Dual Wielding

[xfuzz monkeyx]

We all know what I'm talking about. Dual wielding. Anybody else miss running around with an smg and a pistol dropping shields then finishing them with a head shot?  I know I do. I really think Halo 5 could make something special with sprinting and dual wield together in perfect harmony. Now before you go on a call of duty rant, hear me out. Halo made dual wielding awesome. They can really balance it out and make certain things cancel it out. For instance, a guy side straddling with a dmr can outshoot a guy spraying with two smgs. Though a guy sprinting towards a guy with a sniper then closing in while mowing him down with two plasma rifles could really be something fun. It would bring a sort of strategy to the play style. To each their own right? Forgot a dual wield class, I mean you start with an assault rifle and a pistol and you find weapons in the map. Mix up the random ordinance thing. Power weapons spawn in the same area all the time for a good struggle but smaller weapons spawn randomly without you knowing in different areas. Oh hey! Needlers!? I'll take one... better make that two. I think that would bring the fun back. Thoughts anybody? 

[BeckoningZebra1]

I think dual wielding was fun in Halo 3. I think if dual wielding returns it needs to be like H3 rather than H2.

 

I also think that when dual wielding your weapon should not be able to hold as much ammo as normal, not saying it has to be a big difference but just enough to stay balanced.

[haloman 2]

I think dual wielding was fun in Halo 3. I think if dual wielding returns it needs to be like H3 rather than H2.

 

I also think that when dual wielding your weapon should not be able to hold as much ammo as normal, not saying it has to be a big difference but just enough to stay balanced.

agreed. id like it like halo 3. also i think it should be an armor perk like halo 4 has. because id like it to return but not like it was in halo 3. it could be OP sometimes. so i also like it having less ammo. i love the idea

[Kazadure]

agreed but like Halo 3 duel wielding it was fun and i basically only duel wield But no duel wielding needlers it was removed for a reason it was too OP

[haloman 2]

agreed but like Halo 3 duel wielding it was fun and i basically only duel wield But no duel wielding needlers it was removed for a reason it was too OP

but i loved dualwielding needlers!!!!!!!!!!

lol jk. i do love dual wielding them but i do agree that they were SO OP to dual wield in halo 2

[upton889]

Definitely bring dual-wielding back. Dual-wielding added an element to the games that gave players an opportunity to be creative.

[Ranger Intel]

I think they removed dual wielding from Halo 4 because of loadouts. They thought everyone would become more overpowered. I remember reading this somewhere a long time ago. I hope it returns to Halo 5, It was so fun in Halo 2 and 3. Especially the dual wield SMG's in Halo 2 campaign. I'm not sure why it wasn't in Halo Reach though.

[xPNUTx]

I miss duel-wielding Needlers :/

[Benchimus]

Dual wielding was a gimmick, nothing more. Good weapon balance makes it pointless. For example, the needler in Halo 2. It was garbage. It wasnt that you could use 2 at once, it was that you HAD to use 2 at once to kill anyone. Reach fixed this by making the needler a much more useful weapon. It could reliable kill somebody at close to medium range without needing 2 of them. Same goes for the magnum. Dual wielding was a lame attempt to spice things up and get a few "wow, thats cool!" out of players, nothing more.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Dual wielding was a gimmick, nothing more. Good weapon balance makes it pointless. For example, the needler in Halo 2. It was garbage. It wasnt that you could use 2 at once, it was that you HAD to use 2 at once to kill anyone. Reach fixed this by making the needler a much more useful weapon. It could reliable kill somebody at close to medium range without needing 2 of them. Same goes for the magnum. Dual wielding was a lame attempt to spice things up and get a few "wow, thats cool!" out of players, nothing more.

As the implementation of dual-wielding was in past games, yes. However, that can be changed. What if there was a downside to dual-wielding (not simply the delay on grenade throws)?

