CandiBunni

That's not the same Arbiter. The Arbiter from Halo: Legends and Halo 2/3 are not one in the same. Like Zamio said, there's more than one Arbiter. Many have become Arbiter, and they've all died (to our knowledge). The Arbiter from Halo 2/3 is so far (to our knowledge) the only Arbiter to currently still be living.

There is no picture? O_o EDIT: The map that I see in the picture looks a lot like "Longshore" from Halo 3. Personally I think this isn't actually a leaked screenshot from Halo 4, and instead could possibly be a screenshot from Halo 3 with a few modifications.

Actually, getting more points for doing specific things in the game should make you want to do those things. They added bonus points for completing certain things (like headshots, sticks, etc.) to encourage people to try to do these things to help their team out. Trying to and not doing these things, doing only what gets you perhaps a normal amount of points, is hurting your team and not very good teamwork in my eyes. If they give you bonus points for headshots, sticks, assassinations, they want you to try to perform these things to help your team get one step closer to winning. You do deserve the points for doing these things. You deserve them because they added bonus points for those tasks on purpose. It's not a crap idea. If you perform something special in the game, they want to reward you for it. One way to do this is to give you extra points for managing to pull these things off. It's a rewards system, but apparently you don't like being rewarded for having landed a headshot against that one guy from a far off distance, or having snuck up behind that other person and gutting their stomach, or for tossing a plasma grenade and sticking it onto one person's face.

Except that if they did that, it would clutter up matchmaking with far too many playlists, and it would potentially split the community up even further than how they've handled it.

If you read up above, you will see in one of VeteranOND's posts that he did just that. "And no, despite what anyone says, bloom was not in every halo game" - VeteranOND I already stated that what I was saying is regardless of whether or not it was to a larger or smaller extent in previous games. I made it clear that all that I was saying is that "bloom" has been in every title. Not if it was as extreme as it is in Reach or not. Simply that it was in previous entries. That's it. You didn't need to say anything on that subject. Multikills are still completely possible in vanilla Reach, they're just a lot more difficult to get. This is due to having to time your shots more than in previous game, as well as the game just being slower paced overall. I never said anything on whether or not bloom slows the pace of the game down. I understand that having to control the "bloom" more so than in previous titles slows the game down.

You don't care about what he has to say? Well it's fine if you don't agree with his opinion, but you have to agree with actual data pulled from the game. You have to agree with fact, and here is that post I was talking about. http://www.343indust...dpost__p__53237 Are you still going to try to tell me that "bloom" wasn't in every Halo title? Before you or anyone elses says something: This is regardless on whether or not it was as prominent in previous games as it is in Reach. What I said, and all that I said was that "bloom" has been in Halo since Combat Evolved. That's a fact, and you have to accept it.

That's where you're wrong. "Bloom" (or what most people mean when they refer to "bloom") was, in fact, in every Halo title since Combat Evolved. If you want proof, I could always point Twinreaper in the direction of this thread to give you the specific data to prove it, you could message him yourself asking for the data, or I could search around and find the thread in which he's already posted said data. It was not the same version that was in Reach, but there was a version of "bloom" in every Halo title.

I never happened to say you didn't need teamwork to get out of a spawntrap. It's obvious that you do. Sprinting, however, can be used in a team's strategy to do this. Let's say your team traps the enemy team in the spawn. One member of the enemy team sprints out of spawn as a distraction. Because your team is now focused on the sprinter and their possible location, this might give the members of the other team just enough time to push out and catch you off guard. If you're unable to keep yourselves together during this and continue to hold them back, then they have used teamwork to successfully break your trap.

So it's a bad thing that people can manage to get out of spawn without being trapped inside by the other team and picked off every time they come out/respawn? If that's what you're saying, that's rather ridiculous. God forbid someone get themselves out of a situation like that and you have to actually try harder to kill them. God forbid someone does this and you now can no longer pick them off right when they respawn or come out of their area of the map.

