A6ENT of CHA0S

If the differences require players to use altered methods to achieve each weapon's most effective usage, then how can players use a combination of two mix-matched DW automatics with success? If you're going with something along the lines of "PR to break shields, then finish off with SMG," then why should you be able to do so without needing to swap between the two? If you're going to fire them simultaneously and effectively, then they really aren't so different in operation after all. Actually, I wasn't suggesting the choice to spawn with the SSMG (although I have thought about it in the past). If its a 6sk, then it is less effective than what you made it out to be earlier. Balancing it to be more useful as a 6sk by increasing RoF would then make akimbo Magnums kill faster than the CE Magnum... Where's the balance in that? As for the "discourages melee" debate, understand that I'm saying DW makes melee less prevalent/effective because DW weapons are used optimally at close-to-extreme close range (around the range that melee combat can occur). Things like longer-ranged weapons and the like don't interrupt this because you wouldn't be likely to zoom such a weapon in melee range. My point was that there would be little incentive to go after the Magnum in your proposed layout, since the N00B combo can be executed without it, but not without the Plasma Pistol. As for the other combos, what's wrong with having a single weapon that is better than another single weapon, while keeping melee and grenades? You assume that I meant the delay should be the same time length as it currently is, which I didn't. I only meant that it should have a delay, while the exact time of such would be determinate on so many other balancing points that I didn't even attempt to give an estimate. Also, the Mauler is only good at extreme close-range, while the Boltshot's projectiles can reach a more reasonable distance. Again, you assume a weapon's current iteration is how it will be in the next. Keep in mind that I did say "a more balanced SAW", by which I meant more spread and/or recoil to compensate for its high damage output.

Also, while it still isn't pertinent to actual gameplay mechanics, I find that the Halo 4 cover was pretty cool, myself.

The balance on that scale is rather one-sided, isn't it? I mean, yeah the BR can hold its own at close-range, but what about the AR at mid-range? It stands very little chance against the precision weapons at anything outside of close-range. Merely giving it less bloom would either make it more effective than the precision weapons at their niche (mid-range) or have the damage-per-shot lessened to maintain the BR's effectiveness at mid-range (making the AR less effective in all situations, including short-range, and therefore making the BR overtake its niche). On the other hand, a combination of less severe bloom and a "headshot bonus" would make the automatics more capable at mid-range, while still maintaining the need for precision at such ranges and keeping the automatics best at close-range. When I use automatic weapons I aim for the center mass(chest) because that is where most of my shots will land. So no I don't agree with this. The weapons as they are now are very nicely balanced. Automatics do good in close range like they're supposed too but a skilled BR player can easily kill any automatic user in close range gun fights(I should know I've done it multiple times) As stated in the OP, I'm not suggesting giving automatics the ability to one-shot-kill an un-shielded target. I'm suggesting that automatics should do a bit more damage when shooting the head, rather than the body. Not only that, but it would also give more depth to AR duels, since it better defines combat as less a matter of "Who shot first/most?" so much as "Who was the better shot?" (similar to precision weapon engagements). You can still aim for body shots and be effective, but landing rounds on the head do a bit more damage (but only when the shields are down).

Weapons like the Assault Rifle are often times looked upon as less skillful weapons when compared to precision weapons like the Battle Rifle or Covenant Carbine, due to the fact you can kill in the same amount of time no matter where your shots land on an enemy when using an AR. My question is: why is that? What if automatic weapons (at least spawn-in automatics like the AR/SR) did more damage to the head than the rest of the body on an un-shielded enemy? Let me clarify on the title. Headshot multiplier, not headshot-capable. They wouldn't be able to 1-shot-kill an un-shielded target with a headshot from an AR, but would be able to kill said target in less time/with fewer rounds if shots land on the head. What do you think? Should this change be implemented? Why or why not?

It may be an awesome cover, just as the Halo Legends CGI episode "The Package" had some epic moments with dual-wielding, but that doesn't make the mechanic good for actual gameplay. I wouldn't mind being able to pick up a set of SMGs (as a singular weapon) in place of a SAW, given that they could both be used by the same trigger and still allow grenades and melee. Its a possible way to allow a bit of that nostalgic feeling without sacrificing gameplay. However, for those that genuinely feel that dual-wielding is a fantastic mechanic that does nothing but add to the game (which I must disagree with), I know that this wouldn't be a good solution in their eyes. They want the option of what weapons are in their hands, to allow for more combinations (the significance of these varying combos is something that I question).