 

For instance, the M6H (Magnum) is a useful sidearm in Halo 4, yes? Not over- or under-powered into a submissive role or labeled "useless". What if when dual-wielding the Magnum, the bloom was more prevalent as both weapons were being fired? SMG could similarly implement an increase in climbing recoil. Overall, the aiming reticule could be enlarged (making weapons less accurate in exchange for more firepower).

 

Another point to be made is that (at least in Halo 3) damage output didn't stack when dual-wielding as you might think. Rather than gaining an extra 100% from carrying a second SMG, each SMG would decrease in damage by about 25% (meaning an approximately 50% increase when fired simultaneously when compared to firing a single, non-dual-wielded SMG).

[Dark Septagon]

I doubt dual wielding will make a comeback in Halo 5

[Ranger Intel]

I doubt dual wielding will make a comeback in Halo 5

 

Why not? You're probably right, but they can find a way to fit it in whilst still keeping it balanced.

[Benchimus]

As the implementation of dual-wielding was in past games, yes. However, that can be changed. What if there was a downside to dual-wielding (not simply the delay on grenade throws)?

 

For instance, the M6H (Magnum) is a useful sidearm in Halo 4, yes? Not over- or under-powered into a submissive role or labeled "useless". What if when dual-wielding the Magnum, the bloom was more prevalent as both weapons were being fired? SMG could similarly implement an increase in climbing recoil. Overall, the aiming reticule could be enlarged (making weapons less accurate in exchange for more firepower).

 

Another point to be made is that (at least in Halo 3) damage output didn't stack when dual-wielding as you might think. Rather than gaining an extra 100% from carrying a second SMG, each SMG would decrease in damage by about 25% (meaning an approximately 50% increase when fired simultaneously when compared to firing a single, non-dual-wielded SMG).

Yea I was aware of the lack of damage stacking when dual wielding and agree that something along the lines of what you said could be implemented, I just dont think its necessary. Also I preferred Reach's pistol to 4s.

[BrandNewClassic]

I definitely want to see a return to dual wielding in Halo 5. 

In Halo 3, I liked how whatever two weapons you mixed together, it made their crosshairs mix too. That was awesome. I loved using the SMG with the Spiker in Halo 3.

What I really want 343 to do, is dual swords... that would be amazing!  

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

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.

[Benchimus]

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.

Bingo-bango. It was for the "oohs" and "aahs!". The novelty of dual wielding and nothing more.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I definitely want to see a return to dual wielding in Halo 5. 

In Halo 3, I liked how whatever two weapons you mixed together, it made their crosshairs mix too. That was awesome. I loved using the SMG with the Spiker in Halo 3.

What I really want 343 to do, is dual swords... that would be amazing!  

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).

[SilentGamer64]

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.

 

Duel wields were actually quite unique from each other. The plasma rifle was better at taking down shields, and less effective on health. The SMG was the opposite, being less effective on shields, but more effective on health. Duel wield the two, and you get a very effective combo that can be damaging to both shields and health. The spiker in Halo 3 was like a mix of the SMG and PR in that it could take down shields and health very effectively on its own. It was also a good all-around weapon to duel wield with another SMG or PR.\

 

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.

Reach's magnum's ROF was borderline spammable. That's why when it was brought back in Halo 4, they nerfed it from a 5sk to a 6sk. I'm not saying Halo 3's magnum was justified having as slow a ROF as it did, but if the pistol had a ROF somewhere in the middle, like the ROF of CE's pistol, the pistol could definitely be a much more viable duel wield option. The reason the pistol had no scope was because the BR replaced its role as a mid-range weapon back in Halo 2. The scoped pistol's return in Reach is justified since there was no BR to fill the mid-range niche.

 

The suppressed pistol in ODST was trash. It was completely useless against shielded/armored targets, and was basically a cannon-fodder weapon. The Halo 2 pistol was equally as useless, but at least its ability to be duel wielded allowed it to kill a shielded enemy before reloading. :/

 

In addition to what I posted above, duel wielding doesn't really limit the weapon variety like you claim. The Mauler is another good example. Single wielded, it's a 2sk. But duel wield two of them, and it becomes as lethal as a shotgun. Its also a good cleanup weapon if you're duel wielding it with a full auto weapon and close the gap. IMO, Halo 4's boltshot should take a page or two from the Mauler.