The problem with that is that I don't want to just play SWAT. The weapon sandbox is limited to a DMR and a Magnum and no grenades. Using only two guns the entire game is rather boring to me, and I also don't like having almost no time to react when being shot at. I don't think I'm terrible at SWAT when I'm actually concentrating and trying, but I'd rather have just a bit more time to react when I hear gunfire. I enjoy SWAT, but I enjoy Slayer even more. I like having multiple weapons at my disposal to give me different ways to approach my enemy. I don't always want to just go for headshots, and I don't always want to use weapons like the DMR or Needle Rifle. I like mixing it up with things like the Needler, Assault Rifle, Plasma Repeater and Plasma Pistol, etc. I find it more enjoyable to pick two weapons of my choosing, depending on what situations I want to prepare myself for, and use them to my hearts content. I don't enjoy being limited to just one or two weapons the entire match, and having almost no variety in how I go about killing my opponent.

You have to learn when to pick your battles. Simply firing at someone who is at long ranges in the hopes to get a quick and easy kill, despite them being so far away doesn't make much sense to me. You know the enemy is capable of sprinting away, so it would make much more sense to find a way to keep them from getting out of your line of sight, or at least moving in closer so that you have an easier time landing critical shots. If you don't believe you're capable of doing so in a situation, you either need to turn your attention towards another target, or do what I've said above. Also, would you care to quote when and where exactly I said that you were a player stuck in the past? I don't believe I ever did so.

I don't have to constantly play competitive to understand what true skill is. What's the reason? Please tell me how using just a DMR or BR (and maybe a pistol), a frag grenade, and nothing else requires more skill than being able to properly and effectively use everything the game offers better than your opponent. I'd love to hear your reasons. Please tell me how limiting yourself to one or two weapons and a frag takes more skill than being able to use every weapon and feature in the game effectively and to outplay your opponent depending on the situation. Please tell me how it's not more skillful the be able to use everything within the game correctly and better than your opponent does, and how it's more skillful to use maybe one or two weapons and a frag. You limit yourself to just a BR or DMR, maybe a pistol, and a frag grenade. You use nothing but those for the entire match, or for every match you play. Tell me, how is that more skillful than learning how to properly use every weapon and mechanic in the game, and to use these things to beat your opponents in different situations, as well as being able to use them to overcome others? You learn how to use one or two weapons, and how to use frag grenades. Meanwhile I learn how to use every weapon and mechanic in the game to overcome different situations. How is it that I'm not the one practicing the more skillful playstyle? How is it that I'm not the more skilled player, even though I've learned how to use every weapon properly, every mechanic properly, and have learned just how and when I should use these things?

You know what's skillful? Using everything that the game offers effectively and better than your opponent. Using all of the mechanics, weapons, items, etc. that the game provides to both out think and out play your opponent. That takes more skill than limiting yourself to just one or two weapons, a frag grenade, and taking out one of the major features provided to you in the game.

So being able to get to objectives, enemies, and teammates quicker doesn't speed up games? (especially when coupled with faster movement speed as we saw in the small clips of Halo 4) Not being stuck at one running speed, and instead having the option to move faster doesn't speed up games? That doesn't do something like make players think about how to approach someone because of the possibility that they may or may not escape? You're fully capable of chasing after someone who escapes, you know. You're capable of keeping fire on them, tossing grenades, and chasing after them, as well as calling for teammates to back you up or things of that nature. There will be issues with everything. People will find the smallest issues to complain about, and blow them way out of proportion. (sprinting is an example) I could bring up the fact that the needler homes in on the target and that people aren't forced to use it like an SMG or Assault Rifle and lead the shots or track their enemies movements because it locks on. I could bring up the fact that the sword has a lock on lunge that gives someone the chance to quickly close in on them without having to find a way to ambush them. No one complains about those things though, do they? No, it's just when something new or different is added to the series that people get up and scream out about. Just because someone finds issue with something doesn't mean that it is a bad thing, or that it needs to be removed as a feature.