http://www.343industries.org/forum/topic/31916-dual-wielding/

The difference being that it takes different player input to be effective with the BR than it does the Carbine. With the BR, I can only fire every so often, whereas I can fire about as quickly as I can pull the trigger when using a Carbine. That means that when using the BR, I have considerably more time to adjust my aim for the next burst, while I have to maintain more constant aim on my target with the Carbine to have the same level of effectiveness. Its a significant trade-off between damage-per-shot and rate-of-fire, compared to the comparatively minuscule differences between the SMG, PR, and Spiker in these two factors. Whether I'm using the SMG, Plasma Rifle, or Spiker, I basically just have to hold down the trigger and keep aim on target. So... you find a power weapon that can disrupt two starting weapons' niches (AR & BR) simultaneously to be more acceptable than an automatic that could challenge the BR, but only stand a chance against an AR at mid-range? Interesting. A 5sk dual-wieldable Magnum with CE's RoF would mean that dual-wielding it would allow faster kills than with the CE Magnum (since you can inflict more damage in the same time frame and it allows for more forgiveness when missing shots). Attempting to balance this with bloom and the lack of a smart-link scope would mean yet another weapon to trump the AR at close-extreme close range. Notice that with all of the DW weapons, close-quarters engagements become more basic because a standard weapon can't compete with them and using these weapons means all you will be doing is shooting. Considering that melee is only possible at extreme close range, it really is a damaging mechanic to the overall variety of combat. Kill-time is relative to damage-per-shot and rate-of-fire. In exchange for a slower RoF and greater melee power, the Brute Spiker could be balanced by damage-per-shot to be better than the AR at melee-ranged engagements, but not when there is more space between them. That way, there would be more of a difference in how players would use the Spiker from how they use other automatics like the AR. Guardian is an asymmetrical map... It doesn't really have the most defined "bases", so I don't see how that's a good example of what you seem to be trying to say here. I'm aware of the fact that DW weapons are often placed together, hence my questioning of why to include Dual-Wielding if all it offers is either a "Power Weapon" combination like a single N00B Combo placed separately (which isn't very realistic, as the Magnum isn't the only precision weapon; if one player has the PP, then he/she can still utilize the combo, while the Magnum-wielder cannot)... or two DW weapons acting as a single Power Weapon, all while disabling grenades and melee? Your interpretation of what I said could be done is quite different from what I actually said. I said that a (non-DW) Boltshot could single-handedly fulfill the role of the N00B Combo while making it a more skillful tactic, due to a lack of the Plasma Pistol's tracking (increase range of charged shot, but reduce damage), a lack of the Magnum's zoom function (as well as having a smaller reticule), and a delay before being able to subsequently single-fire (cleaning up with a headshot). It becomes more viable than using a BR and PP (being faster to execute and only taking up one weapon slot), but still allows players to use grenades and melee. As for dual-wielding SMGs, aren't we better off just having a more balanced SAW?

I don't want this because designing weapons (3D models, audio, animations, balancing, etc) takes up time and resources that could be used to improve or introduce features that would appear in more than just Custom Games. For me, its too much work for very little benefit (and likely with problems).

The differences between the dual-wield weapons aren't as significant as you're making them seem. You can list the different stats (RoF, exact numerical accuracy/ effective range, damage against shields/health, etc) but when it comes to their application in the sandbox, they are still extremely similar. Whether my enemy has an SMG, PR, or Spiker, it doesn't really change how I engage him/her or how he/she engages me. Even when dual-wielding any combination of these three, you are still going to use them in the same way (hold down both triggers until your enemy is dead). The AR's niche isn't mid-range (that would be the BR/Carbine niche). The BR can beat "shotguns, swords, hammers, and all single wield SMG's" at mid-range more effectively than the AR. The SMG (and counterparts) /Shotgun /Energy Sword /Gravity Hammer can beat the "BR, Carbine, DMR, LR, sniper, beam rifle, and bi-rifle" at close-range more effectively than the AR. In any encounter, the AR's niche is usurped by either mid-range precision weapons or other close-range automatic weapons. The logic I presented didn't state that multiple weapons should share the same niche. Having several weapons fulfill the same combat role doesn't add as much variety as having several weapons that fulfill individual combat roles (IMO of course). At what range? The SSMG would obviously have a greater effective range than the AR, but wouldn't have as high a damage output. Therefore, it doesn't usurp the AR's close-range oriented niche. It provides an alternative weapon for mid-range combat, rather than only having the BR and Carbine (both precision weapons, rather than automatics). And then what of when Magnums were dual-wielded (or a Magnum with another DW weapon)? How do you balance both single-wield and dual-wield as viable options? Let me stop you right there. Where did I say "one-hit-kill melee" in regards to the Spiker (or any Brute firearm for that matter)? You are perceiving changes in melee strength in too great of extents. The Brute weapons in Halo 3 had stronger melee than other firearms, but they weren't 1hk. What I'm saying is this: the AR in Halo 4 currently takes six rounds (minimum of 16 frames) to weaken a player enough to kill them with a melee. The Brute Spiker could take less shots to render an opponent vulnerable to beat-down (without making the Spiker more powerful outside of melee range) through increasing the amount of damage a melee will do when wielding the Spiker. The difference that you aren't accounting for in this example is that dual-wielding is a mechanic, and therefore cannot be placed anywhere on the map. Placing the DW weapons isn't equal to placing Power Weapons because DW weapons are typically placed in more than one location. How do you justify the need to travel to TWO locations to achieve "Power Weapon wielder" status and account for the disabling of melee and grenades to still make this mechanic worth implementing? If two DW weapons are placed together, then its essentially a single Power Weapon that also disables grenades and melee. Rather than implementing this mechanic, why not simply make weapons that can achieve essentially the same results? For example, the Boltshot has the potential to (with changes) become a hybrid Magnum/Plasma Pistol, and therefore become a form of N00B Combo weapon that could take more skill to use... Just a thought.

