Delpen9

nor is there a reason to.

lol

Yah, when people talk about the population of these games they don't even take into account how many of those gamers even use the xbox anymore.

This game feels like the equivalent of Halo:CE for the new trilogy. They both had an equal storyline and not much was explained. The only reason people didn't complain about CE's campaign is because it was new. As for the mischevious forunner part, they wouldn't have been able to introduce the forunner prometheans and the game would be ingested with the storm. That would also ruin jul mdama story and make the game uncompelling. Seriously, the only forunners who were introduced was the didact and the librarians AI.

I think the problem arises in corperate wealth and greed. Microsoft is running the direction of this franchise, using this as a money hog. That's where the problem arises with everything these days and I wouldn't be suprised if the stock market and the governmetn functioned off of powerful industries. Halo 4 was probably rushed to preserve money and time while in case attempting to do the bare minimum to please fans. I doubt that 343's lack of "teamwork" has much to do with the speed the franchise is running at. For all of 343's 300 people they have an average work time in the gaming industry of 12 years. Their experiance should negate the fact that they have recently been assembled. Yet again, i will say that the problem probably arises in the funding of the game and corperate wealth.

Reach didn't have a ranking system till' a while after it release and even that wasn't good.Halo 4 will have one coming april. The big team battle is just your preference though i like halo 4's better. Halo reach didn't have mlg for very long but halo4 is still in gamebattles. Halo 4 also has virgin gaming, agl,gamebattles, and a possibilty of mlg coming back next season. Team snipers will be fixed an placed back in matchmaking coming late February. Not that it did take some time for team snipers to appear on matchmaking. So I feel that this argument is invalid though Halo 4 does have problems...

I actually do get my information from a source though the information has a possibility of being wrong. If it would make you feel better i will site my information and then you can check it to see i the source is valid. My post was not originally meant to be defensive but it really has turned that way. People keep using the "walk in front of my target example" as for a valid reason to dissprove the information that i know for a fact is correct. Also, the DMR kills in 1.68 seconds, br 1.8, and light rifle scoped is 1.5 and considering that there may be gaps between shots then it would kill around 1.8-2.5 seconds to get kill but i understand that what you said was just an expression.- 98% of my posts are just the way i feel about certain subjects and not derived from an outside source. If you can i would like to know which posts seem suspect so i can see how to make it more validatable.

It's harder to pull off the br or dmr with plasma pistol combo in this game. It's easy to dodge the plasma pistol bullet. yes, the bolt **** should be nerfed by decreasing its range to 3/4th and making its charged ammo capacity 2 shots.

Is the auto aim angle what degree your reticle will be effected by the auto-aim?(Assuming that I understood your comment correctly) Like 3 degrees away from the target in all direction will still cause auto aim to take effect? So therefor, would 0 degrees mean you would actually have to hit the target for your reticle to go red? If the angle is set to 0 degrees then would that mean that bullet magnetism would be uneeded because the bullets would hit the target anyway? - So this describes what perameters are needed for the reticule slowing process or sensitivity increase to occur, accompanied by the bullet magnetism to lead the bullets being shot from the outer regions of the auto-aim angle. All of this agrees with what I have written in the post but i think you did a better job at suming it up into an easily conceivable form. -from delpen9 to twin reaper All i can say is, this event is rare and doesn't happen very often. Next time if you happen to notice somoene walking in front of your target, let go of your right analog stick before you get caught in their aim assist. you would have never been able to line up that shot if you didn't have aim assist. -just saying

Here is a link to how aim assist works. I developed the controllers sensitivity idea after studying the effect of aim assist. In COD BO2 the auto aim actually pulls the target but in MW2 it functioned similarly to Halo 4's auto aim. It simply slows your controller sensitivity allowing you to "stick" to your target while moving in unison with him. Like I said, the reticle moves slower while inside or close to the perimeter of the enemy. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qaom3cdZv1c

Magnetism actually refers to bullets. Bullets magnetism is a slight refraction of the bullets to hit the enemy target. Technically, this tag function you are talking about has no official name but is normally dubbed aim-assist. Also, what does the acronym UI mean in this context?(Just would like to know, no biggy!)

I do know that auto aim is in the game but our definitions of it are conflicting. Yes, in call of duty it does pull the reticle towards the person but in halo it merely slows the reticle movement inside the target. People always try to give me that "walk in front of you" example to try to counteract my statement. If another target walks in front of the person you are shooting you will unconsciously move in the direction of that person for a very small amount of time, resulting in your reticle being a distance away. This example is really a test of your reaction speed and how much you rely on aim assist to lead your reticle unknowingly. You can pull off heashots easier on your target because your reticle is moving slower inside your target allowing for more precision aiming. - Try to back up your statements with facts... When someone walks in front of your target again and "pulls" your reticle, look and see what direction your right analog stick is pointed in...

I clearly wrote,"Why aim assist cannot be removed" as the title and then I explained WHY it would be a BAD idea to remove aim assist or allow you to personalize it. In no shape, way, or form did I say I was against lowering the aim assist. I don't know if this was generally directed to my thread post or not which made your post feel misleading.Actually, I have purposely gone into customs with my team-mate and killed each other with Br's, carbines, and DMR's. The sad truth was that when we quit killing each other we actually played worse in regular gameplay. This is because when you don't have aim assist you unconsciously neglect the use of your right analog stick(you still use it, just not as much) to lead your shots with the left analog stick. Though, it might have been somewhat good strafing practice, we had a hard time getting back to our agenda with moving the right analog stick to aim.(Temporarily making us worse.) Though I only did this twice I should test it out some more to see if there is an ideal way to practice like that. Yes, the mouse is more precision oriented. That is why the computer halo games don't use aim assist. - but you already knew that!