How about no? We've played Halo 2 and Halo 3. If you still want to play something similar to those games, go play Halo 3. Halo needs to evolve. It needs to bring new things to the series and make them feel like a natural part of the series' evolution. It doesn't need to remain the same exact thing in terms of gameplay, or people are more likely to leave due to a lack of change. More likely to leave because the series isn't progressing and is becoming stale. Everyone's always complaining because Call of Duty is the same thing over and over. It's the same game every game with just different weapons and maps and blah blah. Well you're saying that you want Halo to remain as close to 2 and 3 as possible in terms of gameplay, are you not asking them to do what Activision is doing with Call of Duty? You are. You're asking them to not change how the game plays, or not add any new features or changes into the game. People are going to quickly grow tired of playing the same type of game each and every entry into the series. People have already given up on Call of Duty and constantly bash it for being the same thing game after game. Do you want them to do the same thing with Halo? You're acting like sprinting is a game killing or game crippling feature, when it's really not. How many people do you see in other games complaining about how someone sprinted away, or how people can run up to someone faster and use their weapon more effectively? I don't really see it that often, if at all. Halo's community seems to be the community that despises Call of Duty because it's the same thing, yet when it comes to change and evolution of their own series, they get hot and bothered about the smallest additions that are made.

If you'll notice, there was no icon on the HUD to indicate that sprinting was an AA. If anything, it could simply be an ability that everyone has, much like in other FPSs. Besides, even if AAs were in Halo 4, that doesn't mean they would function the same way, nor does it mean they would be the same abilities. We've seen nothing or heard nothing on the loadouts/classes that they're implementing, so I think it's best to hold off any judgement until you actually get some detailed information on that subject. The same goes for the "upgrades". They've said that the features they're adding won't function just like they do in other games, that they're not simply taking an idea that one game does and just shoehorning it into Halo 4. They've said Halo 4 is going to be very fast paced, if not the fastest paced Halo game to date. They have also said that the Halo feel, or perhaps the classic Halo feel (I can't remember which) is still present in Halo 4, it's just been expanded upon. Have some faith, jeez. The only thing I noticed that might give someone a "Reach" feel was perhaps the sprinting, but that's it. Everything else seemed to be more like Halo 3 to me. It seemed fast paced, the BR was back, and you didn't see people chucking all of their grenades around.

Why did you feel sick? What was so bad about it? There was no apparent bloom, the battle rifle was back(as many people whined and begged for), there is no health system, and the only thing I saw there that people could really complain about is sprinting. The pace of the game looked faster and more action packed. That's it. How did anything you saw there make you sick? As for the upgrade system: They have said time and time and time again that it won't be how Call of Duty handles it. That they're not simply going to take COD's system and put it into a Halo setting. They've said they're going to make it fit into Halo and work how you might expect it to in Halo. That's it. They've given no further details on it, and before you bring it up, I'm pretty sure Frank denied any sort of "perk" system that anyone was talking about.

So they enjoyed Reach, that doesn't mean they don't care about the quality of the gameplay. Just because you disliked it doesn't mean that anyone who did doesn't know how to enjoy a game, doesn't care about the quality of the game, or anything else. "Guys, Guys, check this out. This guy likes to imply that someone who enjoyed the gameplay of Reach doesn't care about the quality of a game's gameplay, simply because he doesn't enjoy Reach and think's it's trash." See how that goes? Don't insult someone just because they like something that you don't. That being said, I don't want Halo 4 to play like Reach. I love Reach, don't get me wrong, but I want Halo 4 to play differently. They said that Halo 4 will be fast paced (where as Reach was more slower paced than previous games), and from the gameplay clips that I've seen, it looks like it.