"Bloated" and "shallow" aren't contradictory in this sense, as there are many weapons that work nearly the same way (like in CoD). There are many weapons that do essentially the same thing at the same range. I'm not arguing that some weapons like the DMR are truly relevant and must remain; I'm arguing that reintroducing dual-wielding and weapons to accommodate the feature wouldn't alleviate the irrelevancy of any weapon, but would instead create more irrelevancies in the sandbox. If dual SMGs could outperform an AR at close-range and the BR could outperform it at mid-range, then it makes the AR itself rather irrelevant (similarly to how the the BR outperforms the DMR at mid-range and the LR outperforms it at long-range). Weapon variety isn't so much about the mechanics of weapons (hitscan/projectile, precision/automatic, etc.) as it is about the niches that those weapons fulfill. The SMG, Plasma Rifle, and Brute Spiker all work differently but have the same niche in combat. As for your concerns of SSMG "domination" over precision rifles, keep in mind that de-scope doesn't disable the ability to fire or headshot capabilities. Also, the SSMG would have either climbing recoil or bloom to discourage laying on the trigger and could be balanced with a lower damage-per-shot. Its just a thought, but I'd prefer this as a pickup over a standard SMG. Another thing: you say that the Boltshot and Scattershot are irrelevant because the Shotgun is more effective at close-range, but isn't that also the case for the SMG in relation to the Shotgun? When using a single Magnum in Halo 3, you were ineffective in combat at any range compared to a player with an AR or BR (unless your adversariy was unskilled or incompetent). Lack of zoom and a painfully slow RoF were deliberate balancing acts to prevent it from being overpowered when dual-wielded. I'm aware the Brute Spiker had a slight melee modifier, hence I said "a noticeably higher melee damage modifier". How would giving Brute weapons more powerful melees damage CQC? Like I already said, the Spiker could have this balanced with a slower RoF and/or lower damage-per-shot. The player may not be forced to dual-wield, but whether or not everyone wants to use the tactic, there will be some that do and that can be problematic (look at Plasma Pistol/Plasma Grenades at-spawn and the N00B combo). Is it fair to players that don't want to dual-wield that they can be gunned down in their weapon's niche without a good fighting chance because someone decided to pick up two SMGs, a Magnum/PP, or SMG/PR? These weapons don't need dual-wielding to appear, and when DW has been present, these weapons have been worse off. I'll ask this question again: Why do you think we should have a selection of weapons that cater to an optional mechanic that makes weapon balancing in general difficult (if not impossible) to do while maintaining usefulness of each weapon? Because it looks and feels cool? Because it makes combinations of weapons easier to utilize?

I never said that we should drastically reduce the weapon sandbox. I said that we shouldn't encourage rather superficial bloating of the weapon arsenal to include a unnecessary feature. That is what I would consider a shallow sandbox. Rather than having a short-range automatic to rival the AR and Shotgun, why not reintroduce the M7S (Suppressed SMG from ODST) as an on-map weapon to rival precision weapons at mid-range while not being more effective than the close-range weapons? Rather than needing to pair the Magnum with a Plasma Pistol/SMG to be effective, why not make it a useful short-range precision weapon map-pickup? Similar to how it has been in Reach/4, the Magnum would need to land an unshielded headshot to be victorious against an AR (maybe with a slower RoF instead of crippling bloom). Rather than making the Brute Spiker an essential SMG/Plasma Rifle counterpart, why not differentiate it with a slower RoF and a noticeably higher melee damage modifier? Adding these kinds of purposed applications/niches to existing weapons probably couldn't be balanced with dual-wielding, but it adds more variety to gunplay without disabling/discouraging grenades or melee.

