A6ENT of CHA0S

I remember reading that one member of Majestic Team was actually taller than John (I believe it was Hoya/"Pathfinder guy"). Palmer isn't exactly short either, despite what the epilogue would have you believe. I think the prologue/epilogue appearance should be taken with a grain of salt.

I find it kinda humorous that this discussion rapidly went from discussion CQC gameplay to how tall the protagonist should be... and then a different topic gets made specifically to discuss/debate Master Chief's height.

I'm not really too worried about what new power weapons will be introduced or which ones won't be returning. I'm more concerned with how they implement some of the staples and weapons that haven't been around in a while (like the SMG). With loadouts gone (at least for a portion of the multiplayer experience) and dual-wielding being unlikely to return, I'm hopeful that the "secondary" weapons of Halo's past can get more legitimate roles in the sandbox than "backup weapon" or "trade it first chance I get". Here's a link to a topic i made discussing an idea to do just that. I think precision and proper shot placement should be rewarded with a faster kill-time. However, the current method of rewarding these skills is far from infallible. As it currently stands, you precision weapon's shot placement is irrelevant until your target's shields are fully or nearly depleted. You can shoot your shielded target in the head or on the toe and it all counts the same, just as it is with non-precision weapons (like automatics). I'd like to see headshots do more damage than "bodyshots", regardless of shields or firing mode of the weapon. By this, I mean: Headshots on shielded targets have headshot multipliers (more damage to shields when shooting the head) for both "precision weapons" and "automatics". Headshots on un-shielded targets have greater headshot multipliers than headshots on shielded targets (in the case of UNSC weapons, vice versa in the case of Covenant weapons). Headshot multipliers for the BR should kill with two or three rounds on an un-shielded target (getting one headshot out of three on an un-shielded target should not give you the kill). Automatics like the AR have smaller reticles, less spread, and a static RRR halfway between the scoped and un-scoped RRR of precision weapons (but still without a zoom function). Balance the headshot multipliers/kill-times between the automatic and semi-auto/burst-fire weapons. These changes to the sandbox would make gameplay with these weapons more skillful, as shot placement would be important throughout combat rather than just at the end of encounters with precision weapons. What do you think?

Surprised this hasn't been posted here yet (from what I've seen at least). Walkthrough Gameplay Bloodline pays homage to one of the most iconic maps in Halo's existence, but it manages to bring the best of all iterations and add a bit of character we have yet to see from the simple "two bases in a box canyon" setup. Such features/changes include: Altered rock formations, pillars, and weapon placement Removal of Coagulation's lowest level, but maintains/adds more ways into each base Hornet (replacing the Banshee by default) spawns behind each base, similarly to Valhalla/Ragnarok Teleporters have been replaced by dual Man Cannons, also hearkening to Valhalla/Ragnarok New structure towards middle of map, labeled in the HUD as the "UNSC Training Base" Additions of new sandbox elements like the Gungoose, Suppressed SMG, and Assault Rifle Removal of Scorpion tank (although it can be added in Forge) The addition of two (presumably Forge-able) antennae that, upon activation, release an EMP that halts all vehicles within a certain radius of its respective base

I disagree. I think your comparison between the Bubble Shield and the shield doors on maps like Snowbound and Epitaph lacks consideration of a few points: 1. The Bubble Shield is temporary (dictated by time and damage), so camping isn't quite a beneficial strategy. If you see a player attempt to camp in a Bubble Shield with let's say a Shotgun, then you can simply wait for the shield to dissipate (and get more distance while doing so). 2. The shield doors on these maps only have one way to go through... One single direction. This makes movement very predictable, and so campers will know where you likely will/must enter. The Bubble Shield can be entered from multiple directions, limited only by the map geometry of the area its deployed in. 3. Shield doors are never present without being connected to walls, and so players can camp to the side of these shield doors (giving them protection AND offering stealth. This is not the case with the Bubble Shield, as it is generated in the shape of a dome and is nearly transparent. There is no way to avoid being damage unless inside the dome, but you will still be visible (unless behind map geometry, which would do this regardless of the shield). I'd certainly say that the shield doors on the aforementioned maps were a poorly-implemented design choice, but let's reserve final judgement for when we have familiarized ourselves with the dome shield on Zenith (H2A's Ascension remake), shall we?

