RedStarRocket91

To be honest, the only thing that really irritates me about Flood mode is they still haven't fixed that stupid issue where players can be infected AFTER killing the Flood who attacked them. I'm really sick of killing a Flood with my shotgun from ten feet away, only to suddenly die and be told I've been infected a second later. Seriously, it's not hard. I die. or They die. There should never be a situation where both players are killed. Spartan damage detection priority should ALWAYS be favoured over Flood damage detection priority. If a Spartan gets a kill, and fifty milliseconds later the Flood also kills them, then it should be better luck next time Floody, because I'm tired of being killed by the power of wishes. Also, giving the Flood shields is fine (they're supposed to be tougher after all) but the Spartans need a bigger ammunition reserve to compensate. Giving all of them an Ammo tactical package or something would work pretty well, as just removing the Flood's shields would make it a lot less interesting.

The real problem isn't that 343i don't care about what we think - they have to, if they don't listen to us nobody buys their games and so there's nothing to pay their salaries - but that WE don't seem to care what we think. Give me an opinion on anything in Halo. I mean really, an opinion on ANYTHING. 'The DMR is overpowered'; 'I don't like the new Warthog sound'; 'The maps are too big'; 'I like that Chief talks in-game now'; 'The Promethean weapons are too similar to existing weapons'. In five minutes, I will find someone who not only disagrees with you, but is willing to start a petition against it; 'Don't change the DMR, it's fine as it is'; 'I wish the other vehicles had new sounds, too'; 'The new maps are too small'; 'I want Chief to go back to only talking in cutscenes'; 'The Promethean weapons are too weird'. Now, if the entire fanbase was united on something - let's go with something stupid, like 'The Magnum should be one-shot-kill in all game modes' - then they'd probably listen to us, because even though that's not what they intended, that's what the fanbase wanted. For example, now everyone gets sprint as well as an armour ability, because something like 80% of the time in Reach, people would use it as their armour ability instead of anything else. Sometimes they might make a controversial one. Melee bleedthrough was brought in and then removed again: taking it out actually made the game worse in terms of balance as it made beating DMR users almost impossible due to their general superiority over all automatic weapons users at almost any range, but because that's what most players wanted, that's what they did. However, as long as the community is divided, they're not going to make any changes. If EVERYONE wanted the Boltshot to be nerfed, they'd nerf it. If EVERYONE wanted the Storm Rifle to get a buff, they'd buff it. But because there's no clear consensus about pretty much any aspect of the game, they aren't going to change anything. Sure, it would make a small number of the fanbase happier, but in addition to upsetting a lot of those who'd disagreed with the change, it would also upset a lot of those who had wanted it because it wouldn't have been done in the same way that they'd wanted it. Ultimately, if you can get a significant majority of the fanbase - and it really must be significant, 75% or something, not just about half - to agree on something, then expect to see changes. If you can't do that, they aren't going to risk changing something which from their perspective is working okay.

You know, this is probably the most important thing in this thread. Let's look at big Xbox shooter franchises, shall we? Halo 2 comes out in 2004. It's effectively the ONLY console-based online shooter at this time: all the other big players are still on PC alone, so it's pretty much Halo 2 or nothing. Halo 3 comes out in 2007. Its population begins well, but never peaks quite as high as its predecessor because some players go back to playing Halo 2, and because this is the year that Modern Warfare comes out, providing the first real, popular alternative to Halo on console. Next is Modern Warfare 2, which is followed by Black Ops: both extremely popular in their own right and sucking in even more players who want something new after spending five years with the Halo formula. Bungie reacts to this with Reach, which splits the fanbase in two. Some like the new features, others hate them and go back to the previous Halos. This is going to be a BIG problem in the future, because there are now TWO Halo formulas, not just one, and one group of fans wants the newer Halos to go even further with trying new things, while the other want a return to older styles of play. There are two more games in the CoD franchise before the arrival of Halo 4. People like playing new things, even if they're not significantly different, and so while CoD retains most of its own fans it also gets some more from Halo players who want something new or who didn't like Reach. Plus, people get more familiar with CoD's style of play, meaning that when Battlefield arrives on consoles it also becomes popular, draining even more players from the Halo fanbase. When Halo 4 comes out, it's followed almost immediately by Black Ops 2, meaning many players will have to choose between the two games, draining a few more players from Halo. 343 has also had to decide which side of the fanbase they want to alienate, as after Reach it's no longer possible to please everyone. So in short, Halo 4 was ALWAYS going to have difficulty kicking its way back to the top of the popular pile. Whether it's good or not is almost irrelevant: a literary analogy is Twilight, which is some of the worst written work ever produced, but manages to be more popular than God simply because its intended audience likes that kind of thing. Ugh, I came in here to reply to the first post and ended up getting completely sidetracked. My apologies, Benjamin.