The problem I had with Sprint in Halo 4 wasn't that I couldn't shoot (that balanced it with a risk/reward factor), but the huge difference in base movement speed and sprinting speed. To encourage its use, 343i made the sprint speed very fast while making the base speed relatively slow, compared to other Halo games (which negatively impacted strafing tactics). Had the base movement speed been on-par (if not a little faster) than Halo 3's and sprint speed was less of an increase (maybe 15%?), then it would be a feature only worth the risk when traversing long distances to get into the action on Big Team maps, etc. Make it where sprint is disabled for a specific amount of time when you are shot, and that removes the problematic running from combat.

If a single SMG can trump an AR or BR on its own, then why do we need dual-wielding to double that effectiveness? Also, that would interfere with the Shotgun/Sword niches because you can't go from mid-range to CQC without going through close-range. It doesn't matter if SMGs are spawned with or not if they aren't supposed to be semi-power weapons. They should still be balanced with the AR and BR, but dual-wielding makes that an intangible goal. It just seems like a weapon that beats the AR at close-range without being a Shotgun and is able to double its effectiveness by acquiring a second one would be either too powerful, rather redundant, and/or clutter the sandbox. Its true the AR's window of effective opportunity was slim in CE, but that's obviously due to the Magnum's OP nature in that game. Imagine dual-wielding an SMG (powerful short-ranged weapon) and a Magnum (decent mid-short ranged precision weapon). How do I stop you if I spawned with an AR? You made a combo that trumps my spawning weapon at any range, all without picking up a power weapon or needing to swap between the weapons in this combo. I actually like this idea. Weapons that don't work in loadouts can remain unique and spawn on the map, and weapons that do work can be customized by the player in a way that doesn't change its function. Well done. Thank you.

Notice I said "on-map with limited usage". I'm not saying that AAs should completely revert to Equipment, as that would indeed make some much less effective. However, if each AA can have an individual number of uses, then we could see a return of old favorites (Bubble Shield, Trip Mine) with only one use, as well as newer additions (Hologram, Evade/Thruster Pack) with multiple but not infinite/rechargeable uses. True, but the noob combo can be executed at longer-than-melee (CQC) range. That is a big factor. What I'm saying is that I don't think we should be offered the choice to purposely break the Golden Triangle and get benefits for doing so. Trying to balance such a feature with detriments and advantages to actively discourage the proper use of the Triangle when you are fully equipped to utilize it to the fullest... it doesn't appeal to me. Of course that's my opinion. Before you (or anyone else who joins the conversation) points out that vehicles upset the Golden Triangle, let's be clear. The metaphorical Golden Triangle is actually part of a much larger picture in Halo's gameplay.... a Sierpinski, if you will. Vehicles are simply in a different category of combat/gameplay. You're right, but "Arena shooter" is a broad term and many of them go by different rules. For instance, in Halo you can only carry two weapons (three with dual-wielding), whereas in some Arena shooters, you can carry however many you can get your hands on. Does that mean that Halo should allow players to carry an AR, BR, DMR, Rocket Launcher. Sniper Rifle, and Shotgun just because another Arena shooter allows this? Unreal Tournament allows players to "akimbo" two of the same starting weapon (the Enforcer, if memory serves), but does that mean that Halo should allow this? I don't think so (and as far as spawning with DW weapons goes, I suppose you don't either). Also, in UT when you akimbo the pistols, there is no detriment. No accuracy drop, no handicaps to other base abilities. The akimbo pistols then function as one more powerful weapon. Food for thought. That seems to be a very small window for the AR to be effective. If the sandbox wouldn't really be missing the AR if it were removed, I don't think it is worth having in that "balanced" implementation. If a single SMG can take out an AR-user at close-range, then there are two problems I see: How do you balance the SMG's superior damage to make it ineffective at mid-range? Gratuitous recoil? Short-controlled bursts would more than likely make it outperform the AR then too. Make the AR more accurate/reduce bloom? To keep it from outperforming the BR, the AR's damage output would be lackluster in comparison to both SMG and BR. It would likely become a sub-par weapon. How do you balance that kind of effectiveness with the concept of dual-wielding? If a single SMG outperforms the AR at close-range, then two would monopolize melee range and short range, wouldn't it? That misplaces the Shotgun's niche as well, and would make melee a worthless thing to maintain over dual-wielding. Dual-wielding would no longer be optional; it would be a matter of using the tactic to have a fighting chance at anything closer than mid-range. "Options" in a menu/settings screen don't outshine the actual gameplay. Halo 4's options in loadouts weren't well-received or beneficial to gameplay, because they chose to have more "variety" than balance. For those that like to indulge in "options" at-spawn, allow more aesthetic weapon skins. Perhaps take it a step further than in Halo 4, with the visual option between different variants of weapons (the Reach-era AR and the current AR, for instance) and have a wider selection of weapon skins. They could even have skins that allow color selection like how armor is done. I thought you said the SMG should be viable in singularity. You said that the SMG should be balanced to trump the AR at point-blank to close-range. What happened to that notion?

