A6ENT of CHA0S

Again, its not a role (at least not a legitimate or purposeful one) because any weapon in the sandbox can fill that role.

Have you played the games prior to 4? In Halo: CE, players would spawn with the Magnum and AR (neither of which were designed solely as a placeholder until the player could find a better weapon). Halo 2 didn't have many "primary" weapons due to the introduction of dual-wielding and the dominant BR (complete with its BXR and the like). Halo 3 often times spawned you with a BR and AR, and it was far from overkill. Heck, even Reach had the "Recon" loadout that started players with a DMR, AR, and Sprint. Where in the definition of an Arena-oriented game does it say, or even imply, that some weapons should be made to be completely inferior to the "primary" weapon you spawn with? What Arena games have you played? Also, how does the need to use a perk for spawning with two primary weapons in H4 alleviate your concerns of it being "overkill"? Do you also consider the Survivor perk to be alright because you have to pick it over another perk? Did you not understand when I mentioned that perks are more than likely not even going to appear in Guardians? "Being a secondary weapon used if you run out of rifle ammo" is not a purposeful role because literally ANY other weapon could fulfill it. The point I was making with that is that it doesn't matter if the weapon is a pistol or a rifle. It should be a formidable weapon regardless. It isn't pointing out how CE should've had a primary weapon because the Magnum already is a primary weapon in the game. I'm well aware that "primary" and "secondary" weapons are different categories. I'm questioning why some people think that one of those categories exists and how having a secondary weapon actually benefits the game. Since its so simple, why don't you enlighten me without saying "Its a pistol, so it makes sense for it to be weaker," which is not a real reason.

I understand that's his line of thinking. I'm asking for justification for why it must (or rather should) be so in terms of an arena shooter, especially when that arena shooter is Halo. Remember that the Magnum in CE was more powerful than the BR has ever been. Certainly it was overpowered, with such a fast kill-time and long effective range, but its one of the reasons that the game was so successful. That wouldn't have changed if the Magnum had the aesthetic of a rifle. My point with this is that the physical appearance/design of a weapon doesn't automatically dictate how well or poorly a weapon can perform gameplay-wise. Now I'm not supporting a return of the "God Pistol" but I think its better to give a weapon an actual role, rather than assign it a passive role that could easily be outperformed on all fronts by another weapon. Honestly, if you think the Magnum best serves as a "secondary"/"backup", then why do you even want to have the Magnum as an option when you could instead spawn with another weapon that can actually do something that the BR can't (AR)? As for the yellow text, I'll ask (again) why there is a need for "primary" and "secondary" weapon classification. If the best reasons you have are that it makes a perk necessary to spawn with two formidable weapons and that it just makes sense in the real world that a rifle will be better than a pistol, then I can't say that I agree with your reasoning. Also, Halo 5: Guardians has been all but confirmed to not include custom loadouts/perks in standard game modes, as they are evidently reintroducing "fair starts" and describing it as "every player on blue team is the same as every player on red team".

What do you mean I want a different game? Why would your melee stats change with a certain weapon? They have in all of the original trilogy games with AT LEAST one weapon each, and they all worked well (I've never heard any complaints about the CE AR's increased melee range being OP). Need I even mention the Energy Sword's melee? What makes slightly changing movement speed any different or detrimental? So... according to your logic the slower the game, the funner it is? Interesting, considering many people view Halo 2 as superior to Halo 3 (which had a slower movement speed). Can you explain what you mean by this comment? I don't think the origin of a mechanic is relevant to whether or not it can work in a game. I find the mechanic to give more purpose to the weapons it is integrated into. What about this mechanic would cause "outrage"? The fact that it fulfills the same goal as Sprint (albeit at a more conservative degree)? Assuming that you are referring to the similarities between this mechanic and Sprint, can you tell me the detrimental aspects that this mechanic shares with Sprint? How do you measure "degree of change", at what "degree" is this mechanic, and at what "degree" are the changes made between previous games in the series? How is this a "major overhaul" of Halo's existing gameplay?

