Dawn Wolf

Update to thread: Added information on Armor Abilities. I also discovered the little tidbit about the Boltshot (which explains why I've been doing so bad with it while everyone else was doing well). It can be fired shortly after beginning a charge. I think the damage is still full. You don't have to wait for it to fire on its own. Makes it much easier. I also discovered that the AA Efficiency perk cuts all regen times in half. However, this does not effect the regen lag time. This perk especially benefits the Regeneration Field. It makes the time between fields absolutely minimal (5 seconds) instead of a whopping 20. In this way, it doubles the perk's effectiveness. Hope to add more information soon, probably on Ordinance weapons and the other Perks.

I can't believe those Stances require the weapon ones! They're so insane! 250 kills with every ord. weapon?!

The problem is, from a tactical standpoint, the percision weapons will always be better. By their very nature, they're equally effective (more or less) at all ranges. In a game like Halo, where player skill means a lot, it would be hard to make a weapon good at "mid-long range" not simply then be good at all ranges. I could see a 1-2 bullet buff for the AR or other autos. Nothing too drastic. As it stands, a good player will just barely beat (but generally consistantly) beat a similarly skilled player with a DMR in cqb.

That's funny, I thought it was because CoD was not CoD back then.

I like the radars. More emphasis on the strategy of out maneuvering and shooting than sneaking around. While no radars may emphasis communication, they also bring about a huge luck factor.

I didn't know one flag isn't even in customs anymore. That's pretty bad. One flag is awesome.

Me thinks some testings are in order.

I won't touch on Campaign, because I feel it's more subjective. Also I enjoyed it a lot. Pros: Graphics (Insane Campagin graphics, and epic cutscenes) Wealth of Weapons/ Loadouts Perks are not game breaking/changing You can have almost everything by level 30. You can have ANYTHING by level 60. Maps are competitive and spaced well Cons: (Luckily, many of these are fixable) Spartan Ops's lack of any challenge/tension because of inv. lives Lack of classic gametypes (Juggernaut, Assault, VIP) Possible issues with AA balance Uneven match starts Lack of assymetrical gamertypes on assymetrical maps Lack of custom games options (Eliminations, Infection settings, Race) Would have liked to see audiable notificatinos for ordinance Personal Ordinance too random/unbalanced? (Getting needler, speed boost, or plasmas one time, and Sniper, damage boost, and saw another time) Lack of playlists (Doubles, Snipers) Lack of maps, even though they have on disc maps waiting to be used that are not (I don't understand this), and why is Ragnarock not 4v4 I know I have more cons here, but thats because its harder to define what's good. My overall response to the game is very good. I hope they continue to work with the game and improve it. I also hope they listen to the (rather small) parts of the fan base that want more custom games options. The amount of fun I can have with customs can really magnify with just a few settings that are sadly absent. (Elimination rules, VIP)

^ Isn't it BASICALLY a Halo CE Magnum?

You serious? Or trollin'? Do you really expect anyone to take you seriously with a statement like that? CoD takes a decent amount of skill to do well consistantly, especially on certain gametypes. Halo 4 most certainly takes quite a bit of skill. In fact, as my friend pointed out, unless a game is entirely luck based, like chutes and ladders, I'm pretty sure there's skill involved. But most engagements in SWAT are resolved within a single bullet from each player. You know, before bloom makes ANY difference? If bloom made a difference, it's because neither player (note, relating this back to my first point) was GOOD enough to kill with the first shot. But bloom in Reach was bad? Or the BR in Halo 1 and 2 took no skill to use? Does that apply to professional Halo teams too? What exactly is the major difference here between the Halo 2 BR, and the Halo 4 DMR in terms of skill? You do realize that there is something that determines who wins DMR duels right? Oh yeah, it's caleld skill. But rockets take skill? Which have been an MLG standard for like, since ever? The boltshot requires a pretty high degree of timing. It would be pretty terrible if it was any weaker. The incineration cannon really isn't much more OP than rockets are, and in fact comes with a fair degree of disadvantages. The saw gets wrecked in any 1v2 equal skill matchup (where other power weapons would not). I thought powerful weapons are a huge part of Halo? Um. What? Are you serious? In CoD, you can pick all stealth perks, a silencer, and sit in a bush, killing dudes running around, and chances are it would take them a while to figure it out. Being a military shooter, the best strategies in CoD generally involve camping HARD, locking down routes and areas by aiming at doorways. In Halo, the second you shoot, or hell, MOVE, people know where you are, and can easily destroy you. So you have fun with the game, and it is more or less an average experience for you... But it's a 60$ frisbee. Okay crazyface.

I think one of the ideas is that the BR/other weapons is actually more useful for lower level players. Kind of like how the AR is more useful for low teir players. If you're good enough to use the DMR very well, it's meant to be? I don't know.