I'd actually like to see a very slight BUFF to the Assault Rifle if anything. Damage per shot, firing speed, and magazine size are fine as they are, the only problem is that it blooms a little too quickly and too much. Make it just a little more accurate at max bloom and the rate of bloom lower (so that you can effectively fire two-round bursts over and over with no real penalty) and it would be pretty much perfect. As is, it's still slightly underpowered at medium-close ranges, and I'd like to see it compete more effectively with the precision weapons a bit further out.

I'm actually not that big a fan of it replacing regular party chat and private chat altogether, for the simple reason that I use my Gmail address for my Skype account, and presumably I'd need to make a new one tied to my gamertag. This doesn't make sense, because I already have a Skype address which I use to talk to my friends and family, and I don't like having multiple accounts for services (not least because the existing account is where all my Skype credit is). There's also the issue of whether I can control who's added to my Skype list or not: does it automatically add people who're on my friends list? Because I don't want people I know from XBL automatically having access to that. It's not that I don't like them, it's just that I only use my Skype to talk to people who I really know and trust, and even though I'm very cautious about adding people as friends on XBL I simply don't have that level of trust with most of them yet. Plus, I don't want non-gamers to talk to me while I'm in a match: I join parties to talk to people I'm playing with, not talk to my grandmother about her flowers while I'm trying to beat someone to death with the butt of a flag. So either way, I'd just end up making a second Skype account just to talk to people while I'm playing - and the existing chat system already does exactly that, so using Skype wouldn't even make any difference. If Skype were brought in as an extra and not a replacement I'd be fine with it, because I actually quite like the idea of being able to use it from my Xbox. But making it mandatory? No, I definitely wouldn't like that, and I'd probably end up just not using a mic altogether.

The PS2 had by far the best library of games - ironic, considering that its successor went on to have such a small one. So I'd probably go for that, as that's what I have the best memories of. That said, PC is by far the best platform in terms of content, modifiability, graphics and performance, so that would be my overall favourite, if only I had the money to actually get a decent one.

This would be the same community which: Thought Armor Lock was a terrible idea and needed nerfing Thought Armor Lock was balanced and people just needed to adapt Thought the subsequent nerf went too far Thought the subsequent nerf didn't go far enough Thought Armor Abilities made Halo feel even more unique Thought Armor Abilities ruined the game and took away the Halo feel Hated it when the Battle Rifle was taken out Hated it when the Battle Rifle was put back in Thinks the DMR is overpowered Thinks the DMR is balanced Thinks automatic weapons are now too nooby Thinks automatic weapons are now too overpowered Thinks instant respawn and the increase in multiplayer pace make it feel more like one of the older Halo games Thinks instant respawn and the increase in multiplayer pace mean it's turning into Call of Duty Thinks that vehicles are overpowered Thinks that vehicles are underpowered Thinks that there aren't enough maps in each playlist, and that we should add Forged maps to make up for it Thought there were too many Forged maps in playlists in Reach Thought Forge World was too lacking variety and too big Think the new Forge maps are too small and still too lacking variety Want every new Halo game to play just like the previous one Want every new Halo game to do things differently In short: no. There isn't one single thing that the community even GENERALLY agrees on, so I'd far rather we left it to the professionals.

For a while after Reach launched, they had a system in place which prevented anyone from getting above the Lieutenant-Colonel rank - no matter how much you played, no matter how many credits you earned, that was it, you couldn't get above it. When they lifted the restriction, any credits you'd earned didn't count towards the next ranks, so they'll probably just use that system again.

Thanks, Bagels! Though it's always nice to get interesting and thought-provoking responses Plus... there's so much going on in Halo that deserves to be talked about, and surely we can't all just sit around and complain about the Boltshot being overpowered forever, right?