While I can see where you're coming from, I believe sprint isn't nearly as bad as some people are trying to make it out to be. When someone is sprinting towards you, you've still got the ability to shoot at them while they're doing so. If they sneak up behind you, depending on the range of the radar, there's still plenty of time for you to react when you see a red blip. Also, in regards to the whole "It allows people to run away" argument. People found ways to get away in previous games as well, and I never heard anyone complaining about it then. If someone positions themselves close to cover, or close to an entry into a lower or upper level of the map that they can sprint to, what's so terrible about them using what they're given to doge enemy fire? If someone sprints away, you're still fully capable of chasing after them, or shooting them as they're moving away. Not every single fight can be won. You need to learn how to trap your opponenet if you believe they're going to sprint away. Corner them, toss some grenades around their immediate area or where you believe they're going to move to. I rarely saw someone turn around and sprint away from me when I played Reach. If you did, that stinks, but you could have done multiple things about it. If you chase after them, you risk being ambushed, but that's the risk you take for wanting to get every single kill, and not admitting that some battles can't be won. Chase after them. Continue to fire upon them. Use a combination of grenades and gunfire. Stick with a teammate to double your firing power. Or even tell your teammates where you believe that the person is headed to so that they can finish them off.

Adding more things to a game doesn't mean that you're sacrificing equality. When you have a more advanced game, you have to take into account more options, tactics, gameplay styles, etc. The simpler a game is, the less you have to factor in when you play. Which, to me, means that you don't have to have as much skill to play it. When a game is more advanced than another, that means that there is more to take into account when playing. More than you have to learn, more than you have to find counters for, more that you have to adapt to, more that you have to deal with on a game by game basis. You're honestly telling me you think something as simple as DOOM requires more skill than something like Battlefield? Just because it's simpler? Play something like DOOM. Take a look at how basic and bare bones it is. Then go to something like Battlefield, where there are a multitude of things to learn and deal with while playing. After playing a decent amount of time for both, come back to me and try to honestly tell me DOOM is the more skill demanding game. That it requires more thought and planning and teamwork than something like Battlefield. Here's another example if you're tired of that one. Take checkers and chess. Which do you think requires more skill? By your logic, checkers would require more skill because it's simpler, not as advanced as chess. But in my opinion, because of how complex chess is in comparison to checkers, it requires more skill. That's also an example of being more advanced without sacrificing equality. Also, why don't you show me some respect by not calling me babe? I don't know you on a personal level, and neither you me.

It's fine. I get people who don't notice the "Ms." part of my name from time to time in the shoutbox. No hard feelings, okay? I know that it's harder for just a bunch of random people to get together and beat a well coordinated team like, for example, Instinct. No doubt that a team like them will fare quite well against a team comprised of a bunch of random players thrown together. No doubt that they're more than likely to come out on top. No matter what settings, I believe that those who use better teamwork and what options are given to them more effectively than others are going to win regardless.

First off, don't call me man. Secondly, I don't have to do anything like what you've said because I have a different opinion than you. Those are players that practise for possibly countless hours of the week. I don't happen to know. I do know that they play a hell of a lot more than I do, and more than I'd care to. You want me to coach a team, get them into an MLG tournament, and see how they fare? Sure, I'll do that. You've just got to give me the money it would take to get everyone together, get a proper training room set up for practise, pay for the trip to whatever location a tournament is being held, etc. Are you seriously asking me to do all of this just to back up my opinion? I've given my reasons for why I think bloom takes more skill, I don't have to go to any other lengths to do so. I said that zero bloom takes less skill than having bloom. I've stated my reasons for why I believe that, and I don't need to do anything more. It's my opinion, and I'm entitled to it. You can disagree with it all you want, and I'm not stopping you. However, don't come here and tell me I'm "full of it" because you don't like what I say, and don't agree with it. Don't tell me that I'm "full of it" at all, for that matter. Using every single mechanic and option available in the game effectively and to outplay your opponents is more skill demanding than limiting it to a few select options in my eyes. I'm not full of it, so no, I don't know that. Edited because I felt I was a bit too harsh with my closing statement. If I was, I apologise. Hopefully I did not come across as mean or hateful in my post. If I did so, again, I apologise.

Do you want to know why I disregarded the 1v1 challenge? Because I don't have to play against you just because I want to offer my opinion. I don't care how good you are or not. I don't play very many games as of late, and me being rusty is only going to give you the chance to try to rub your opinion in my face claiming that you're right and I'm wrong and that I have no idea what I'm talking about. I offered my opinion, you offered yours. We disagree, let's leave it at that and move onto other things.