Some additions don't need to be repeated, regardless of whether or not some people enjoy that feature. Personal ordnance is a prime example of this. AAs aren't exactly new, as they are the "evolution" of H3's Equipment, and they worked better as on-map equipment with limited usage. Sprint has arguably been an innate factor of movement in previous games, as the player could be considered "always sprinting" through a faster movement speed. Dual-wielding has been a standard in the two-weapon carrying capacity limit. The changes in format to these features have caused problems: Spawning with AAs caused imbalance at-spawn (with some AAs having their own personal issues with implementation). Sprint has caused maps to include longer hallways/lines-of-sight (making close-ranged weapons more difficult to use effectively) and allowed players to run from combat with greater ease. I do believe sprint can be salvaged, but I'm not sure that it's necessary to do so when the previous movement system wasn't problematic. Dual-wielding has allowed some combos to be too accessible/easy to execute (N00B combo), undermined points of the Golden Triangle, and influenced weapon design/balance to accommodate it with weapons that must be used "akimbo" to be more useful than spawning weapons (not the best idea for an Arena shooter). I never said that the shield/health trade-off was pointless, only that the Plasma Rifle once had many more differences that made it unique. In CE, the PR wasn't mean't to be an AR re-skin. You listed the SMG's niche as "CQC-close", the AR's as "close-mid", and the BR's as "mid-long"... Realize that CQC stands for "Close-Quarters Combat". In Halo, there is very little a distinction between the ranges that you call "CQC" (point-blank?) and "close". Moving on, the SMG would need to have better effective range than the Shotgun's. That means that the SMG would excel in close-range. The BR obviously excels at mid-range. What does that leave the AR? To be inferior to another weapon in both close- and mid-range? If you have the potential choice between two precision rifles and two automatic rifles at spawn, how is that choice pointless? It allows slight variation in players' playstyles without causing imbalance. Combine that with weapon skins, and you have BOTH balance AND personal preference (of weapon function and appearance) catered to. Lastly, my scenario was that I have an AR or a single SMG (second weapon is a Magnum, which is also relatively ineffective to balnace it with dual-wielding). In the time it takes to get within melee range, swap to my Magnum, melee him/her, and land a headshot with the Magnum, don't you think dual SMGs would've taken me down simply by holding down the trigger? As for fragging around the corner, you're under the assumption that I have grenades, which isn't always going to be the case (previous battles, etc.). The point is that by not dual-wielding, I've been put at a disadvantage because I either don't want to dual-wield (sacrificing my grenades/melee) or I don't have access to two DW weapons. If melee-headshot was such a possible solution to prevent this player from overwhelming me, then what would be the point of being able to dual-wield? I mean... if I take him out at close-range with a single Magnum while he's firing two SMGs at me, something is wrong/ineffective about the mechanic. If this happens, then what is the justification in allowing the option of dual-wielding? Dual-wielding would reward players for killing one enemy by giving them access to a second DW weapon, thus giving him/her superior firepower to what the fallen player will likely have in their next encounter, all without needing to be in a specific spot to control a power-weapon spawn.