You're repeating the increasingly hackneyed phrase "It's a secondary for a reason" and telling me HOW it is made an inferior weapon. You have yet to tell me WHY. Why is the Magnum made to be an inferior weapon? What is this reason that seems to elude me? Also, you mentioned that making the Magnum a formidable weapon would make the "Firepower" perk useless... Why is that a bad thing? Why would you rather have a mix of good and poor weapon choices and need to use a perk to use only the decent ones when you could instead have all weapons balanced accordingly and do away with that perk? (I am against the concept of perks in Halo, but that's a different matter)

Adding playlist without sprint isn't the easy fix you think it is. Sprint is taken into account when designing maps for a game that uses sprint as a default mechanic, so removing the mechanic will just make the maps larger and play differently (certain jumps could not be made). Weapon balancing also takes sprint into account, as they have to make sure players can kill each other in a reasonable window of time (as in "before the enemy has the chance to run away with ease"). Combine those factors, and others like the spawning system (attempts to spawn players in areas with low enemy activity nearby, which becomes more difficult when players can move at two speeds) and the gameplay without sprint will play horridly, with less frequent and quickly resolved encounters and longer travel time to your destination that was intended to be reachable in a fraction of that time. Think of fitting a shoe to a foot and then cutting off the big toe. Does the shoe still fit fine? Not likely. A certain drawback for what? Having a Magnum with a slight speed boost? The drawbacks are already present (shorter RRR and smaller magazine size than other precision weapons). Every weapon needs to have a purpose. They need to be able to do something that either other weapons can't or perform better than other weapons in some way. The AR holds down short-range combat, BR mid-range, and DMR long-range (only speaking of UNSC weapons here for clarity and brevity). There is no place for the Magnum to excel anywhere here unless given something that the other weapons don't have. Look at the Covenant arsenal. The Plasma Pistol isn't worthless because it can do something the Covenant rifles can't (charged EMP shot). A "back-up plan" should be in the context of situations, not in the context of weapon design (especially not in an arena FPS). Intentionally making one spawning weapon weaker than the other is poor game design.

First off, after the Turbo Update the Magnum has the potential to kill in 1.33 seconds with 6 shots, whereas the DMR's kill-time is 1.53 seconds with 5 shots, and the BR's kill-time is 1.37 seconds with 4 bursts. However, the Magnum's bloom and short RRR greatly hinder its ease and reliability to achieve kills in such little time compared to these rifles You can spam the trigger as fast as you want, but unless you're at close range, you won't land all/most of your shots. I'm not going to argue whether or not sprint makes the game pace faster, but whether or not it is the best way to speed up gameplay. Why is lowering your weapon to reach full speed a good thing?

The introduction of sprint into Halo has been one of the most controversial changes to the franchise. Many are in favor of removing it, while others think it is/can be beneficial to gameplay. Personally, I'm not a fan of sprint in Halo, but I do see potential for a somewhat similar mechanic. Those of you who have played Counter Strike probably know that some weapons (the knife, for instance) allow faster movement speed. This mechanic works well for the game, giving players the option to sacrifice superior firepower for speed to get to locations more quickly, but without rendering them completely vulnerable when doing so. My idea is that, similarly to CS's mechanic, players gain a small speed boost (maybe 5-10%, but would require play-testing) when wielding the Magnum (and maybe similar weapons like the SMG). This would give these sidearms more purpose without making their kill-times "unrealistically" competitive with those of "primary" rifles like the BR and AR, respectively. With the Magnum rebalanced to have a similar kill-time to the BR and allow faster movement, offset by the smaller magazine size and less effectiveness/ease-of-use at longer ranges (perhaps through a shorter red reticle range), it could have a greater purpose than merely a "secondary" or "backup" weapon that players wouldn't give a second thought about trading out. What do you think? Could this mechanic be beneficial for Halo? Are there aspects of it you would change? If you don't like the idea, leave a comment discussing why.

@Howling Death Wolf You could also say the same about shooting an opponent's head with a BR, couldn't you? It is naturally a smaller target and easier to miss, but their is a reward for it. a reward that can be the difference between victory or defeat. How does the same not apply for the AR?

I don't see why the AR couldn't receive a standard amount of spread (like the BR), rather than bloom, along with a shorter RRR than precision weapons' to retain its short-to-mid range niche. After all, it works to keep the BR from being either useless or too effective at long-range. With a fixed amount of spread, the AR would be more effective at mid-range than it currently is (provided its user can land shots without the aim-assist, thus requiring a bit more skill) and could more reliably utilize an implemented headshot multiplier.

