrides you control of the reticule by making it jump. We should be the ones in control. Fighting against the flinch mechanic is very annoying, especially with a sniper and certain weapons having different reactions.
> I’m going to use the following as an example:
>
> Player 1 has his sniper scope placed on Player 2’s head. Player 2 shoots player 1 in the body.
>
> There are two things that could happen next.
>
> Descope: Player 1, who had the better aim, pulls the trigger and kills player 2 because despite being unscoped still had the reticule already placed on Player 2’s head.
>
> Flinch: Player 1’s scope shoots five miles in the air, causing him to lose focus and player orientation while Player 2 pulls off a second body shot and kills Player 1.
>
> Who was the better player? Player 1 had the better accuracy, and in a descope situation likely would have won.
>
> In flinch situation however, Player 1 lost because of the disorienting factor of flinch, and the inability to aim at all while flinching.
>
> This is why I am opposed to flinch. At the same time, when a sniper is getting shot at by a DMR, it causes significantly less flinch. The Sniper is able to maintain a decent amount of accuracy and shoot the DMR player, negating the DMR’s shots because the Sniper didn’t descope and therefore wasn’t at a disadvantage.
I could be wrong, but last time i checked, the dmr cause the most flinch. From what i can tell, the only thing that could compare to its flinch is the carbine because of its fast rate of fire.
Its really quite simple. It makes snipers way to powerful. You have no defenses against it. Also, anything random =/= skillful. On top of both these things you are unable to out shoot an opponent at range that got the first shot on you. It used to be that if you had a better shot you could counter shoot him and keep him out of scope, thus winning the fight. ATM when a camo camper in the corner shoots at you first (unless he is the worst player in halo) 95% of them time you will die.
> > I’m going to use the following as an example:
> >
> > Player 1 has his sniper scope placed on Player 2’s head. Player 2 shoots player 1 in the body.
> >
> > There are two things that could happen next.
> >
> > Descope: Player 1, who had the better aim, pulls the trigger and kills player 2 because despite being unscoped still had the reticule already placed on Player 2’s head.
> >
> > Flinch: Player 1’s scope shoots five miles in the air, causing him to lose focus and player orientation while Player 2 pulls off a second body shot and kills Player 1.
> >
> > Who was the better player? Player 1 had the better accuracy, and in a descope situation likely would have won.
> >
> > In flinch situation however, Player 1 lost because of the disorienting factor of flinch, and the inability to aim at all while flinching.
> >
> > This is why I am opposed to flinch. At the same time, when a sniper is getting shot at by a DMR, it causes significantly less flinch. The Sniper is able to maintain a decent amount of accuracy and shoot the DMR player, negating the DMR’s shots because the Sniper didn’t descope and therefore wasn’t at a disadvantage.
>
> I could be wrong, but last time i checked, the dmr cause the most flinch. From what i can tell, the only thing that could compare to its flinch is the carbine because of its fast rate of fire.
Fairly certain 343i said that the BR caused the most flinch due to it’s 3 bullet burst.
I could be wrong about that, but it doesn’t really matter in terms of the example.
From my experience flinch rewards the player that shot first, which doesn’t give the other player a chance to win the fight. Once your screen is flying in different directions there isn’t much you can do.
With descoping it wasn’t the greatest thing ever, but at least I could land shots consistently.
“A lot of players don’t like descoping cause they suck at adjusting to the situation at hand” so that meeans it takes more skill to kill with descoping. proved yourself wrong there buddy :-*
I don’t care about the competitive side of flinch vs descope, I gotta say that descoping was far more fair. Halo was always a game about the person with the most skill and better play winning in a fight. With descoping, you could outplay the enemy player. Knowing how to advance on a target and take them out, even if you’re getting shot at, could mean being able to win, even if they shot at your first.
Now, with flinching, it’s become a game where the first person to shoot always wins. If you get shot at, it’s a pain to try to get your aim back onto the enemy. And while you’re trying to do so, it gives him the chance to land a few more shots on you and kill you. Not to mention that flinching makes snipers far too powerful, especially with the armour mod to reduce flinching. In past Halo games, if there was a sniper, you could easily take him out or get him to back off by shooting him, causing him to back out of scope. Now, all he has to do is just reset his aim and then take you out, even if you’re in close range.
You have a poor understanding of what the meaning of “competitive” is in this context.
When people mention a mechanic being poor for competitive play, it usually relates to said mechanic being unpredictable and having the potential to alter gameplay in a way that is not in the player’s control. Like bloom, flinch is a damaging mechanic when it comes to this sort of “competitive” play - yes, you can attempt to adapt and “pace your shots” and “adjust your aim,” but you still run the risk of losing to someone who spams and lands lucky shots or someone who gets lucky and doesn’t experience severe flinch. It takes an element of control and responsibility out of the hands of the player and puts it on chance.
I disagree. In my experience when descoped players are more likely to incorrectly compensate and therefore miss a shot. Especially at distances in which they will also lose their aim assist by being forced out of scope.
Aside from being more challenging this also has one other hugely significant effect: Because it’s more difficult and takes longer for most players to adjust to being descoped than to adjust to a flinch by shooting at a player at long range you can descope them, and due to that they are forced to back down and can’t challenge back right away. This opens up opportunities for movement which are crucial on maps with long or very open lines of sight.
Without this ability to force windows of opportunity the gameplay slows down immensely as players can’t reposition themselves effectively without making kills first, something which simply doesn’t happen without intervention from other players when both of the players fighting have weapons with fairly lengthy kill times and it’s easy for them to both challenge each other they can only force each other to back down by dealing damage, however because neither player is descoped more often than not we see that both players damage each other to the point that moving is still not a practical option at that time.
This reduction of opportunity for individuals to earn themselves space to move is the single most frustrating effect of flinching in my opinion because it can single-handedly cause games to grind to a halt on maps with open spaces.
> I’m going to use the following as an example:
>
> Player 1 has his sniper scope placed on Player 2’s head. Player 2 shoots player 1 in the body.
>
> There are two things that could happen next.
>
> Descope: Player 1, who had the better aim, pulls the trigger and kills player 2 because despite being unscoped still had the reticule already placed on Player 2’s head.
>
> Flinch: Player 1’s scope shoots five miles in the air, causing him to lose focus and player orientation while Player 2 pulls off a second body shot and kills Player 1.
>
> Who was the better player? Player 1 had the better accuracy, and in a descope situation likely would have won.
>
> In flinch situation however, Player 1 lost because of the disorienting factor of flinch, and the inability to aim at all while flinching.
>
> This is why I am opposed to flinch. At the same time, when a sniper is getting shot at by a DMR, it causes significantly less flinch. The Sniper is able to maintain a decent amount of accuracy and shoot the DMR player, negating the DMR’s shots because the Sniper didn’t descope and therefore wasn’t at a disadvantage.
My problem with your argument is your assuming player 1 has the better aim. Lining up a headshot on someone is not hard. Its leading a shot or correct timing of the trigger.
Descoping wasn’t really helpful. Most players could pull the trigger while being de scoped and still land the headshot. Any decent player with a sniper would still win. With flinching it constantly makes a person adjust aim. That and if he is called out more people shoot him causing him to flinch harder.
If your over all goal is to give players a chance against snipers then flinching is the way to go. If you want snipers to have a better chance then de scoping is the way to go. I am by no means an exellent shot. But de scoping never stopped me from landing my shots.