Alright. So your initial post was simply pointing out that the "roots" of Halo customization was everyone wearing the same armor with different colors? I do believe that when he said "definitely apart of that", he actually meant "apart from". Regardless of nitpicking his choice of words, what do you think of the ideas presented in this thread?

I did read the "thread starter", but I wasn't sure what the OP meant by that, whether "a part of" or "apart from". Regardless, I was clarifying that the direction of H5:G isn't having a negative impact on armor customization (absence of other armor sets, like what you initially seemed to suggest).

Like I said, the return to these roots is in terms of gameplay/combat, not in terms of customization/aesthetics.

Purely aesthetic armor options don't go against the fundamentals of classic Halo gameplay. Halo 3 was the game to introduce armor permutations and it still adhered to the principles. Halo: Reach and 4 deviated from them, but it had nothing to do with the armor (unless you want to include Reach's Elites). Why must you jump to the most negative conclusion that "going back to Halo's roots" has to offer in the context of customization? The game has already been shown to offer various armor permutations anyways, so you have nothing to worry/gripe about with concerns that we'll all be wearing the same armor. Again, the return to Halo's roots in in terms of gameplay, rather than customization.

I believe this is the selection screen for the "name plates", like what we could have next to our name in the pre-game lobby in some previous titles. The reason the only different one is the H2A one is probably that it is the one selected (and at this point it was still a work-in-progress). Since they aren't altering anything but resolution and frames-per-second on the multiplayer side of things, you won't be able to alter your armor for CE or H2.

I liked how the armor customization aspect of Reach's multiplayer was more lengthy to progress through and offered variants of certain pieces (helmet attachments), but let's not try and give canon reasons for this. Honestly, do you think that before a space mission an officer will say "Alright Spartans! Lock 'n load! Be ready in... Wait a minute. Where's your EVA gear, son?", with a Spartan replying that he can't afford/unlock the EVA variant yet (although humorous, I couldn't shake the unbelievable nature of this). Do you think it makes sense to force conscripted orphaned soldiers to PAY for the equipment they need? Do you think Spartans are paid Cr for a life after the war? To clarify, I'm not against the system of unlocking/purchasing armor. I just don't want to see it given any context in story or logic, because it doesn't need it and it won't add anything positive. As for perks linked to armor (EOD having 50% explosive resistance), I am wholeheartedly against that concept in its entirety. Halo is, or at least was, based around Equal Starts (everyone spawning with the same equipment/stats) and the Golden Triangle (guns, grenades, and melee). Having perks implemented like this, as a passive and non-changeable modifier during a life/match, derails both of these principles. What's more is that linking perks to armor will make players choose armor based on their effects, rather than their aesthetics.

Out of curiosity, is there any reason other than personal preference why play at such a low sensitivity? I still find that my opinion of precision weapons taking more skill (in terms of aiming/accuracy) than automatics is true. Let me explain: had you been wielding a BR with the same settings in this same scenario, then you would have needed to focus even more so on reading and anticipating your opponent's actions. By no means am I saying that what you did was not skillful, only that doing so and landing a headshot under the same circumstances would be more skillful. In regards to your comment "I respect your view but ultimately i can never agree with all aspects of it.", I'd like to know what aspects you did actually agree with.

If you killed yourself in the Season 10 finale, how are you still responding to these? Are you a wizard? Did you come from the moon?

Even if this is true (a link would be appreciated), how is this even a significant matter? The precision weapons still outclass the automatics, even at close range in some cases (2 BR bursts + melee, at least in H4). They still don't have the value that a headshot-capable weapon has, nor do they require (or allow) the same accuracy as the precision weapons do. They still require less skill. If saying/thinking "you suck" of or about lesser-skilled players, and you consider it "natural" and "do it all the time", then why did you try to belittle me/label me a tryhard for saying that some people are less skilled and need to either keep practicing or find something they're better at (and you've seen that I opt for them to continue playing and getting better)? Age range? You have no idea how old I am, nor I you. This seems to me like an attempt to discredit my opinion/beliefs on the assumption that I am significantly younger(?) than you. What's more is that my "age range" is irrelevant to what I think should come of a game that I have loved for years. Out of curiosity, what aspects DO you agree with? Exactly. You had to do nothing more than aim center mass and hold the trigger, with minimal adjustments to compensate for recoil. Your BR-wielding opponent had to aim specifically for your head (which is more difficult to do at close-range than mid-range) to inflict the most amount of damage, whereas you merely had to hit him. It took less skill. The fact that you used a weapon that excels at close-range over a weapon that excels at longer ranges and came out victorious doesn't change that, but serves as an example. Also, would you mind specifying in which Halo game you did this?