It doesn't matter if people enjoyed a feature so much as it matters whether or not the feature worked to better the gameplay. Sprinting and AAs at-starts may have been enjoyable to some, but they didn't really make the gameplay any better (for the kind of gameplay Halo is known for anyways). They actually brought problems like inequality at-spawn and "bloated" maps. Likewise, Dual-Wielding didn't really make the gameplay any better. The things it offered were already available in one form or another ("primary" weapons and being able to carry two weapons at any time). It became detrimental in that weapons were made less effective to be able to use the feature, but I've already said this... You had said that "[you] fire in bursts at longer ranges, and go full auto when [you] close the gap, all while managing the gun's recoil." What you are saying here seems to be how players deal with a BR-user when using an AR. In the context of the AR alone, the SMG would make more sense, but we already have a weapon (two actually) that is designed for mid-range combat. Having the SMG as something to overpower the AR at close-range and the BR to overpower it at mid-range leaves the AR without a definitive niche. Combine that with the SMG's dual-wielding capabilities, and the AR has practically no place in the sandbox. Also, when you were talking about how dual-wielding was an optional tactic that you wouldn't be punished for by not using, think about this. If I have an AR/single SMG and am sticking to close-quarters (to remain in my weapon's niche) and I come across an enemy with dual SMGs, aren't I punished for not dual-wielding? Sure, my enemy can't melee or throw grenades, but they can't do that while sprinting or using some AAs, either. Doesn't make it less of an advantage. It only makes gameplay simpler because all he can really do to me is shoot, and that just becomes dull (however effective). The Carbine has been balanced as the Covenant counterpart to the BR since Halo 2. Balancing it as something else would give it a new identity and probably wouldn't be well-received by those who prefer the Carbine over the BR (same goes for removing Covenant weapons from loadouts). The Storm Rifle performs the same combat role as the AR (and with marginally equal effectiveness), yet does so with different weapon mechanics (you said that the shields/health damage trade-off between the SMG and Plasma Rifle was sufficient in differentiating them; the same treatment could be done in Halo 5 between the AR and SR). There's nothing wrong with that, in my opinion. The tired and true "BR/AR starts" didn't exist until Halo 3. It was never about the weapons themselves. It was about having an effective mid-range precision weapon (CE Magnum/BR/Carbine) AND an effective short-range automatic weapon (AR/SR). No problems arise when a player with BR/AR fights a player with Carbine/Storm Rifle, because they each have weapons that are equally effective at their niche ranges. When players have only one of those two and a less effective secondary (H4 Magnum), then the game becomes almost class-based in that players aren't equipped with weapons that are equally effective in the same scenarios.

The point of choosing your weapon is to allow players the option of their preferred starting weapons (provided they are properly balanced with one another) and to add a sense of variety without disrupting the "Equal Starts" principle that the original trilogy's multiplayer maintained throughout its longevity. "Equal" may not necessarily mean "identical", but the BR is not equal to the AR. They each have a specific niche in gameplay, with one trumping the other based on the encounter's range, rather than skill their respective users have. When dealing with standard/ spawn-in weapons, the game goes (or at least is supposed to go) "Two men enter. The better man leaves, while the other man is respawning." rather than "Two men enter. The man with the better weapon for the situation leaves, while the other man is respawning." What do you mean "I'm not sure how matches would tend to play out"? You should be able to recall your experiences in previous games and maybe even Legendary Slayer BR's in Halo 4. In my experiences, the concerns that you express here aren't present. If you merely chose a different weapon in a menu selection, did you really deserve to have that advantage over him/her in that situation? How would allowing both a BR and AR make players more prone to run-and-gun with ARs? Wouldn't that be less common because players would be more effective at range? Likewise, having both makes mid-long ranged encounters no more common than when you can only spawn with one. When you only spawn with a BR, you are discouraged from getting closer (in turn, you will remain engaged in "long-range play"). When you also have an AR, you know that you aren't ill-equipped for that kind of encounter, and so will venture into different situations. Limiting players to one niche weapon doesn't encourage variety of combat, but rather makes it simpler. It gives the mindset of "Okay, so I have a BR. I shouldn't try to get into close-ranged encounters because someone else may have spawned with a better weapon for that scenario." and that limits what players will do. Variety of weapon choices means virtually nothing if it leads to more monotonous "rock-paper-scissors" spawning and a lack of variety in combat.

I get the "no perks" mindset, but what's wrong with precision weapons at-spawn? In Halo CE, we spawned with a powerful precision weapon (Magnum) and an AR; in Halo 3, we often spawned with both a BR and an AR, Reach's preset loadouts sometimes offered DMR and AR (Recon class), and Halo 4 allows BR/AR (works fine in Legendary Slayer BR's). If anything, limiting players to being EITHER more effective in close-range/less effective at mid-range OR more effective at mid-range/less effective in close-range made Halo 4's loadout system less balanced. It wasn't equal opportunity for players at-spawn, because you could round a corner and wind up in the wrong situation for your selected primary, even if your opponent did nothing differently than you besides picking a BR over an AR, for instance. Allowing both a precision primary and an automatic primary solved this problem in previous games before it even surfaced.