Because your reticle was closer to that person making it get caught by the persons sensitivity. You couldn't remove the reticle from the body in time to prevent your death. Either way the sensitivity still isn't disproved by that statement you made. Yet again, I will give you another example, if your reticle is to the side of the player you intend to shoot then why doesn't it get pulled toward that person, because all aim assist in halo 4 does is slow down the reticle movement inside the targets perimeter.

GOOD...

It aims for you in call of duty but in halo it really just slows down your sensitivity while your reticle is inside of it. To prove this, keep your remote still and watch someone run past your reticle. It won't pull your reticle though it will in COD.

THE ABSOLUTE BEST WAY TO FIX THIS PROBLEM IS TO ONLY GIVE THE BOLTSHOT THE ABILITY TO MAKE 2-3(PREFERRABLY 2 SHOTS) CHARGED SHOTS BEFORE RUNNING OT OF AMMO. THEREFOR, YOU NEED TO KILL MORE BOLTSHOTTERS TO GET AMMO AND THE MAX AMMO CAPACITY WOULD BE 3 CHARGED SHOTS. IF THIS DOESN'T WORK THEN IT WOULDN'T HURT TO REDUCE THE BOLTSHOT RANGE TO 3/4 THAT IT ALREADY HAS. You can't nerf the boltshot any more than that or the magnum would easily dominate it. The magnum already has a faster kill rate than both the dmr and the br if you manage to get all head shots. I want to read more! lol

The second sentence was hilarious but it seems that after that you were just counteracting yourself. In MLG gameplay you may start out with an even slate at the beggining of the match but map domination ensures that you would have the advantage in every way possible. You get the weapon spawns, the best postions, and more confidence, lol... Also, being better in general would be an advantage all on its own, so does that mean I should play people without the same skillset as me? No, because you would get worse in the process of playing them; creating a counter-intuitive argument. You must have the advantage to be smart. You play someone who you have the advantage against. In playing them you eventually lose your advantage, therefor, playing him gave you the disadvantage.

There are too many small problems in the game that equate to one huge problem. People have either quit because of that, Call of Duty, or because MLG has removed Halo 4 because microsoft wouldn't sign them over the contract.

It is a fact that if someone walks in front of your reticle on the opposite team and your joysticks are not in use then your reticle will not move. This is for the same reason why controller sensitivity doesn't make you move when you are not using your joysticks. Just imagine a 2D image with a controller sensitivity of 10. Now lets say there is an image inside the picture and there is also a reticle in the very center of the picture. The image has a sensitivity of 0.5 so when the reticle in the picture moves over to the image and touches it the controllers sensitivity switches to 0.5 until the reticle leaves the image. The higher the aim assist the lower the sensitivity will be inside the image. There are no other factors involved in aim assist. It is simply a defined area of a specific sensitivity. For fun I will take this to the opposite extreme: What do you think would happen if the "image" were to have a higher sensitivity than its surroundings? Could you call it reverse aim assist?

Shortly after Christmas day there was a survey taken to measure how many people played matchmaking each day. This includes both spartan ops and war games matchmaking. According to there findings over a million people were reported to have gone on matchmaking the entire day. Are you sure that wasn't 200k at one time not the entire day?

That was a survey from 2 1/2 weeks ago. It's probably out of date.

. Aim assist is in fact a more specialized form of controller sensitivity withing a defined area. Aim assist only has an effect when your reticle is moving as so does the controller sensitivity. Aim assist lowers the speed of reticle movememt when touching said object just how the contoller sensitivity ALWAYS regulates controller speed. If aim assist is exhibited as a "pull" like you say it is, then, while you are moving your reticle in one direction while you pass a target moving in the opposite direction your reticle should be pulled in the direction of the moving object, but no, the reticle movement is only slowed. The reticle will only move with the target if it is moving in the same direction as the target and then the movement must be in unison. The speed of the reticle would be based on the movement of the object while the movement of the reticle inside the object is based on the strength oof the aim assist sensitivity. Therefor, this means that aim assist is not a "pull" but an area of controlled velocity, just like controller sensitivity. Therefor, if aim assist is so evenly correlated with controller sensitivity then it should be exposed to the same factors. Controller sensitivity doesn't necessarily imply skill but eye-hand coordination(The ability to relay visual stimuli to the brains occipital lobe to be transmitted to the basil ganglie[cerebellum] to cause an electrical impulse in the nervous cells to moving muscles) Believe it or not, people will not do this as efficiently as others meaning that their precison and accuracy would be decreased(slight to moderate dysfunction). Meaning that no matter how much practice they put into the game, they may never be able to shoot as properly as those who just started playing. On another note, skill is much more than aiming ability. Someone who is godly in accuracy can be terribly massacred by someone who focused on map domination. People who can't shoot as well may possibly need more aim assist to shoot as accuretly as others. If aim assist were completely removed, a way to combat that would be to raise the controller sensitivity to that of which the aim assist was. Gameplay would eb slower yet the ability to aim would not change. Additionally, I noted that I didn't want the aim assist removed nor have the ability to personalize your own aim assist for secifically stated reasons. Finally, in now way did I say I wanted to remove the aim assist nor did I detest lowering the aim assist. Bottom line is, aim assist is controller sensitivity in a defined area.

I only said that because the post was worded weird, otherwise I wouldn't have bothered mentioning it.

This video explains a guys opinion about the feeling of Halo 4 and the feeling of the past halo trilogy. He uses broad reasoning and doesn't take into account all the factors behind what he has said. He makes good points but they are too counter-argumentative.- I also noted that his sniping ability was pitiful and the kids he was playing with practically gave him the kill. Needless to say, he may still be a great player.