ATTACK OF THE BRICKTOPUS FROM OUTER SPACE Something aboard the international space station goes terribly wrong, when an experiment to see if octopuses can be hypnotised into becoming day labourers for cheap and easy construction of space colonies is interrupted by a solar flare. One of the octopuses ends up merging at the atomic level with the materials he's supposed to be building a wall with and becomes the Bricktopus, a horrifying hybrid of cephalopod and brick with a burning desire for vengeance upon its human creators. It escapes to Earth and then embarks on an evil campaign to build walls and small housing estates in the middle of highways all across the United States, creating a death toll in the millions as unsuspecting people end up crashing into front rooms during their morning commute to work. Only two men can save the world from destruction: the first, a discharged marine biologist with a dark past who got results but played outside the rules once too often for his superiors, and the second a middle-aged British workman who takes a more relaxed approach as he's content to be paid by the hour. Together they have to work out where the Bricktopus is going to strike next and stop it, while learning to trust one another and overcome their differences. They finally discover the bricktopus' plan is to build an underwater wall across the Hudson river in order to crash a nuclear-powered aircraft carrier and destroy New York, and must race against the clock to pull down the wall with an old German U-Boat with a bulldozer blade stuck on the front, and then defeat the Bricktopus once and for all, or at least put some nice flowerboxes along it. Directed by Quentin Tarentino; starring Johnny Depp as the marine biologist, Alan Rickman as the workman, and Bruce Willis as the Bricktopus. Or maybe the same intro, except it just smashes Tokyo up or something.

I actually did have it down as a 'serious' option too begin with, but just thought it would be funnier if it was gently mocking. There's also the fact that I have STILL yet to be killed by the pistol when playing SWAT, so maybe I'll update it when that changes

I'm surprised there hasn't already been a topic on this, considering how popular the SWAT playlist is. At present, there are two loadouts for selection in SWAT gametypes: one with a DMR as the primary weapon, one with a Battle Rifle, and both including a Magnum as a secondary. Because of the lack of shields in SWAT, each weapon plays very differently to its counterpart in regular matches, each with new advantages. The DMR becomes incredibly lethal at longer ranges, able to kill opponents from well out of their own range due to its powerful scope and high accuracy. The Battle Rifle becomes dangerous to multiple opponents and at closer ranges due to its burst-fire mode and stronger aim assist and bullet magnetism. The Magnum's high rate of fire makes up for its low accuracy, as subsequent shots can be fired more quickly to make up for misses. Though I vastly prefer the DMR for regular shielded gameplay, I've grown very fond of using the Battle Rifle in SWAT. The extra aim assist is really noticeable and means I don't have to worry so much about my aim being perfect as I would with the DMR, and the burst-fire means I've occasionally scored two kills within a burst, thus saving my life as I would otherwise have been killed by the second target between trigger pulls. So what's your favourite gun in SWAT? Is it the same as your favourite precision weapon in other gametypes, or your least favourite? Would you like to see the Lightrifle make an appearance?

If one bullet misses from every burst, then it takes six bursts just to lower the shield - that's what I meant to say, at any rate, though I phrased it really poorly. The accuracy can be a disadvantage to weaker players - take a Sniper Rifle and a Magnum, for example. Yes, the Sniper Rifle is more accurate, but shot for shot a weaker player is much more likely to hit with the Magnum than they are with the Sniper Rifle. There's no contesting that the Sniper Rifle is a better weapon, but in terms of just hitting something, the Magnum is easier to use. For stronger players, it's an advantage: for weaker players, it's a drawback. Even if it is just more noticeable, so what? Even if it's a perspective thing, your aim still takes longer to get back to where it was previously, meaning more time spent not shooting, meaning more time to sponge damage. Bullet Magnetism is actually very easily measured. The outer reticle of any weapon is the bullet magnetism radius when it turns red. That's the maths behind it, and the Battle Rifle has more. The Battle Rifle's is constant: the DMR's decays.

They did say in their announcement that they haven't yet decided whether or not they're going to reset it when they implement it - if they do reset it, there's going to be some seriously one-sided games in the immediate aftermath!

Maybe you are, and your connection was just playing up - take it as a compliment! I actually used to get matched against 40s and 50s in Halo 3, even though my rank was something like 15 due to always playing social and only getting LIVE about three months before Reach came out. Actually held my own in a fair few of those matches, too - I get the feeling the ranking system is a lot less accurate than most people remember (or at least, I got very lucky with my own games).

Not too badly, actually. For every horrible unbalanced match, I probably had four or five that were balanced quite well. They just don't stick out as much in my memory.

All they've said so far is that it'll be out 'when it's ready' - at best, it might come in around the release of the next map pack, at worst, we might have to wait until after the final map pack's been released. In the meantime, you DO still have a rank, it just isn't visible anywhere yet!

I happen to like it, it fits in a lot better with the general feel of the Spartan-IVs. Only thing that frustrates me is that I vastly prefer the Main Menu music, and there's no way to just make that default across all the menus.