What was the point of this comment? To instigate others? You're not contributing anything to the discussion with this. This topic has already been derailed by such comments, and no one benefits from it. Please speak civilly and with constructive reasoning for your beliefs, or don't comment at all.

Whether there's a fully-fledged cover system or not, players will use map geometry to their advantage as such. Using cover is a useful tactic in Halo, as well as Gears of War. The differences in perspective (first-person and third-person, respectively) each have different forms of giving players awareness, even behind cover. Obviously, in GoW, players can see over cover. In Halo, however, players have a Motion Tracker to allow them to know when enemies are nearby without exposing themselves. I didn't even consider the idea of changing where the AR meter would be on the HUD until I read your comment. I agree that placing it either above the Motion Tracker or weapon reticle would be best for the sake of awareness. Another interesting idea that I hadn't thought of. Utilizing the Xbox One controller's impulse triggers, they could very well aid in the integration of Active Reload and help alleviate the 'awareness' concerns of the mechanic. I also think that standard reload times should be increased to make this mechanic worth the risk. As for careful balancing of the mechanic for various weapons, I think that could be done. After all, 343i has employed a former Epic dev (Quinn DelHoyo) who worked on the Gears of War games, balancing the weapon sandbox and helping to do the same for Halo 4's. Thank you for your comments and ideas

If you are unfamiliar with the mechanic, Active Reload is a feature that was popularized by the Gears of War games. It is essentially a mini-game that changes the reloading mechanism of a held weapon. By tapping the 'Reload' button/bumper (depending on control scheme) once, a player can manually reload their gun rather than wait for the current clip/magazine/projectile to run of ammo (as standard). A meter appears under your weapon/ammo display, and shows the progression of the reload. There are internal segments in this progress bar (grey and white) and when it reaches these segments, the player can press the 'Reload' button/bumper again to attempt an Active Reload, which, depending on where the progress bar was stopped, reloads the gun a lot faster than a normal reload. However, if you press the 'Reload' button/bumper OUTSIDE of the grey/white segments, the weapon "jams" and takes longer to reload. Its important to note that in GoW's implementation of Active Reload (with the exception of GoW: Judgment), performing an Active Reload while in the white segment of the progression meter (known as a Perfect Reload) increases the damage of the newly-loaded rounds for a temporary amount of time. I do not advocate this aspect of the mechanic, but feel that the concept as a whole would offer more involvement and require more awareness while in heated combat. I cannot personally find anything about this potential addition that would harm or disrupt the competitive nature of Halo's multiplayer. What do you think? On a side note, GoW also allows Active Reload for ALL firearms. Whether or not this should be how Halo's implementation of it (assuming it would be implemented) is debatable. I feel that an interesting aspect of it could be that weapons prone to 'overheat' (Storm Rifle, Plasma Pistol, Beam Rifle, etc.) would be incapable of Active Reload, but offer a different advantage already in that you can swap weapons and swap back to them without the need to initiate an animation.

I assumed you were defending him because you didn't say anything of that sort to him (despite his saying things like "Lol Your 'argument." and "The reason I so easily disregarded your opinion is simply"). I completely agree that a venomous attitude and spiteful comments don't make anyone's argument any more agreeable, but I see a clear distinction between the credibility of an argument and the format that the argument is given in. I apologize for any mis-communication on this matter.

First off, I'm noticing hints of spite and anger in your "argument", which (according to your logic) means that your "argument" carries no weight anyways. How's that for hypocrisy? Secondly, you've again ignored argumentative points. I gave details for how Sprint affects the game aspects that you shrugged off. Lastly (since I can see there's no reaching you with reason), I'll just counter your quoted statement with a few from more noted individuals: “By all means let's be open-minded, but not so open-minded that our brains drop out.”- Richard Dawkins “Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science.”- Charles Darwin “If someone is able to show me that what I think or do is not right, I will happily change, for I seek the truth, by which no one was ever truly harmed. It is the person who continues in his self-deception and ignorance who is harmed.”- Marcus Aurelius

