Wumpa Warrior

It's an incentive for those people on foot. It's the risk/reward of being in a vehicle but slower points vs not in a vehicle and faster points.

Sigh.. Sorry was having a crappy morning.

Reach was not built with ZB in mind. It screws up the game mechanics wayyy too much.

You're given bonus point for a reason. It's an incentive to not be in a -blam!- vehicle all the time!

Don't play arena..?

So the clan at your elementary school agrees? How cute.

-drednot12345678 I have yet to see a legitimate argument besides "I don't like it!" This argument about "real gamers" is invalid. Who are you to say what real gamers are? Just because everyone in your clan from your elementary school agrees, does not make the whole world agree.

So many assumptions in this thread.. Let people play what they want to play. Not getting DMR starts? Find friends and play as a party to influence the vote. Also, K/D is not an accurate representation of skill. You bash on campers, yet that gives you a distinct advantage at all times. You know where they are. You seem like more of a "noob" than a good player anyways.

First of all, I don't see the point in saying more than "this.." when the poster has perfectly summed up my thoughts. And I disagree with a sandtrap remake. The DMR would be blatantly overpowered on a map that open.

This..

I don't mindlessyly spam nades, I use them to get an advantage before a fight even begins.

You can build them in forge.. Just sayin..

37... Meh, my playstyle allows me to get those.

For maps to be added, the max local party has to be changed from 4 to 2.

BR, because of map balance. DMR is more accurate and also much much easier to use. But the BR was much more balanced even though it sacrificed connection.

Soooooo they're better than you..?

Well, it is possible to make them in forge.

Best assassination: Flag carrier sticks the top of it up their -blam!- and proceeds to carry them around like a popsicle. Body stays there rest of match as a trophy.

LASO is a challenge. They are called challenges for a reason. It isn't about getting easy cR. They really need to look into objective challenges such as: a. Flagtacular!: Capture 3 flags today in multiplayer matchmaking (1200 cR). b. Get Off My Cloud!: Rack up 200 points in KOTH gametypes today in multiplayer matchmaking (1000 cR). c. Lawsuit: Detonate 3 bombs today in Assault gametypes in multiplayer matchmaking (1500 cR)

Eclipse. Meh..

I disagree with almost all of this. Generally, the people who are decent at Halo tend to play headhunter only for the kills. Whenever I play it in Rumble Pit, I go like +50 because I just kill all of the people mindlessly rushing for the hills. This would be even worse in SWAT, because it is a one shot kill. Search and Destroy would suck, period. It would promote more camping than just normal SWAT. Personally, I think that Snipers and SWAT need more symmetrical gametypes such as CTF and Assault. Take out the stupid gametype of SWAT Potato.

Agreed, the maps in Halo 3 were great as far as vehicles and their counterparts. A better design of each level would greatly influence the way each map plays. Due to the DMR, open maps need more cover. Hemorrhage only has 1 effective heavy weapon (Plasma Launcher), even though it has the most vehicles on any map in matchmaking. I actually liked Blackout quite a bit. It was great for 1 sided objectives IMO. As far as H4 goes, I think while that is a new and kindof decent idea, it shouldn't be implemented. They really should stick with the core power weapons. Sniper for each race, a rocket launcher for each race, a CQC weapon, and that's it. Adding a DMR on the map would just be awkward IMO. The only weapon that should be in H4 from reach, is the grenade launcher. Thank you. *munches cookie slowly* Never actually played Halo 2 online, but I played customs every day for like 4 years. The point you made about the world units is scary. Also, I went onto Exodus and did that, and that's shocking. The DMR's range should be a lot less. The thing I liked about Halo 3 was the fact that every vehicle had a counter. If reach had H3 vehicle characteristics, the maps would have to be redone.

Thanks to all of you You are correct. It needs to either be the weapon being non-hitscan, or the maps need to be redone with more cover. I avoided AA's and the matchmaking system, because they have been beaten to death IMO. While you did point out the fact that I know almost nothing about the hardware and technical jargon of the game, I have played it enough to understand the main mechanics. If the DMR is not hitscan, it is very close. I think that it should not have the range that it does. Less range or at least less accuracy at range. Expanding on the vehicles point, I have always felt that the maps as far as vehicles, were much better balanced in H2 and H3. Each vehicle had many effective counters on the map being played. I dislike the fact that the DMR can tear through vehicles. If you've ever played in a full party, vehicles are almost not worth using, because 8 DMR's will take out a vehicle in seconds. Halo 2 and 3, you were forced to search for a vehicle counter. This promoted map movement and variety.