Disregard double-post.

I'll admit that I don't view the way precision weapons are currently handled is infallible. I'd actually prefer if the system was based around a headshot multiplier, rather than instant kills on unshielded targets, and that both precision and automatic weapons were given balanced damage modifiers that even applied (although not as much) to shields. I see this change as requiring more skill, given that "headshots" i.e. "more damaging shots that reward good aim/shot placement" are desired throughout combat, rather than at end of it, and are possible with any weapon. Regardless of my views on the matter, it still stands that precision weapons are currently more skillful to use (in terms of aiming/accuracy, which are paramount in any FPS) than automatic weapons because shot placement does matter at some point in combat. If all the automatics were projectile weapons, rather than hit-scan, then this would be more debatable. It may be true that each weapon has its own skill gap, but the fact that some weapons (like the Magnum) are purposefully inferior makes it where gaining proficiency with such weapons is pointless, as a player who is equally (and at times even less so) proficient with another weapon (BR) will come out victorious in a typical 1v1 confrontation. I am obviously against this concept, but its true at this moment in Halo's most recent game (and all the games that came after CE, to be frank). Whether balanced to be inferior for the purpose of dual-wielding or being a "secondary" weapon, they are inferior all the same. You can't just disregard factors like aim-assist because you play the majority of your games on mouse and keyboard. It does still factor in, and for those that are accustomed to it, then engaging an opponent when your weapon has the lower red-reticle-range (range at which the weapon's aim-assist is enabled) is far from fair. Strafing/jumping is far from pointless unless you're against a Rocket-wielder at close-to-mid range or the like. If the weapon they're using has high spread, then you moving isn't going to make their shots connect any more consistently. I never said that players should be ashamed/insulted and told to never play again (I don't see why you found it necessary to leave out the "keep practicing" part and add the "you suck"). I actually found a young gamer playing H4 the other day (rare occasion of me playing it, but I like reminding myself of the source material that I want changed) who was only using the Storm Rifle. I checked his post-game stats and Service Record, finding his K/D to be quite negative, and sent him a message on advice (he did thank me and I further encouraged him to keep practicing). If anything, what I've been trying to say on this thread is that I desire the Halo sandbox to be without inferior weapons. Who knows? If they manage to actually make each and every weapon in the sandbox a viable/competitive weapon, then my opinion may likely be swayed in favor of allowing the freedom you desire. As it is now, however, I am adamantly against it. I am not "MLG". I am a typical Halo fan who feels that victory should be earned against players of equal skill with equal equipment. I concede that "equal" doesn't necessarily mean "identical", but the current balance and setup of the game is far from equal. The vast number of "BR or nothing" players (which you incorrectly assume I am) is a living, breathing testament to that fact. I started this topic with an idea to balance the Magnum, with a hopeful vision that it would be on-par with the "primaries" of the sandbox. I am not objectively against spawning with different weapons. I am wholeheartedly opposed to the presence of unfairly balanced weapons with disproportionate amounts of skill necessary to use to their full potential, and therefore with spawning with different weapons when such a problem exists.

Your answer about where you draw the line intrigues me. Let me use your own argument: is it fair to limit what players can spawn with to weapons? Is it completely fair to determine skill/victory by how well or poorly can aim and shoot weapons? If so, then why isn't it acceptable to have a common weapon used to better determine skill? After all, different weapons have different factors (aim-assist immediately comes to mind, but there are many more). If not, then why limit players' choices to weapon selection at-spawn? The reason precision weapons are considered more skillful is because headshots actually mean something. If players are incapable of accurately aiming for the head to kill faster, then they either need to keep practicing (there is a skill-based matchmaking system for a reason) or acknowledge that Halo (and probably the FPS genre in general) isn't for them. Other skills like jumping, strafing, and grenade-throwing factor in, but those are skills that can benefit players regardless of weapon setup.