I really need to write this down somewhere, for posterity. Okay. Both rifles will kill in the same number of trigger pulls, provided every shot hits the target. This gives the DMR a slight advantage as Battle Rifle users have to worry about every bullet from the burst hitting, as if even one goes astray it increases kill times. The DMR fires slightly faster than the Battle Rifle, which means if both players begin firing at the same time the DMR will win due to its lower kill time. The DMR has a more powerful scope, allowing it to reliably hit targets further away. It is also more accurate, meaning its shots are more likely to hit exactly where they're aimed. This isn't necessarily an advantage. The Battle Rifle 'jumps' a lot less when hit whilst using the scope, meaning players can stay more accurate when under fire. The Battle Rifle has greater aim assist, meaning the game will pull your aim towards targets when the crosshair is red as though drawn to it magnetically (the DMR gets a little, but it's a lot weaker and thus you have to do more of the work yourself). The Battle Rifle gets more bullet magnetism, meaning you only have to get your outer crosshair to touch the target in order to hit it, giving you an advantage over the DMR's smaller outer crosshair. The Battle Rifle doesn't get any less accurate from firing too quickly, meaning your aim assist and bullet magnetism will always stay the same. The DMR's accuracy degrades, so that as the size of the crosshair increases, the less likely a bullet is to land on the target than it is just to hit anywhere in the reticle. So basically, while the DMR is unquestionably more powerful, it's harder to use. You're much more reliant on your own abilities than you are on mechanical assistance, and that's why you get rewarded with a better optimum performance. Pick the DMR if you feel like you don't need any help from the game: pick the Battle Rifle if you think you do. Sure, your kills might take a half-second longer, but at least you'll be hitting the other guy as he misses over and over again. And finally, OT: Bullets do the same damage regardless of where they hit on the shield.

As long as they've linked their own GT to their forum name, it's completely fine

I was actually hoping that with the 'marking' system, it wouldn't be necessary to put in overly long cooldowns - if you used it again very quickly, you wouldn't really be moving far enough too make it worthwhile compared to just sprinting there. That said, I suppose there's no harm in a long cooldown - it at least would make people try to use it tactically, rather than just to try and escape from fights, which is something I really don't like the idea of. I think an Overshield might be going too far - the ability to effectively double your health at will is an advantage in any situation and doesn't need to be used tactically - plus there's no real downside. Overshield drops are already pretty powerful, after all - imagine what that could do to gameplay if that was just whenever you wanted? I envision it more as a tool of map mobility, rather than something to be used in combat - the Thruster Pack is about dodging attacks, while the Jetpack is there to let you fight from unexpected angles or speed up your ability to get to higher areas, rather than very quickly moving to new areas laterally. Plus, it would have to be used tactically - you'd be very vulnerable to attack whilst using it, especially if the level of damage taken was increased (DMR and Battle Rifle become 3sk, Frag Grenades inst-kill, etc). Oddly enough, I think MLG is one of the areas where it would work best. Perhaps not so much in their Slayer matches, but for things like Capture the Flag or Dominion, where quickly moving across the map can be the difference between life and death. I actually see it being used to enhance map control - it's a way of quickly moving between two places at once, not just ignoring it altogether.

Remakes of old maps could definitely be looked at - they DO tend to be quite a bit smaller than Halo 4's default maps, after all, and I think most people have gotten pretty good at Forge right now, so presumably they'd be fairly accurate. Plus, there were some really great Forge maps in Reach, and it'd be interesting to see the best of those updated and brought into Halo 4's matchmaking - if perhaps controversial! I think you're right about restricting weapons, cutting them down that much is probably going too far, at least in Matchmaking. A 'Classic' playlist really is another idea altogether, and things like the Suppressor and Storm Rifle can be a lot of fun to use. For all the trolls we've had arrive since release, I think we're one of the friendlier Halo forums out there - and it's always great to see someone new start out with fresh ideas!

This is the single most important thing you can do when using the Battle Rifle. Stick your sensitivity as low as you can before it feels too sluggish, and watch your aim increase. Also, bear in mind that it has neither the power of the Assault Rifle nor the range of the DMR: make sure you fight at the correct ranges, or you'll have serious problems winning fights. And above all, practice. Try some Legendary Campaign or Spartan Ops, or go into Custom Games and play some 1v1s: anything where you'll be reliant on your own abilities instead of teammates, but where you can't afford to give away kills.

You know, if you're going to make a thread about 'what 343 needs to fix', then at least say WHAT IT IS that you think they need to fix. Frankie: "So, what's wrong with Halo 4?" 'True Halo Fan': "It's bad." Frankie: "Okay, but what is it that makes it so bad?" 'True Halo Fan': "Bad." Frankie: "Do you mean like, the graphics, the maps, the weapons, the music?" 'True Halo Fan': "Bad." Also, you don't like a Halo game. So you're not a 'true' Halo fan.

Perhaps something like the Binary Rifle? Where the reticule is really big and imprecise while carrying normally, but becomes a lot smaller and more accurate while zoomed in?