 

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).

 

Having combinations simultaneously rather than having to switch weapons out makes it all the more effective. A lot of people claimed it was too OP in Halo 2, so Bungie nerfed it in Halo 3. Then people claimed it was too underpowered in Halo 3. That doesn't mean the concept should be trashed. Look at the pistol. In CE, it was too OP. In Halo 2, it was too UP. In Halo 3, it was still rather UP, but it was still an improvement from Halo 2. And yes, I understand the noob combo is something that is looked down upon, but when you think about it, its really only effective in 1 v 1 situations. And unless your plasma pistol can magically fire two overcharges at once, the noob combo user is going to have a rough time against two or more enemies.

 

Halo 4 should have made it clear by now that we shouldnt be removing things, but adding on to what is already established. And duel wielding is a part of Halo that has already been established. Look at COD, it copied off of Halo by adopting "Akimbo" in MW2. Even now as we speak, COD Ghosts still offers the ability to duel wield. Go figure, COD actually copied something Halo did before it. Now it seems like the opposite is true.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

Duel wields were actually quite unique from each other. The plasma rifle was better at taking down shields, and less effective on health. The SMG was the opposite, being less effective on shields, but more effective on health. Duel wield the two, and you get a very effective combo that can be damaging to both shields and health. The spiker in Halo 3 was like a mix of the SMG and PR in that it could take down shields and health very effectively on its own. It was also a good all-around weapon to duel wield with another SMG or PR.\

Reach's magnum's ROF was borderline spammable. That's why when it was brought back in Halo 4, they nerfed it from a 5sk to a 6sk. I'm not saying Halo 3's magnum was justified having as slow a ROF as it did, but if the pistol had a ROF somewhere in the middle, like the ROF of CE's pistol, the pistol could definitely be a much more viable duel wield option. The reason the pistol had no scope was because the BR replaced its role as a mid-range weapon back in Halo 2. The scoped pistol's return in Reach is justified since there was no BR to fill the mid-range niche.

 

The suppressed pistol in ODST was trash. It was completely useless against shielded/armored targets, and was basically a cannon-fodder weapon. The Halo 2 pistol was equally as useless, but at least its ability to be duel wielded allowed it to kill a shielded enemy before reloading. :/

 

In addition to what I posted above, duel wielding doesn't really limit the weapon variety like you claim. The Mauler is another good example. Single wielded, it's a 2sk. But duel wield two of them, and it becomes as lethal as a shotgun. Its also a good cleanup weapon if you're duel wielding it with a full auto weapon and close the gap. IMO, Halo 4's boltshot should take a page or two from the Mauler.

 

 

Having combinations simultaneously rather than having to switch weapons out makes it all the more effective. A lot of people claimed it was too OP in Halo 2, so Bungie nerfed it in Halo 3. Then people claimed it was too underpowered in Halo 3. That doesn't mean the concept should be trashed. Look at the pistol. In CE, it was too OP. In Halo 2, it was too UP. In Halo 3, it was still rather UP, but it was still an improvement from Halo 2. And yes, I understand the noob combo is something that is looked down upon, but when you think about it, its really only effective in 1 v 1 situations. And unless your plasma pistol can magically fire two overcharges at once, the noob combo user is going to have a rough time against two or more enemies.

 

Halo 4 should have made it clear by now that we shouldnt be removing things, but adding on to what is already established. And duel wielding is a part of Halo that has already been established. Look at COD, it copied off of Halo by adopting "Akimbo" in MW2. Even now as we speak, COD Ghosts still offers the ability to duel wield. Go figure, COD actually copied something Halo did before it. Now it seems like the opposite is true.

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): 

[SilentGamer64]

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.

 

By standard weapons, are you referring to weapons like the AR and BR? If so, then yes, duel wielding weapons makes them on par with those weapons at mid range, but they are far more superior than those weapons when used in their close range niches. A weapon like the SMG beats the AR up close due to the fact that it has a higher ROF and a larger mag. But 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.