Attitude doesn't directly discredit anything someone says. If that were true, then someone angrily shouting that "the sky is blue, the grass is green, and we are only human" would automatically be incorrect. As for your arrogance, it isn't because you disputed his claims. Its because you did so by ignoring points of his arguments e.g. population counts, etc. Furthermore, (as you seem to be a proponent for Sprint as well) I give you this argument. Please actually regard it when making your counter-argument, rather than simply brushing away points in it and stating the opposite without giving valid examples/evidence. The main problem I have with sprint is that it's creating the illusion of increasing "the pace and flow" of combat, but is instead disrupting quite literally every single aspect of Halo not limited to larger maps, reduced kill times, increased radar range, increased aim assist, spawn system influencers, and decreased player speed (relative or global) Firstly, every map in Halo is designed for base player traits, which means they are built with sprinting players in mind. If there's a jump you can't make at normal jump height, then the designer didn't intend for you to get there. If there's a jump you can only make with Sprint, then the designer most likely spaced those areas accordingly. If there's a power weapon that is 10 seconds away from your spawn, the designer intended for you to sprint there to get to it in 10 seconds. Sometimes they'll even place cover to last the duration of your sprint, so that when it ends, you are out of cover with your gun at the ready. It is for this reason that exact 1:1 map remakes haven't worked for Reach or Halo 4. Everything is scaled according to how the player can interact with them. "If it takes 10 seconds to get to the power weapon with Sprint, aren't I getting there faster than someone who doesn't Sprint?". Yes, but only relative to other players and not relative to the map. If you're the only one sprinting, you are moving at "default" speed and everyone else is moving slower. If everyone is sprinting, you are not reaching your teammate faster. Because Sprint does not last forever and because you cannot shoot when you are using it, more people are going to be out of Sprint, meaning more people are moving slower for most of the match. Cover is spaced according to Sprint because you'd be in cover too much if it was based around default movement. Therefore, because people cannot shoot while they Sprint, they stay behind cover, creating a large void - "deadzones" - which afford long range combat (re. DMR) the perfect opportunity to dominate. This is also one likely reason flinch was created, but that's irrelevant in this discussion. Because you have to decide whether to sprint to get there at the normal distance or walk at base speed (slower than people Sprinting) to use your gun, players would need to anticipate who is nearby so that they can have their gun at the ready. Radar range was likely increased not only because of the larger map size, but to also give players more time to make this transition. Those who are still caught off guard can disengage very easy, and the slow strafe (due to slow movement) and high aim assist (because of Sprint) guarantee that they can't kill you if they're down a few shots. This becomes an effective (and annoying) maneuver in most 1v1 engagements with experienced players. Slowing down while Sprinting doesn't change this much, especially when you factor in the resistor and mobility perks (which create a whole other set of problems that are also not relevant to the discussion). All this leads into the second biggest problem - Spawning. If you don't understand the Halo 4 spawn system, read this or any of the links there. Sprint disrupts the spawning system because it also increases the distance players need to be for safe spawning. If I can move from one of your spawns to the other and influence both of them before you have respawned, then I'll need to space them further away. Factor in 3-7 other teammates all influencing spawns and you have what is known as a spawn trap. Now because I can't shoot while I Sprint, I am forced to stay behind cover and take pot shots with my DMR. If I push up, I'll need to Sprint because I move too slow to cover the distance between cover (I could at least stand a chance by knocking you out of scope in Reach). If you kill me, my spawn can be entirely affected based on whether you sprint into a spawn zone at "normal" speed allowed on the map, or go there slower. You can quite literally spawn looking at somebody because he didn't sprint (move at the normal speed) into your spawn zone. Equating this to old games, it'd be like somebody crouching into the base you're spawning in. I'm not going to go into detail with the other problems because the fact that it affects the spawn system and design of engagements is reason enough to consider its removal. If you've been thinking while reading this "If the problem with Sprint is that I can't shoot in Sprint, then shouldn't I be able to?", just ask yourself how that'd be any different from moving at 120% speed. Halo 2 had ridiculous aim assist, but it worked because of how fast players could move and strafe to avoid it. Moving slower relative to either the players, maps, or kill times upsets this balance and only creates the illusion of "faster pace" by getting to your teammate quicker than you would walking normally. With fast movement speed and smaller maps, you'd get to your teammate and have the ability to shoot at literally the same pace as you would with Sprint. In fact, it speeds up combat because you are always ready to fight and don't have to transition into using your weapon. One of Halo's biggest innovations was the ability to retain accuracy and fire from the hip while moving; therefore, Sprint is not an innovation, but instead a mainstream mechanic merely tacked on in a vain attempt to "modernize" a game that did perfectly fine without it. Before Halo 3, we moved fast enough to where Sprint wasn't needed. Then Halo 3 happened and we moved to slowly to get around maps like Avalanche, Valhalla, and Sandtrap without the use of vehicles or man cannons. Again, if movement is fast enough, why sacrifice map design and the ability to shoot? Is it because the animation looks cool?