I was wondering if it didn't allow you to regen. That's pretty rediculous. I don't think a defensive ability should actually PROLONG the amount of time you are without shields. That's kind of contradictory you actually incur a serious disadvantage even on a defensive level from putting up the shield. I would personally like it best if they removed the lag time after putting it down. It's killer, as has been said. It allows any player to get a free melee (and basically a kill) if they get close enough to you while you have the shield up. The shield could be a very useful tool for a CQB/Assault Rifle class, but instead if generally just gets you killed.

Well, I get the whole, if you don't like it, don't play it option. Thing is though, S.O. was advertised a certain way. When I thought of S.O., I thought of spending a lot of time (For relatively small effort on 343's part) trying to use teamwork to tackle difficult or challenging scenarios. Instead, everyone just spawns, kills a few things, and dies, often in the middle of battle. It's a very different experience from what I, and I think a lot of people wanted. I'm not saying it's not fun in its own way, I'm saying its kind of a waste to put so much effort into these missions only to have them breezed through without a second thought. It's kind of like if Halo didn't have Legendary. You would just beat it on Heroic, and never really have the opportunity to play something as challenging and dynamic as Legendary. Although, free respawns are entirely more extreme.

Most of the "bad decisions" and things that could be fixed are not quality/development issues, luckily, and are rather maintenance issues, such as playlists and adding gametypes. Many games are rough for the first weeks. Just give it time, we will likely see the missing playlists soon.

I'll give them a month to start making a lot of sense before I start complaining a lot. I noticed I used "a lot" twice there. It's necessary in both cases.

In terms of power, the weapons are even. The BR has a spread. This bring in a risk reward factor for both weapons. It's easier to fail miserably with the DMR, where a BR might have saved you. However, it can also be devastating to do well with a DMR. It's a less exaggerated AR v DMR situation, where the BR consistently kills around 6 shots on average (taking into account the average player missing at least twice), but rarely will go over that. The DMR player could choke, and in a CQB situation, spit out way too many missed shots. But yes, in the hands of a good player, the DMR is slightly better I would say. It was kind of bound to happen. It's a perfect precision weapon. Any other weapon by any logic would have a greater margin of error. I'm not sure they should really nerf the DMR to the point where BR wins CQB every time.

Are these not even in customs? That would be amazingly horrible.

I ******* loved Armor Lock. I'm starting to think that most Reach players are dumb for some reason, and don't understand how easy it is to kill players in Armor Lock. (Why does everyone run TOWARDS me when I lock, instead of backing up and throwing grenades?) It was great. It wasn't OP, it wasn't even nooby. It could be used very intelligently and creatively. It was easy to counter, but strong to counter other powerful things in the game. But, it wouldn't fit into H4. I don't miss it.

I'll just say this. It hasn't even been two weeks yet. Give it time.

First of all, you really think the Boltshot should only strop shields? Even though you have to charge it, time in perfectly, and shove it in someone's face, in Halo 4? You know, the fastest Halo yet? SO essentially, you want it to be a horrible version of the Plasma Pistol. Which can strip your shields away from a great distance, and can hold the charge for a long time. That makes sense. You realize that in Halo 4, an AR can kill with just 6 bullets plus a melee? Why is that so different than a boltshot that has to be halfway in your maw to kill you. The Saw can kill you in 3 seconds flat? So can every other weapon in the game. The Saw is a power weapon. It's meant to be powerful. It's weakness comes in dealing with multiple targets. Because it works on a time on target princible, its great against single enemies, but against two or more, it's much less powerful, as it has very little splash/spread, and cannot instantly kill. Why someone would complain about the Saw and not ROCKETS is beyond me. The Binary Rifle has it's share of disadvantages you forgot to mention. It fires slower. It has a 2 round mag instead of 4. You get less ammo. It gives away your position. It has horrible hip accuracy. That's four disadvantages to the one advantage. And again, it's a POWER weapon. Even the Incinerator Unreal Tournament gun has it's weaknesses. It can easily miss when fired right past someone. It has one shot. It's easier to kill yourself with it. You realize that the DMR can kill in roughly two seconds right?

I got both games. I will play both games. ZOMG

YES. Assemetrical maps like Abandon need 1 flag. It's a great gametype. (We also need Assault, VIP, Juggernaut)

Seriously? Half are big and half are small...

There's a big difference between challenge and something you actually CANNOT lose. That's way too far. They easily could have given players 10 lives or even more.

Yes, this is what I meant. I worded it oddly. The boltshot definitely kills with a charged shot, although one has to be pretty dang close. Of course, the single shot function cannot kill, even with 10 shots. I found this to be surprising, making the Boltshot possibly the only weapon in Halo 4 that cannot kill with an entire magazine (excluding charge or melee). Well to be fair, as far as mag size, they did nerf the DMR by one shot. This means botht he BR (36 shots, 15 to kill) and the DMR (14 shots, 5 to kill) cannot fully kill three three targets. Although you are right, the DMR still has a small advantage on mag size. Yeah I would like to get some info on the perks here. Some sutff is hard to measure. Thanks for the good words.