Are you saying that, because most people say they want something and/or I'm in the minority, that that something is really best for gameplay and/or I shouldn't even voice my opinion on the matter? Just because the majority of a population thinks a conceptual feature is "cool" or "fun" doesn't make it any better or worse in applied reality. Likewise, having the minority beliefs doesn't make me wrong or right (look at Galileo and his "heliocentric debate" with the Church). Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself in a few comments: in one comment, you said that "the AR beats the SMG at mid range, since the AR has tighter spread while the SMG's spread as well as its recoil limit it to its specified niche", while you later said "Single wielding duel wieldable weapons are only "sub-par" if you're absolutely clueless on how to use them. I could pick up a single SMG and kill an AR user. Why? Because I fire in bursts at longer ranges, and go full auto when I close the gap, all while managing the gun's recoil." You also said that dual-wieldable weapons wouldn't be available at-spawn, but that's assuming a lot (considering the Magnum is fairly standard in Personal Loadouts at the moment and if the SMG were re-introduced, it would likely be placed in loadouts as a Secondary).

Discussion between another Halo Waypoint user and myself: Shooting Sammy- "hey I like personal ordnance, I think it gives players strong incentive to play hard and get lots of kills and assists and do cool tricks like Reload this! and the like. plus it is fun to drop down a good weapon, I mean who doesn't get excited when they hear "ordnance ready!" its part of what makes halo so fun." GH0ST of MA1NE (me)- "Winning and enjoying the gameplay itself is all the incentive one should need to "play hard". Besides, you don't really have to play very well to get ordnance, as it doesn't reset after you die. It is more of a near-eventuality. It is more fun to earn a good weapon by getting to it before someone else does or by killing the now-previous wielder of said weapon. There's little effort in pressing a button and having a weapon/powerup, or grenades literally DROPPED AT YOUR FEET and that effort is part of what makes getting the weapon fun. It's not all about using it once you've got it. It's also about the struggle for acquisition. Another thing: having a random weapon dropped to you because you landed a shot on an enemy (Assist), got shot at by an enemy (Distraction), or happened to kill an enemy while he/she was reloading (Reload This) aren't "cool tricks". They are simply you existing in the game. You can literally get medals/points even when just standing at your spawn point and doing nothing. Getting something for a whole lot of nothing is a bad feature to include, especially when the "something" you get is a weapon that you can easily use to rack up a few kills e.g. Incineration Cannon. The random aspect of Personal Ordnance brings it even deeper into the pit of irredeemability, as it doesn't consistently reward based on performance. I could go on and on about this feature's problems, but I'm certain others will aid in doing that."

How are those features different? If everyone has the capacity to use the feature, but it is used/ activated by the player by choice, then its not mandatory. There are advantages and disadvantages to both dual-wielding and sprinting, and you never have to use either. Armor Abilities at-spawn are a bad thing IMO, as they give very different abilities to players instantly and with no additional effort to acquire them, However, that's a discussion for another thread.... I could go on in this discussion about dual-wielding's effect on weapon design and balance, but I feel you don't quite grasp the concept in the same way as I do. You say that the CE Plasma Rifle's stun effect was "neither impressive nor balanced" without giving any reasons other than that it "reduces the victim's ability to strafe", and simply jumped the gun saying that that has a negative impact on gameplay. In reality, it gives the weapon a unique aspect that doesn't make it where an enemy can't return fire, and so can very well be balanced with appropriate damage-per-shot. It makes the Plasma Rifle more than an AR/SMG reskin that has very little difference in the way it is used and affects its "victims". I'm not saying that this function should go to a weapon that's available at-spawn, but that doesn't mean it cannot be applied to an on-map weapon to distinguish it from starting weapons like the AR and give incentive to use it, without sacrificing other base abilities and including inferior duplicates of existing weapons. You also seem to have misunderstood what I meant when I mentioned the CE Plasma Rifle's "headshot multiplier". It doesn't mean that it was capable of one-hit-kills on unshielded opponents. It means that, when the plasma projectiles impact on the "head" of the unshielded player's hitbox (as opposed to the "body"), it inflicted more damage-per-shot.