No consequence for missing shots? You miss a shot with bloom, you didn't land a shot. You missed a chance to hit your opponent and deal damange. That is the consequence. Don't even start with complaining about how someone can sprint around a corner to escape death. You know what you do then? You can go after them. You can find an alternate path, or go through the way they went. You're not unable to do anything about it. You've also got to deal with the fact that not all battles are going to, or have to end in someone dying. If someone positions themselves in such a way that they have an easy way to escape should they need to, they were using better positioning. If you are out in the open, yet I'm near a wall, I'm using my environment to my advantage if I step or sprint behind said wall when you open fire upon me. If you're in point blank range, it is more effective to fire faster because your shots are more likely to hit someone than when you're further away. If we're only a few steps away from each other and I fire as fast as I can, while you wait for your shot to reset, I'm going to win because I used my weapon the correct way for the correct range. Pacing is required for longer distances to maintain a more accurate shot. The closer you are to your opponent, the less you have to worry about your shots missing, which means the less you have to pace. I used my gun the correct way for the correct range, and I won. If I were to spam at long range, while you paced, you would win. There wouldn't be any complaining. However if you tried to pace as you would for longer ranges at close range, while I fired faster (due to my shots having more of a chance to hit because of the smaller distance between us), you would lose. There's nothing wrong with that. That's how it should work. You have to learn how to pace for the appropriate range. If we're right next to each other, it makes no sense to wait for every shot to reset before you fire. You're going to hit me because there is a larger area in which I cover. All of this is yet another reason for why bloom requires more skill than no bloom. With no bloom, you don't have to think about how you fire your gun. You just do it. You needn't worry about how you should fire at close, medium, or long ranges. Shooting someone is made simpler and easier in that no matter the distance, you're encouraged to just fire as quickly as possible because your shots are going to land as long as you're aiming at the target. With bloom, you have to learn how to fire your weapon at each range. You have to learn how each weapon that is significantly affected by bloom does at each of those three ranges. You have to learn different paces for different ranges, all depending on which weapon you're using. You have to memorize and learn how the weapon behaves when you fire it a certain way at a certain distance. When you use something like the DMR in no bloom settings, all you do is fire as fast as you possibly can at every range, with no consequence except for missing, wasting ammunition, and giving your opponent the chance to land more shots because of your mistake. With bloom, firing incorrectly at the incorrect range results in all of this plus having to wait for your shot to reset to the appropriate level and learning how to properly fire it to get a quick and effective kill. Edited to word things more properly and clean it up a bit.

I don't know if you realized this, but people asked for the changes in the Title Update. 343i applied them to playlists that people asked them to be applied to, or to ones that they thought would best suit it. There are still plenty of playlists that don't have the TU settings in effect, and you can play those to your hearts content. Plenty of people enjoy vanilla Reach, plenty of people enjoy TU Reach. Who are you to speak for everyone ("we") and demand that 343i stop making the changes that they believe will affect the game in a positive way? Ever since the TU has been applied, I've seen Reach's population increase quite a bit. That's telling me that there are plenty of people who enjoy its settings. None of the reasons you've given for why the TU is bad are decent reasons. You've offered no detailed explanations as to why the changes are bad, only a few small "this is bad because i said so" statements. (ex: "bleed-through... nuff said"). On another note, who do you think you are calling everyone who prefers the TU, or those that 343i wanted to please a 9 year old child? You don't know them. You don't know how or what they play. You know nothing about anyone. Don't insult someone simply because the company that's now in charge of a game you enjoy is listening to every part of the community. I enjoy vanilla Reach. I enjoy the TU settings. I'm not going to screw off just because you don't like that 343i is taking into consideration the opinions of all of the members of the community, and not focusing solely on a single group. They want to please as many people as they can, and they're doing a damn fine job of it in my eyes. No, I don't agree with you.