You think that the game should cater to everyone's play style... Halo is a competitive game. Catering to any and all play styles is unreasonable. If one player decides to do nothing but melee, should he able to spawn with a Hellboy-esque fist? If a player decides that his play style is to drive vehicles, should the game cater to that and allow him to spawn in a Ghost or Warthog? Where do you draw the line here? Assuming that you will draw a line, why are those play styles unsupported and others are? If the game must cater to various play styles by handing out the means to do so at-spawn, then the game is without any criteria to determine skill. If you are playing a sport, you do not cater to the skills (or lack of skills) by allowing the players to use different equipment. Allowing one player to spawn with a precision weapon and another with an automatic weapon is comparable to having two archers, one where he wins by getting a bullseye and another where he wins simply by landing his shots on the target (regardless of position). It's unfair and uncompetitive, with one player having a disproportionate advantage over another. This is why equal starts are used in competitive play and why the multiplayers of the original trilogy were more successful. You say that players can use whatever weapon they want as their "primary", depending on their play style, but doing so with some weapons (such as the Magnum in any Halo game after CE) is foolish. You are at a disadvantage with it unless you are at mid-range or further against a close-range weapon. The Magnum currently has NO reason to be used over another precision weapon. You claim that equal starts aren't fair because not everyone is good with precision weapons? Not everyone is good at sports, which is why not everyone plays sports. The game should never cater to those without the skills to play them as the game is designed. Doing so makes the game itself unskillful and uncompetitive.

@ Emperor Caboose How is this idea pointless without the inclusion of loadouts? What if Halo 5: Guardians doesn't have Sprint? I wasn't asking if it was necessary to put down your gun while sprinting. I asked if sprinting was the best way to add a movement mechanic to Halo, and I certainly don't think so.

They are.

Secondaries DON'T benefit the game bacause they don't actually add anything significant or purposeful to the sandbox. The role of a "fallback weapon" that "gives players who understand each weapon's quirks to gain a severe advantage so long as they position themselves correctly" can already be achieved by other weapons. Whether a weapon is "primary" or "secondary" should depend solely on the player's choices/playstyle and the situations the player is in. Your attempted metaphor actually illustrates the problem with your mindset. You think the "primary" weapon is the only thing worth putting any significant effort or thought to, while the "secondary" weapon's representation is... just whatever? "Why would a game benefit from having everything other than power weapons be primary weapons?" When every weapon is "primary" and can hold its own, rather than being designed/balanced to be inferior, a player who has depleted his/her ammo on one weapon isn't completely vulnerable (as the player's other weapon is also balanced to hold its own, albeit with different pros and cons to make each one unique). If a player only has an intentionally inferior weapon, then he/she isn't even remotely on a level playing field with the opponent that does have a "primary" weapon. A level playing field has been a vital component of Halo's multiplayer and is what makes Halo a more skill-based game than most FPS on the console market. I don't even want to acknowledge the rest of your post because you clearly don't even want to hear others' opinions on the matter and started it all off with an insult... Please, if you want to voice your opinion, do so without degrading others.

I agree that every weapon should have a niche, but feel that every niche should be equal in terms of usefulness (or in the case of power weapons, maintain a balance between power, scarcity, and skill). How would being able to combat BRs with a Magnum be any more boring than having to combat BRs with a BR to stand a chance off-spawn? Variety can't be the spice of life when all you can taste is one flavor.

Whoa, hang on there Freddy! There's no need for that language. Also, I've been saying that there shouldn't be weapons intentionally designed to be inferior in Halo. Who are you correcting on the movement comparison between H2 and H3? I'm well aware of the fact that Halo 3 had relatively slow movement speed (which is why MLG boosted it to 110% for professional competitive play). How are our concerns over how to implement/balance the Magnum irrelevant solely because there will be no loadouts?

No grenade in any Halo game can "freeze" vehicles. The closest thing I could think of would be the Power Drain equipment... which was in Halo 3, not Halo 4. I see what you did there, but I only saw mention of it being a grenade aesthetically, rather than in practice, and the "throw" was merely mentioned as an animation for deploying it at your feet. I'm referring to being able to manually aim and throw it, whether at your feet or at other points of interest.

What if the Bubble Shield was in the form of a grenade (like in the H3 teaser) and could be thrown as a grenade? Could give cover to yourself as normal by "grenading" your feet, or cover/contain allies, objectives, or opponents from a distance with a good throw (think RvB Season 10 Episode 8 at 6:48).