How so? By his attitude? Howling Death Wolf has been acting arrogant and brushing off others' opinions since his first post on this topic. If you think attitude alone is the deciding factor over whether or not a claim, theory, idea, or opinion is credible, then I must point out that (while such presentation does nothing to help your argument), it doesn't make that person any less credible, either.

1. Letting people customize the weapons they spawn with is "bad" because different weapons work differently from one another. Alone, that's not a bad thing. If every weapon worked the same way in every scenario, we would only have one weapon. Its negative for spawning settings because there is no way players (of equal skill or otherwise) can be equals when they have started with different weapons, as each weapon has its own advantages/disadvantages in various situations. Your example doesn't carry any weight here, as Battlefield is a class-based FPS, whereas Halo is (or at least WAS originally) an Arena FPS. Halo's gameplay was built upon a set of principles over game mechanics, such as the Golden Triangle and Equal Starts. With equal starts, what determined the victor of an encounter was which player was better, not which player was better-equipped for the situation. A Bungie employee had this to say about it in a vidoc "Two men enter. The better man leaves. The loser is respawning... and that's Halo!" This is no longer the case in Halo 4, so by the game's original creators... Halo 4 isn't truly Halo. Your "argument" supporting loadouts is equivalent to "Loadouts are good because you can choose what you want." You neglect to realize the issues that discrepancies between players off-spawn create. To illustrate, imagine a game of Slayer where the Blue team spawns with ARs and the Red team spawns with BRs. Is this balanced? Is this fair? the same thing happens with loadouts. You have your choice, but you will be unfairly rewarded/punished for your choice. Its not like the choice of what armor to wear, as that doesn't alter your ability to win an encounter. Loadouts do. 2. Personal Ordnance is "bad" because it is an indirect result of existing in the game. With medals like Distraction and the like, you needn't do anything but be in the game at all to make potential progress towards their choice of a number of weapons/power-ups that are intentionally balanced to be more effective than starting weapons (and oftentimes, on-map Power Weapons). There's always the possibility that you will get an option that is better than anything you could've picked up from the map. It not only ignores map control; it has the capacity to override it at times. Your argument supporting Personal Ordnance is equivalent to "PODs are good because (again) you can choose what you want and you don't ALWAYS get better weapons." You say ""so many people love what they [343 Industries] have done", but do you realize that Halo 4 has a drastically lower population than previous titles? So while there are surely a good number of players who DO like the changes, there is a noticeably larger percentage that apparently DOESN'T!! What's more is that your last statement here implies that you feel Halo's traditional gameplay isn't "fun", despite your earlier claims that they are.... and again, your saying "If you like the old gameplay, play the old games." is just the same as me saying "If you like the new gameplay, play Halo 4."

In the prologue of Halo 4, the interrogator lists problems associated with Spartans' psyches and Halsey's rebuttal was that she "supplied the means to maintain that efficiency", with images of her giving Cortana to John-117... I think that says something about the Master Chief's mental/social instability and dependence on his now-deceased AI companion. Just something to think about.

I can see you've put some thought into this, and I must say, I didn't think about the interesting plot-lines surrounding the "Chief has gone rogue!" comments until reading this. I'd like to add that the Future of the Halo Franchise doesn't rest solely on the shoulders of its story/Campaign. There's also the gameplay aspects (especially the multiplayer) that will aid or harm its longevity. I know that's not quite the focus of this topic, but I think it is certainly something that needs to be talked about more in-depth. With that, here's a link to one such discussion (on this website): Equal Starts in Halo Xbox One?

For consideration, here's a spreadsheet of weapon stats post-Turbo Update.