Alright. The reason this discussion isn't on the inclusion of sprint or armor abilities is because the thread is titled "Dual Wielding". Don't go off trying to change the subject. Secondly, the use of dual-wielding isn't a fair trade off. It is an approximately 50% increase in damage output that also disables grenades and discourages/slows down melee. The Mauler may have seemed more or less the same, but keep in mind that ODST didn't balance weapons for PvP gameplay. Instead, the game featured Firefight co-op and the complete Halo 3 multiplayer. The Mauler wasn't the most effective weapon against Brutes when you could dual-wield them in Halo 3. It still took more than two shots to kill them (unless you were playing on a low difficulty). I'm not saying that dual-wielding is over-powered in every instance (regarding your N00B combo situation). I'm saying that it upsets the balance that Halo gameplay is based on and that it has adverse effects on weapon design and functionality. Consider your hypothetical 1v2 situation where you have DW'ed a Magnum and Plasma Pistol. Now, imagine that you also have a Shotgun on your back... That very real possibility is problematic, isn't it (even if the Shotgun only had one round left) for the two teammates trying to work together. You can't really say that Bungie removed some weapons to make the game play more like CE, then mention the Brute Spiker that didn't appear until Halo 3. Its true that the weapons (or at least their iterations from DW-enabled Halo 2-3) weren't quite fit for CE-styled gameplay. However, the Plasma Rifle was in Halo CE, but with much more character (as previously stated). Making the Plasma Rifle dual-wieldable in Halo 2 did nothing to make it its own weapon. It stripped it of its stun effect and headshot multiplier that differentiated it from the AR and SMG.

Please note that in every instance of dual-wieldable weapons, you stated that they essentially had to be dual-wielded to be on-par/effective against standard weapons. The differences between the Plasma Rifle and SMG in H2/H3 were miniscule in comparison to when they were "single-wieldable". In CE, the Plasma Rifle had a 'stun' effect through continuous fire and a "headshot multiplier", whereas the Assault Rifle (which functioned nearly identically to the SMG in terms of RoF, magazine size, and accuracy... or a lack of accuracy). The CE AR and SMG even have the same reticule. Do you think the Mauler would've been any less unique had it been single-wielded? If it was meant to be an effective short-ranged sidearm (and not a full-fledged Shotgun), it could have still taken two shots/one shot and a melee to kill. The Boltshot is only "unique" in that it has a charge-up time, which it took from the Plasma Pistol, and retained the effectiveness of a Shotgun... Not the best addition. Sure dual-wielding made combos more effective/easy to execute, but there needs to be a limit to how easy or effective a tactic can be utilized. Allowing the N00B combo without needing to swap weapons is a great example, and a potential reason for why the Magnum (the only headshot-capable dual-wield in Halo 2 and 3) needed to be made relatively ineffective. I stand by this notion: A weapon sandbox like Halo's should include a varied assortment of weapons that each fulfill their intended roles effectively and interestingly, rather than include sub-par weapons that must be "combined" with another to stand a good chance at taking out another weapon with a similar role. It should also avoid implementing tactics that disable/discourage two of the three points of Halo's 'Golden Triangle'... and that's exactly what dual-wielding is designed to do. Make penalties for melee-ing and grenade-ing while including inferior weapons that are only really effective when used in tandem. You don't believe me? Ask Bungie. Bungie realized this after Halo 2's release and even stated that that was a primary reason for introducing a new Assault Rifle in one of their Halo 3 vidocs. Here's a link (skip to about 4:00):

Or, they could reintroduce the SMG and Brute Spiker in a way that they are both a viable weapon choice on their own (as opposed to being balanced as half a weapon to cater to a secondary feature like DW). Imagine picking up a scoped SMG (like in ODST), or a Brute Spiker with a more significant melee modifier (H3's Brute weapons only did slightly more melee damage). "Nerfing" weapons in such a way that limits what can differentiate them makes the majority of DW weapons only slightly different. For instance, look at the H3/Reach Magnum. To balance the Magnum's DW capability, it was given a slow firing rate, mag size, and lacked a smart-link scope. Then compare to Reach's Magnum. It had a high RoF, a smart-link scope, and retained the mag size (due to being the same model). Another example is the difference between the M6C (from Halo 2) and the SMG from their "suppressed" variants in Halo 3: ODST. You can really see through these changes that dual-wielding limited the variety and effectiveness of individual weapons. As for any combinations that dual-wielding offered, were they not possible before (as we've always been able to carry two weapons)? The fact of the matter is: while its possible to balance the feature, there's no real positive outcome to warrant the time/effort/resources to make it happen. It actually has adverse effects on weapon design/balance and the amount of weapons a player can carry at one time (N00B Combo and a Sniper Rifle, for example).

Dual-wielding (although cool and flashy) didn't do anything really productive. It limited weapons that were capable of the feature to be sub-par unless they were dual-wielded. Any perceived advantageous combos used through dual-wielding has always been possible solely through Halo's signature "two weapon" system. Bungie realized this after Halo 2's release and gradually 'weened' the Halo community from it by reintroducing the AR in Halo 3, and not including it in Reach.