N1AK

I'd like to see some tweaks to load outs to make grouping/selecting them easier; however I'm not really sure adding more weapon options would be a plus as things stand as most of the weapons that aren't in loadouts are better in there niche. If you could pick snipers then everyone would have them on medium-big maps, allow shotguns and everyone would have them on maps with indoor areas or small spaces. The general consensus seems to be that only 1-3 of the primary loadout weapons ever get used and DMR is clearly most popular. Resolving that would increase weapon variety without making the whole game a power weapon fest.

I love, and have such great memories of, Midship but I really don't know if it bringing it back would be a good idea (at least without considerable modification). H4 seems to benefit from bigger maps, although maybe some really cramped maps would give the full auto loadouts somewhere to shine.

It would be a little more interesting if all the hunters weren't exactly the same or displayed different tactics. Even just a second weapon (something like the cov turret) would make me have to consider different ways to engage them.

I think you've hit exactly the right starting premise, I guess we'd just disagree on how to resolve it. I think part of the question needs to be who are these changes meant to appeal to. As someone who has played Halo online on and off since the original I have no interest in playing a mode that deviates so far from the standard set up. Maybe I and gamers like me aren't your target demographic for new players, however I think you need to define who that demographic is and whether these rules will appeal to them. I would expect that many if not most people who are happily playing H4 multiplayer would be put off by the sheer amount of change here. Trying out MLG in H2 was a simple as start with a different weapon and no radar; in H4 it is no radar, changes to respawn, no loadouts, no AA, fixed tactical/support, changed map setup, changed ordnance, no radar. That is a vastly different game. I appreciate that you're trying to make a wide array of players 'happy' and it's a thankless task and you may well have hit the nearest thing to a workable compromise that can happen within MLG so none of the above is criticism. I do think that MLG is become more and more vulnerable to disruption though because there is massive room as is for competitive H4 play with settings nearer to the vanilla ones.

So true. I've only seen about ~6 mic using players in around 50-60 match-made games of which most didn't use it, a couple seemed to be gossiping in French and a couple were just feed-backing the game sounds I will admit to K/D watching (it's basically the only 'quality' metric we have so far) but I find it really frustrating that I'll often finish games on 15-4 or something and get less XP than someone who finished 17-25. The high level players seem to fit in two camps: 1/ Players who play really well. 2/ Players who go constant rambo and get a good amount of kills but way more deaths. As someone who has always been happiest playing as a team, letting kills go to avoid deaths etc it can be a bit disappointing to get less XP than someone with the worst K/D in the match!

I like that idea. I've been trying to build loadouts for different situations (anti-vehicle, close quarters) or game types (KotH, CtF) but never considered having one for a specific stage of the game like the start.

Firstly, a perfectionist is someone who isn't happy unless something is exactly right; that is pretty much the exact opposite of what you define. Secondly, it makes you look like you can't make a coherent point when you make an argument (the evidence suggests x is OP) then say you're not going to 'bring the argument' immediately afterwards. As a general rule suggesting that 'evidence' supports your point is a terrible debating technique if there isn't compelling and widely accepted evidence.

The way they've handled specializations is a pretty textbook example of how to disenfranchise fans without any need to. I've been loving Halo 4 and am only at lvl30 even though I bought it at launch (downsides of not being a student any more) and I probably won't reach 50 (let alone 70) in the next couple of months. Yet even I feel ripped off by how this has been handled. I've spent $80 on a game and map packs, then had to hunt round to find out that I won't get getting all the specializations until god only knows when (and who knows if I'll have to pay) because I'm not American. At the very least they could have made it clear what was going on and when they will start to unlock the further specialisations for those of us who dared not to be born in the US. Before now my biggest gripe was losing my pill/capsule emblem (damn you!); now, I can honestly say I wouldn't have bought the War Game pack (which I haven't even played any of yet) if I'd already been aware that 343 are treating me like a 2nd class citizen

I have Grenadier/Explosives on all 4 of my loadouts atm because they combo together well so I can't pretend I don't think they are good. That said I'd still use Grenadier or Resupply even without explosives; I usually use plasmas so I don't think explosives makes my grenades any better it just makes me slightly more resilient.

I think the Needler is very good and definitely new player friendly but I really don't think it is over-powered for a 'power' weapon. It kills quickly and aim isn't critical but in return it has a short range, does little damage if it doesn't kill and if your target is aware and/or smart killing them is much harder and the ammo is limited. If I see a Needler I'll pick it up but I expect as rankings come in it will become less useful. The Needler will consistently get me a couple of kills, which is enough for my ability level but better players are going to have higher criteria.