 

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.

 

It was less unique when single wielded in ODST, even when most duel wield weapons received buffs to compensate for the lack of duel wielding. Sure, you could kill grunts with it with a single shot, but duel wielding would have definitely come in handy against those brutes. I honestly don't care for the boltshot either, but its new to the franchise and its a gun that 343i made themselves, so I expect it will return.

 

 

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):

 

As mentioned before, the noob combo is useless outside of 1v1 situations. If I have my PP/magnum combo charged and ready, and I come across two enemies at the same time, sure, I'll get one, but the other guy is going to kill me for sure. Like any other weapon(s), the only way to make the noob combo effective, or duel wielding in general for that matter, is knowing the appropriate time to use it.

 

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. And I use similar tactics on BR users when I have the AR, and Snipers when I have the BR.

 

Interesting that you would bring up the golden triangle. Of course duel wielding will affect your ability to throw grenades and (while not by much) the time it takes to melee. But guess what happened to the third part of the triangle? Guns are now twice as damaging. Its a fair tradeoff. In the Halo 3 video, Bungie reintroduced the AR so that you never start off with SMG's (unless playing duels). They basically made it so that now whether you're duel wielding or not is a conscious decision made by the player to trade the ability to grenade and melee slightly faster for double the firepower. If you don't want to duel wield, then simply don't seek out those weapons.

 

And if you skip to 5:00 in the video, a Bungie member talks about how the way the different kinds of weapons that you get to use are balanced to make the maps play right. He isn't talking about the AR and BR, he's talking about ALL the weapons in the sandbox, including duel wields.

 

I know you're probably thinking that the AR phased duel wielding out in Reach, but Reach didn't include duel wielding simply because Bungie wanted to make Reach feel more like CE. Weapons like the Spiker, Plasma Rifle, and AR all suffered as a result, since the modern sandbox that Halo 3 brought about was not designed around the kind of gameplay that Reach tried to recreate from CE.

 

I find it a bit sad that you are trying to prevent an optional feature like duel wielding from returning, while Halo 4's elephant in the room (Sprint) is getting away with being mandatory. And while AA's are optional, the fact that they are always available at spawn means you are putting yourself at a disadvantage if you're not using them, something duel wielding doesn't do. If fans of AA's and Sprint can get their cake and eat it too, why don't you want fans of duel wielding to have their own?

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

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.

[SilentGamer64]

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.

 

I wasn't planning on going off topic, but I was just using it as another good example of features that are pretty much mandatory, whereas duel wielding is (as of Halo 3) up to the player's discretion. So long as you spawn with standard weapons, no one is forcing the player to duel wield.

 

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.

 

And again, its up to the player's discretion whether or not they want to sacrifice grenades and a slightly faster melee for an increased damage output. And that damage output doesn't have to be 50%, it can be changed to however effective it needs to be to be a balanced tradeoff.

 

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).

 

Nonetheless, the Mauler was still more effective duel wielded than single wielded, which is what duel wielding is supposed to accomplish. Another thing to note is that you don't spawn with Maulers, you have to find them on the map. These are the kind of things the boltshot should be taking away from the Mauler in order for it to be a more unique and balanced weapon that isn't just another shotgun reskin.

 

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.

 

Is that scenario any different than having a sniper rifle out with a Shotgun on your back? In fact, having that combo is much more likely than the noob combo with a shotgun, since the noob combo requires you to find the PP, the pistol (assuming you haven't spawned with one) and the shotgun on the map. Also take into account the slight delay it takes to switch weapons when duel wielding since you must first drop your duel wielded weapon. Your scenario ultimately falls flat since if the second player is competent enough, he/she will back off out of duel wielding's close range niche and finish the noob combo user off.

 

 

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.