In my honest opinion, Reach can be described in one word when compared to previous Halos. Different. This isn't always a bad thing, as minor tweaks and changes freshen up a game. The problem I see with Reach is that the changes made affected the core gameplay mechanics of Halo 1/2/3. It just isn't normal for most veteran players. The movement speed, grenade damage, armor abilities, etc. (the list goes on forever), are all some major changes from the core mechanics found in previous titles. In this post, I will outline many of my major qualms with Reach. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 1. The DMR Halo 2 and 3 are often dubbed as the best multiplayer games of the decade, and for good reason. Between these two fantastic games, the weapon sandbox stayed relatively the same. There were several tweaks, some new things like brute vehicles (Chopper <3) and equipment, but the weapon sandbox in both games is very close. This did a lot of good in multiplayer, because the veterans from Halo 2 had a much smaller change between games. The problem with Halo: Reach, is that it had a very drastic change from Halo 3's weapons to Reach.The DMR is a hitscan weapon (instantly hits target the second you pull the trigger). The BR was not hitscan, and players had to lead their shots to be accurate at long range. This tends to break down the open maps with little or no cover, because I can shoot from teleporter to teleporter on Hemmorhage without having to lead my shots. This was never possible on Valhalla, Sandtrap, or any Halo 3 maps. Imagine if you could camp on the dune of Sandtrap and pick people off across the map! It would have broken the map completely! In Reach, a team can win the entire game without even thinking about power weapons. Why? The DMR. The DMR has infinite range, and can be aimed with some skill, across any map in matchmaking. It also tears through vehicles like tissue paper (another thing not present in H3). The DMR IS a power weapon. Give it to a well coordinated team, and it's an easy win as well. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2. Objective Halo: Reach has drifted towards being very slayer dominant. What I mean by this is that no matter what the gametype, most players will have a primary focus on getting kills and a secondary or even tertiary focus on getting the objective. Point being, the core focus of objective gametypes has been lost between Halo 3 and Reach. I would say that 75% of my objective games turn into a bloodbath, with nether team making strong attempts towards the objective. Yes, there is almost always that ruffgonja-ing kid, who rushes the objective countless times, but I mean a full push as a team. Why go for a flag or capture a territory when you can sit nearby with your tank and destroy everyone? The reason players go for kills is because they are rewarded with each one they get. Every time you get a snipe, headshot, beatdown, assist, spree or multikill, a number pops up in the bottom corner saying something like, "+8cR." There is not a single reward for scoring the objective, aside from feeling good about yourself. Unfortunately, presented with these options, any smart player will simply go for kills so they can go purchase things like lighting or gold visors or a knife on their shoulder. What do objective players get? Nothing, nothing but death with no reward. But why in Halo 2/3 was this not a problem? People went for objectives all the time in those games! Its because the only way you could rank up in 2 and 3 was by winning. Trueskill goes up by winning, and experience goes up by winning. When you win objective games you are rewarded with a better rank in 2/3. 2 and 3 had incentive to win objective games while Reach has absolutely no incentive to win except for the satisfaction of winning. So how can we reward people who go for objectives (as well as give people incentive to go for objectives)? It's simple: 1. Objective Daily and Weekly Challenges: Right now, challeges basically involve 3 things: kills, assists, and campaign mission completion. Nothing relating to objectives. If we have more objective challenges with large cR rewards, people will go for objectives. Such as: a. Flagtacular!: Capture 3 flags today in multiplayer matchmaking (1200 cR). b. Get Off My Cloud!: Rack up 200 points in KOTH gametypes today in multiplayer matchmaking (1000 cR). c. Lawsuit: Detonate 3 bombs today in Assault gametypes in multiplayer matchmaking (1500 cR) -If you believe that challenges don't affect gameplay just pay attention to whenever there is a jetpack multiplayer challenge, because most people use jetpacks during those games. 2. Objective Commendations: These of course are very similar to the challenges but they are long term so that even if there isn't a challenge, people will still go for objectives because they are consistently rewarded for it. Examples include: a. Poor Yorick: Get Points in Oddball or Headhunter b. Conquistador: Capture Territories in Territories c. Star Spangled Banner: Capture Flags in CTF or Stockpile If all of these are established, I guarantee that there will be a tremendous rise in objective play. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 3. Stats The addition of stats has slowly begun to consume much of this amazing community. I remember 7-10 years ago, when I would go to Battlefront 2 parties, or 007 Nightfire parties on the PS2, and we wouldn't care a bit about who had the most kill with what weapon. We played for fun back then. I feel that slowly, throughout the last several years, online statistics have begun to turn many players into ultra competitive, trash talking, K/D card pulling jerks. There is a definite line between being competitive and being an *******. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 4. Vehicles One of the main staples in all of the Halo games is the variety of drivable vehicles. Honestly, I think this feature sets Halo apart from other games. Nothing is more fun than driving around a buddy in a warthog and watching the wheelmen medals stack up. Halo 3 had a nearly perfect balance between vehicle attack damage and vehicle health. No vehicle was particularly overpowered, but all of them had specific uses. Another major factor in the vehicle success in Halo 3 is that the maps always had a solid balance between vehicles and their counterparts. My largest issue in Reach vehicles, is the fact that they are made, literally, out of construction paper. Vehicles can be a joke in big team battle, because a coordinated team can take down a vehicle with extraordinary ease. Warthog? 4 DMR's can rip through that in a matter of seconds. Banshee? I've seen that thing go down in less than 5 seconds because the enemy team all looked to the skies and used their DMR. In Halo: Reach, vehicles are imbalanced, with very high attack damage, and low health. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 5. Remakes Remaking a map works well between some games. It really does. Between Midship and Heretic, yes there was some change, but it still felt like Midship to me. That's because there were not many changes in core mechanics between Halo 2 and 3. Remakes almost never work, because of the diversity of sandboxes between games. The open style of some maps worked great for Halo 1/2/3. But the BR/pistol did not have any of the range of the DMR. An open map generally played well back in the day. However, given the DMR, any open map with little cover instantly becomes a standstill. Players rarely go through the middle of the map, and those that do get slaughtered. When players cant use the middles of the map for infantry movement, the games, especially objective, become stagnant. Good god..If you managed to actually read the entire thing, you deserve several cookies. (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: (: TL;DR 1. The DMR ruins the game, due to it's ability to shoot players across the map. 2. Objective implementation was a failure in Reach. 3. Stats are turning too many players into ultra competitive idiots. 4. Vehicles are made out of construction paper. 5. Remakes do not typically work well, due to the diversity of weapon sandboxes between games. Feel free to comment, leave an opinion, whatever, but keep it classy