1/ Making the DMR better at range won't mean you see more BRs because the BR is even worse at range. It might make the light rifle more viable. 2/ I think the point, in game balance terms, is that the DMR should give a good player with a DMR a fighting chance against a mediocre player with a sniper rifle. The sniper, binary and beam rifles are all great weapons that most players would pick up on almost any map; they will all win in an even encounter with a DMR at range (ie the sniper rifle DOES take the cake). If the DMR was worse at range it would make hanging back and camping with snipers an even easier tactic which wouldn't benefit the game. I actually think the Snipers are much more balanced in H4 exactly because it is no longer an auto-win weapon at range so it takes more thought, support and aiming ability under pressure to get the most from it.

Having read his rant/post I'd also like to highlight that his position on H4 is basically that it should be left vanilla initially in competitive play. I agree with a lot of his points about H3/Reach though. I played a lot of H2 (but was never very good) and the rankings were a critical element, not having them in H4 at launch; at least without a clear explanation of what was coming was a big mistake imo. Now when I play a game (especially objective games) ~25% of the games are extremely easy, ~15-25% are extremely hard and the rest are roughly competitive. I'm still loving the game but if matchups were closer to even it would be even better. The problem with MLG is a common one with many other competitive environments: They want an improved version of what they already had. They want the same weapons, maps, play modes etc with better gfx and some bugs fixing. Most players don't want that and change could actually produce a better experience in a tournament setting but they have blinders on.

I love the Scattershots look and how it disintegrates but would pick the UNSC Shotty given the choice in game. The scattershot seems to do much less damage most of the time so I end up spamming 2-4 shots to get a kill; which removes the point of a shotty. Maybe if I could work out how to use the scattershots 'bounce' to get an advantage I could find a place for it.

I actually agree with the fact it is the automatic choice for a secondary on any map where vehicles aren't critical (though the plasma has a place in objective games). My own opinion is that the Boltshot is about right (though forcing it to be fired once charging starts, marginally decreasing OHK range or something else nominal I could live with). I think the reason the Boltshot is so popular is because the magnum offers very little. If you're carrying a BR/DMR then a wannabe precision weapon has no place. If you're carrying an AR/Suppressor then the Magnum isn't good enough to be a viable ranged option. As I see it: > Plasma Pistols ability against vehicles, overshields gives them a clear point > Boltshot provides a way to try and handle Shotgun, Sword or Hammer wielding foes > Magnum - Should be 80-90% as good as the DMR/BR at medium range so I'd consider taking it as a backup to a fully auto weapon. You wouldn't want to get into a gunfight at range with it but it gives you a chance.

I think the Boltshot is about right. It is very good (almost too good vs shotguns) but that actually helps balance those weapons on the tighter maps. I think the point of weapon balance in the game is that secondary weapons shouldn't just be there for when your primary runs out. The Plasma pistol gives you the ability to handle vehicles without needing a power weapon. The Boltshots power shot makes it a poor mans close range power weapon. Personally it is the Magnum that feels like it needs something to be worth taking; atm if I choose magnum it only gets used when I run out of primary ammo

Glad to see that I'm not the only person struggling to see the point of these in multi-player They don't seem to have an obvious advantage unlike plasma (stick) and frag (bounce). If they let you have the same number as frag then they'd at least make good choke point control weapons.

I'm about average at Halo 4 and have to admit that even at my level (well below the top) the BR isn't worth putting in a loadout in any circumstance. I started off using the DMR (having pretty much stopped playing Halo online after H2) and never looked back. I've since worked out how to use the AR competitively and also the suppressor but unless I'm playing close up then skipping straight past the BR to the DMR is a given. I quite like the idea that the BR is designed to be a gateway gun to precision weapons. I can't vouch for the theory personally but it would make some sense. The overall weapon balance in the game seems pretty reasonable so I'd prefer not to see 343 make big changes. Maybe drop the DMR clip down slightly (as a 'pro' weapon we shouldn't be allowed to miss with half our shots )

Hello all, I'm a 'casual' gamer who enjoys playing team based modes. Most of my RL friends have given up this FPS lark so I'm often playing solo or wishing I was when teamed up with tweenies with mics. If there's anyone else who plays UK evening time who'd like to party up and grab flags, fondle balls etc then let me know. I'm pretty easy going however the ability to put together a sentence including real words would be a welcome novelty.