 

Except to an extent they did, and they altered other weapons for Reach to feel more like CE as well (Larger AR reticule, scoped pistol, stronger PP, more range on the shotgun, ridiculous splash damage on grenades, etc). But they were building it off of Halo 3's sandbox, which included weapons like the Spiker and Plasma Rifle. Reach's plasma rifle didn't have that "stun" effect or headshot bonus like it did in CE for the same reason, it used Halo 3's already established sandbox to try and recreate CE's gameplay.

 

You also have to realize that CE only had two actual headshot capable weapons, the pistol and sniper. In Halo 2, we had the BR, Carbine, Sniper, Beam Rifle, and pistol. The same goes for Halo 3 and (to a lesser extent) Reach. Having even more headshot capable weapons would be rather redundant, and IMO Halo 4's sandbox is already littered with redundant headshot capable weapons, partially due to the need for more "standardized" weapons to act as fillers for the concept of loadouts.

 

As for the stun effect, it is neither impressive nor balanced, and ultimately reduces the victim's ability to strafe, which overall has a negative impact on gameplay. Duel wielding is not the reason Bungie took the PR's stun effect out, it was just an unbalanced feature.

[A6ENT of CHA0S]

I wasn't planning on going off topic, but I was just using it as another good example of features that are pretty much mandatory, whereas duel wielding is (as of Halo 3) up to the player's discretion. So long as you spawn with standard weapons, no one is forcing the player to duel wield.

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. 

[SilentGamer64]

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 a whole match without Sprinting in Halo 4. And you know what? I would probably get sniped, gunned down, and have people run up behind me an backsmack me more often than if I were sprinting like everyone else. Likewise, I could also go a whole match with a BR and AR without duel wielding at all. Except in this scenario, no negative effects come of it. I just play to my weapon's strengths and the match remains balanced and fair.

 

Yes, AA's offered at spawn are a bad thing. In fact, offering anything that the player gets at spawn that upsets the balance of the game is a bad thing. But with duel wielding, you aren't spawning with two weapons. You have to seek out those two weapons on the map, which makes it a much better balanced feature than AA's or sprint.

 

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.

 

I feel like the "concept" of weapon balancing that you are grasping is trying to make Halo's sandbox as close to CE's as possible, in that you want each individual weapon to be completely unique from the rest. It worked in CE because CE's sandbox was limited to less than 10 weapons. With more weapons being introduced in every new title, there has to be a sense of balance that doesn't make certain weapons more effective than others. If the AR stayed the way it was now, and the PR returned with the headshot bonus and stun effect you seem to want so badly, no one would want to use the AR anymore.

 

It has a negative effect on gameplay by removing the opponent's ability to strafe. What more do I need to say? Halo is a game where you can be shot in the back once, be able to turn around, and end up winning the duel if skillful enough. And you want a weapon that has the ability to prevent players from being able to do that? And do I need to bring up Reach's terrible movement speed that was cut down in favor of sprint that made strafing nearly useless? People like being able to strafe, and slapping an effect on a weapon that hinders that ability is not a good idea. And yes, I know strafing was a big part of CE as well, but you have to understand that the PR was also balanced around weapons like the 3sk pistol, a shotgun with the range of an assault rifle, and mini-nuke grenades.

 

 

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. 

 

I understand what you meant, and I know the PR wasn't able to kill with a single headshot in CE. But CE's PR mechanics could just as easily be applied to an actual single-wield weapon like the Storm Rifle so that the PR could remain a viable duel wield option. In fact, with a weapon as accurate as CE's PR, it would make way more sense to apply those mechanics to a weapon that was designed more like an AR such as the Storm Rifle.

 

I understand that you don't want duel wielding to return, but I do. And whenever I go on to any video on youtube regarding Halo 5 ideas, I see lots of people who want it back too. You can even take a look at the first page of this thread. Most of the people who responded wanted it to return. Only you and two other people who responded seem to be the only ones who are against it. I'm against sprint, but I don't seem to find myself trying nearly as hard to get rid of sprint as you are with duel wielding.

[PAINGIVER]

the duel wielding was the best in halo 3 it needs to be in halo 5