"Equal does not always mean the same." I used to be such a proponent of this philosophy... but I've begun to doubt the credibility of this claim. Here's a question: What two things are different but equal in every scenario? I couldn't come up with an answer, due to this... Equal- adj. as great as; the same as; alike in quantity, value, or degree. Different- adj. not alike in character or quality; not identical; various. Semantics aside, the arguments for balancing weapons to have the same kill-time, etc. only really carries weight when talking about the most ideal of scenarios (such as when the opposing players have full shields). What of when they have the same shield level, but not 100%? Does that not potentially change things? For instance, two players (one BR-user and one Carbine-user) have taken the same amount of damage and have very low shields. While the Carbine-user will have to fire a shot to fully deplete his/her opponent's shields and a subsequent shot to finish with a headshot, the BR-user need only fire one 3-round burst to deplete shields and land the necessary headshot... all before the Carbine-user can even fire a second shot. Similar scenarios can be envisioned between the AR and SR (or other PR variant), as there would be a different RoF and DPS; not to mention the added factor of not needing to reload. The different weapons' mechanics themselves condemn them to be unequal to each other because they are different (which is not a bad thing). This variety gives each weapon character, whereas balancing them (or at least attempting to do so) would strip them of such distinguishing qualities and leaves no meaningful choice to be made when choosing between them. However, for spawning, we should have it where everyone spawns with the same setup and similar weapons (like Covie weapons) can be picked up from the map and are given a bit more incentive for players to do so. That's my take on the matter anyways...

My apologies for giving a generic OP on how the additions made in the latest two games have been lackluster. Thank you for listing exactly how/why they work well in the game, and thank you for using the hackneyed phrase "Halo must evolve." {sarcasm} Not to be blunt or anything, but you've just disregarded my opinion of what makes a Halo game without taking time to detail your own. Instead of any real feedback, you merely said "if you like the old formula's then play the old games" (basically the equivalent of me saying "If you like the new formula, play Call of Duty, Battlefield, or Halo Reach/4."). As for "Halo must evolve", evolution can be either positive or negative. Game mechanics that unfairly aid players (a prime example being granting various power weapons via dice roll and delivering them to players' feet e.g. Personal Ordnance) do not add anything positive to the gameplay IMO. They revolve around luck and unpredictability. How am I supposed to know what I'm up against when my opponents can not only choose from a plethora of various weapons and abilities, but also literally call down a clear advantage from the air? I'm not against change, but that change must be positive to garner my support. The addition of Equipment in Halo 3 is/was one such change. Had Armor Abilities been placed on-map, rather than given freely at-spawn, then maybe their reception would've been more favorable... My point is, the nature of the recent changes have been making Halo into more of a hybrid between class- and arena-based shooters (I find it to be a disadvantageous mixing of bloods), rather than being the full-on arena shooter that garnered the recognition and admiration of so many people.

Each new game in the original trilogy added new things, all without breaking the core principles of gameplay. As for seeing what systems were popular, the original system was/is popular!! That's the reason the franchise has come as far as it has. Comparatively speaking, the "old" system is more popular than the new one, given the population/player retention of each. Deviation can be either positive or negative, and this deviation has been statistically negative.

What made the original trilogy multiplayer work? In the original trilogy's multiplayer, there were no discrepancies in regard to what players were physically capable of at-spawn. You couldn't choose whether you wanted to specialize in one specific range or another, whether you could fly or see through walls and whatnot, etc. The only things that separated you from those you were playing with were skill and aesthetic customization. Halo Reach broke this equality by implementing Preset Loadouts with various Armor Abilities, as one player would be more innately prepared for a situation than another with no in-game effort to justify such an advantage. Halo 4 then built upon this problematic implementation by allowing further variation from equal starts with Personal Loadouts. Now, not only can you have a different situational advantage than others, but also spawn with different weapons that excel at different ranges/situations AND trade out various base traits. Many forum members have agreed that certain things in Personal Loadouts must go e.g. 'perks', but I don't think that's enough to maintain the equal starts principle that Halo had a successful foundation on. After all, the first game to deviate from this (Reach) only allowed for different AAs in most gametypes and it is widely considered sub-par to its predecessors. If only allowing different weapons proved to be harmful to Halo, how are we to know before its too late? My point is: We know what works when it comes to spawn-in settings. Why must we deviate from it?